| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7
There aren't many subjects Catholic apologists like to discuss more than the eucharist. Even if their arguments about the papacy are refuted, even if the evidence they cite for the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and other doctrines isn't convincing, they still think they have a strong argument in the doctrine of the eucharist. They'll quote John 6 and the passages of scripture about the Last Supper. They'll quote centuries of church fathers referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice and referring to Jesus being present in the elements of the eucharist. They'll point out that even Protestants like Martin Luther have believed in a eucharistic presence. How, then, can evangelicals maintain that the eucharist is just symbolic, that there is no presence of Christ? Are evangelicals going to go up against 1500 years of church history?
This sort of reasoning seems to have had a lot of influence on evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism. Some converts to the Catholic Church even cite the eucharist as the primary issue, or one of the most significant issues, in convincing them to convert. But is the argument as compelling as so many Catholics think it is?
There are a lot of problems with this popular Catholic argument. The argument isn't even a defense of Catholicism. It's a defense of something like what the Catholic Church teaches. The Council of Trent made it clear just what the Catholic position is on this issue (emphasis added):
Since Christ our Redeemer said that that which he offered under the appearance of bread was truly his body, it has therefore always been held in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now declares anew, that through consecration of the bread and wine there comes about a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And this conversion is by the Holy Catholic church conveniently and properly called transubstantiation. (session 13, "Decrees Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist", chapter 4)
According to the Catholic Church, transubstantiation is the view of the eucharist always held by the Christian church. Some Catholics try to redefine this claim of the Council of Trent by saying that what Trent meant is that there was always some sort of belief in a presence in the eucharist, which was later defined more specifically as transubstantiation. While it's true that Trent doesn't claim that the word "transubstantiation" has always been used, Trent does claim that the concept has always been held by the Christian church.
There are two sentences in the quote above. The first sentence refers to a view of the eucharist always being held by the Christian church. The second sentence says that this view is transubstantiation. The way in which Trent describes the view always held by the Christian church makes it clear that transubstantiation is being described. The council refers to the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine being converted. That's transubstantiation.
Why do Catholic apologists attempt to redefine what the Council of Trent taught? Because what Trent said is false. Let's consider just some of the evidence that leads to this conclusion.
Though Catholics often cite some alleged references to their view of the eucharist in the Bible, the truth is that there's no evidence of the Catholic eucharist in scripture. John 6 is often cited as referring to eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood by means of a transubstantiated eucharist. There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him. Jesus doesn't refer to how these things will begin in the future, when the eucharist is instituted. Rather, He refers to them as a present reality. And John 6:35 identifies what the eating and drinking are. The passage is not about the eucharist. (See http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm for a further discussion of the problems with the Catholic interpretation of John 6.) Likewise, the passages about the Last Supper don't prove transubstantiation. They could be interpreted as references to a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist. That's a possibility. But they can also be interpreted otherwise.
There's no evidence for the Catholic view of the eucharist in scripture, but there is some evidence against it. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus refers to the contents of the cup as "this fruit of the vine". It couldn't be wine, though, if transubstantiation had occurred. And Jesus refers to drinking the contents of the cup with His followers again in the kingdom to come. Yet, the eucharist apparently is to be practiced only until Jesus returns (1 Corinthians 11:26). If the cup in Matthew 26:29 contained transubstantiated blood, then why would Jesus refer to drinking that substance with His followers in the future, at a time when there would be no eucharist? And if the eucharist is a sacrifice as the Catholic Church defines it to be, why is there no mention of the eucharist in the book of Hebrews?
The author of Hebrews is silent about the eucharist in places where we would expect the eucharist to be mentioned, if it was viewed as the Catholic Church views it. This is acknowledged even by Catholic scholars. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990) is a Catholic commentary that some of the foremost Catholic scholars in the world contributed to. It was edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy. Near the end of the section on the book of Hebrews, the commentary admits:
If, as it seems, the author [of Hebrews] does not speak of the eucharist either here or elsewhere, the reason may be that he did not consider it a sacrifice. (p. 941)
There's nothing wrong with viewing the eucharist as a sacrifice in the sense of thanksgiving and praise (Hebrews 13:15). Some of the church fathers referred to the eucharist in such a way. For example, Justin Martyr wrote the following in response to the followers of Judaism who claimed to be fulfilling Malachi 1:11 (emphasis added):
Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.' Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place. (Dialogue with Trypho, 117)
These arguments of Justin Martyr are contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. According to Justin Martyr, the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of being a means by which Christians offer prayers and thanksgiving to God. Justin Martyr not only says nothing of the eucharist being a sacrifice in the sense Catholics define it to be, but he even excludes the possibility of the Catholic view by saying that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of prayers and thanksgiving being offered through it. Justin Martyr seems to have had Biblical passages like Hebrews 13:15 in mind, which is a concept that evangelicals agree with. The eucharist is a sacrifice in that sense.
Some church fathers defined the eucharist as a sacrifice differently than Justin Martyr, including in ways that are similar to the Catholic view. But Justin Martyr illustrates two things. First, it's false to claim that all of the church fathers viewed the eucharist as the Catholic Church views it. Secondly, the eucharist can be referred to as a sacrifice in numerous ways. It's not enough for Catholic apologists to cite a church father referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice. What type of sacrifice did the church father believe it to be? And how convincing are that church father's arguments?
Even more than they discuss the concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice, Catholics argue that there's a presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that the church fathers agreed with them on this issue. Some Catholics will even claim that every church father believed in a presence in the eucharist. They'll often cite a scholar like J.N.D. Kelly referring to the church fathers believing in a "real presence" in the eucharist. But what these Catholics often don't do is quote what Kelly goes on to say. As Kelly explains, the church fathers defined "real presence" in a number of ways, including ways that contradict transubstantiation. Some of the church fathers were closer to the consubstantiation of Lutheranism or the spiritual presence of Calvinism, for example.
See the section titled "The Church and the Host" at:
http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html
Also see the historian Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm
And section 95 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm
I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions.
The church fathers held a wide variety of views on subjects such as how to interpret John 6 and Christ's presence in the eucharist. For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 (emphasis added):
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. (The Instructor, 1:6)
In another passage, Clement contradicts transubstantiation. He writes the following about how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking alcohol (emphasis added):
In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, "Take, drink: this is my blood"--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word "shed for many, for the remission of sins"--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, "I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father." [Matthew 26:29] But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: "For the Son of man," He says, "came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans." (The Instructor, 2:2)
Clement, like evangelicals, cites Matthew 26:29 as evidence that Jesus drank wine. If Clement believed that wine is what was drunk at the Last Supper, he didn't believe in transubstantiation.
Similarly, Irenaeus denies transubstantiation in his writings. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example (emphasis added):
For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)
For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, Christ, after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: "Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of His sons; as David says, "He who hath renewed the face of the earth." He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his disciples above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit. (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)
Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that's from the earth. He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ's future kingdom, after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26). Irenaeus, like Clement of Alexandria, contradicts transubstantiation. Though Irenaeus does seem to have believed in a presence in the eucharist, it isn't transubstantiation.
Other examples could be cited, and other examples are cited in the article I linked to above. It's a historical fact that the church fathers held a variety of eucharistic beliefs, including some that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. This fact is contrary to the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation had always been the view held by the Christian church.
It should be noted, also, that many evangelicals believe in a presence in the eucharist. Some believe in consubstantiation. Some believe in a spiritual presence. Evangelicals don't even have to hold to any specific view. Jesus and the apostles told Christians to celebrate the eucharist. A Christian can do so without knowing whether there's any presence of Christ in the eucharist or what type of presence there is. For an evangelical, this issue isn't too significant. The reliability of our rule of faith (the Bible) isn't dependent on proving that Christ is present in the eucharist in some particular way. Catholics, on the other hand, must defend the Catholic Church's allegedly infallible teaching of transubstantiation. They must also defend the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church, as well as Trent's claim that every other view is unacceptable. Evangelicals just don't carry the same burden of proof that Catholics carry on this issue. Catholics can't say that this is unfair, since the claims of the Catholic Church itself are what create the added burden of proof for the Catholic apologist. If you don't want to have to carry such a burden, then tell your denomination to quit making such weighty claims.
In summary:
· The Council of Trent taught that transubstantiation is the view of the eucharist always held by the Christian church. Trent also taught that every other view of the eucharist is so inaccurate as to cause the advocates of those views to be anathema. Therefore, Catholics must defend transubstantiation, not just some vague concept of "real presence".
· There is no scriptural evidence of the Catholic view of the eucharist, while there is some scriptural evidence against the concept (Matthew 26:29 as compared with 1 Corinthians 11:26, silence about the eucharist in Hebrews, etc.).
· Concepts like the eucharist being a sacrifice and Christ's presence in the eucharist were widespread among the church fathers, but were defined in numerous ways, including ways that contradict Catholic teaching.
· Many evangelicals believe in some form of presence in the eucharist, and they don't even need to hold any particular view on the subject if they don't want to. Just as the Roman Catholic Church allows Catholics freedom to believe what they want to believe or to not reach any conclusion on some issues, Christ's presence in the eucharist is an issue where evangelicals have freedom. We can be silent, or allow a variety of viewpoints, where scripture is silent. Catholics don't have this option, since their denomination has made so many claims about the subject in allegedly infallible proclamations.
The eucharist is another issue that illustrates how anachronistic, misleading, and false many of the claims of the Catholic Church are. Some Catholics seem to ignore or minimize their denomination's errors on issues like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception, because they think that the Catholic Church is at least closer to the truth than evangelicalism on other issues, like the eucharist. But such reasoning is fallacious. For one thing, all it takes is one error to refute Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church teaches that its traditions are just as authoritative as scripture, an error on one subject also disproves what the Catholic Church has taught on other subjects. If the Immaculate Conception doctrine is contrary to the evidence, for example, that isn't just problematic for the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived. It's also problematic for the doctrine of papal infallibility, since Pope Pius IX allegedly was exercising that power when he declared Mary to be conceived without sin. When the Catholic Church is shown to be wrong on the eucharist, the Immaculate Conception, or some other issue, that has implications for far more than just that one doctrine.
With regard to the eucharist, consider one of the larger implications of the Catholic Church being wrong on that subject. If it's true that the church fathers held a wide variety of eucharistic beliefs, and that they also held a wide variety of beliefs on a lot of other subjects, what does that tell us about early church history? It tells us that it's unlikely that the church fathers were part of one worldwide denomination headed by a Pope. What's more likely is that the church fathers disagreed with each other so much because they belonged to churches that were governmentally independent of one another, and they interpreted the scriptures for themselves. In fact, many of the church fathers specifically said as much. The fact that there were so many differing views among the church fathers, including views that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches, suggests that they weren't Roman Catholics.
If the Catholic Church isn't reliable, what are we to conclude about the eucharist, then? What do we do if we can't trust Catholicism to tell us what to believe? We ought to go to the scriptures. And if the beliefs of the church fathers and other sources are relevant in some way, we should also consider those things. We should study the issue ourselves instead of just uncritically accepting whatever an institution like the Roman Catholic Church teaches. When we go to the scriptures, we find that a number of eucharistic views are plausible, but transubstantiation isn't one of them (Matthew 26:29). The concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice is unacceptable. Trying to continually offer Christ's sacrifice as an atonement for our sins, and offering it as a further atonement of the temporal portion of sins already forgiven, is contrary to what's taught in the book of Hebrews, such as Hebrews 9:12-10:18. For example, in Hebrews 9:25-26, we see the author distinguishing between Christ's sacrifice and the offering of that sacrifice. Not only was Christ only sacrificed once, but He also offered that one sacrifice to God only once. Catholics acknowledge that there was only one sacrifice, but they argue that the one sacrifice is offered repeatedly through the eucharist. This claim of the Catholic Church is contrary to scripture. And there are a lot of other contradictions between what scripture teaches on these subjects and what the Catholic Church teaches, especially in the book of Hebrews. We can reasonably arrive at a number of different views of the eucharist, but the Catholic view isn't one of them.
|
|
you’re not answering my questions. You confidently told me that Christ is forever being sacrificed but can’t answer my questions?
I hope the ignorance that's just been displayed by that paragraph is invincible. How can you write something like that and expect any Catholic to take you seriously when you offer your opinions about the Catholic Church? If you're so completely wrong on that subject (and you are) then how can you be believed on any other?
My kids can answer those questions... sheesh.
A mortal sin requires three conditions: The object is grave matter. It is committed with full knowledge. It is done with deliberate consent.
Nobody is accidentally going to hell. Nobody who dies on the way to Confession is going to hell because of some freak accident. God is not looking for ways to send us to hell, He's pulled out all the stops to make attaining Heaven dead simple. Love Him, that's what we're made for. Love Him more than you love yourself and you're headed for glory.
It can't be symbolic of His body and blood. It's symbolic of "eating" or internalizing His word just as "eating the scroll" was symbolic of reading and internalizing the word of God. Christ was not talking about His physical flesh and blood but of the word.
Dude...did you see the list of titles Mary's been given by the rcc?
Have you seen the prayers to her?
Have you seen the buildings named after her?
Have you seen the statues of Mary in the catholic churches?
Have you seen the schools that studies Mariology? There's even one that offers a Masters in Theological Studies with a Marian concentration!http://catalog.udayton.edu/graduate/imri/
That's not veneration....it's worship.
Jesus puts John in charge of taking care of His mom and suddenly she's the mother of all disciples??? Now that's a stretch.
Jesus was indicating who had responsibility for Mary's well-being in this situation.
It is believed that Joseph is dead at this point. We also know there was disbelief among His step brothers and sisters regarding Who He was at this point. Jesus put Mary under the care of one who loved Him.
Not surprising to see Him do this.
Notice He didn't put her in Peter's care. Why?
When you got married it says you are one. Does that mean you are both the same person? Can you never be apart?
Amen. Pinging to LurkingSince’98 since it might be of some instruction...
Hoss
You keep asking questions but don’t answer mine. What’s up with that?
Absolutely! Great way to put it. And the point is that he laid down his life -- past tense -- he doesn't "continue to lay down his life" -- Roman Catholicism wants to continually crucify him.
Very sad.
Thanks Met!
Hoss
Worship requires a sacrifice made to the object of adoration, there is only one Sacrifice in Catholicism, and that is the sacrifice of the eternal High Priest and Victim and that sacrifice is offered to God the Father, not the Mother of God.
Again, if you're not offering a sacrifice you're not worshiping... you may be praising or something but by definition the act is not worship.
Hebrews 13:15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise--the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.
Catholics offer the sacrifice of praise to Mary all the time. And they make images of God in the likeness of man.
Romans 1:21-23 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
The Bible I use to study with is the NASV and verse 30 of Eph 5 does not include “of His flesh and of His bones” and there is a notation in my mother’s Catholic Bible that it is not included in the best Greek manuscripts.
I am always cautious of basing a big part of my theology on certain parts of scripture when notated in that manner, especially the section where Jesus talks about casting the first stone. Too many people do not warn others of hell because of that section.
Nobody is accidentally going to hell. Nobody who dies on the way to Confession is going to hell because of some freak accident.
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.... Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.(Catechism, 1855 & 1861) http://www.beginningcatholic.com/mortal-sin.html
I hope the ignorance that's just been displayed by that paragraph is invincible. How can you write something like that and expect any Catholic to take you seriously when you offer your opinions about the Catholic Church? If you're so completely wrong on that subject (and you are) then how can you be believed on any other?
I think we've addressed that question.
Now that we've shown what Catholicism teaches, and it does teach if you've committed a mortal sin and it has not been confessed you do not go to Heaven, what do you do?
As I said, if I were catholic, I'd camp out at the door of the priest.
The Bible says:
13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Eating pork O.K. Now??, does a man still have to be circumcised???/ does a person with leprosy or any communicable disease have to tear his clothong and wander through the streets shouting to those around him "UNCLEAN-UNCLEAN-UNCLEAN"......wasn't there something about animals without cloven hooves....and are women having their periods somehow unclean????
Yes...so what....there have been priests who have made VERY bad decisions in their lives.....just like the rest of us.
We are not under the old law. Jesus and the apostles were. Besides, Acts 15 still has the prohibition against eating blood.
>>does a man still have to be circumcised???<<
He most certainly did while Christ was still alive and so He was.
Scripture says Christ followed the Old Testament laws which He was born under. If He hadn't He would not have been the sinless sacrifice.
What do you "offer as a sacrifice to Christ?"
Worship in the NT included prayers, kneeling, etc. You know, the stuff catholics do with Mary.
BTW....first I've heard about having to offer a sacrifice to Christ from catholics....or anyone else. Unless we're heading back to the OT.
And for you, too.
You do realize that God forgives sin as soon as we repent don’t you? Confession is the ordinary means established by the Church for the reconciliation of sinners to the Body of Christ. God works in extraordinary ways.
You seem to think you know a lot about what Catholicism teaches... you just don’t seem to get the actual teaching.
The Mass is the Sacrifice offered to God the Father, it is one and the same Sacrifice as that offered by Our Lord on the Cross. Same spotless Victim, same eternal High Priest.
I’m willing to be corrected by the Church but I don’t think the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is worshiped technically... adored yes, but the Sacrifice is offered to the Father by the Son through the Holy Ghost. The only act of divine worship is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, everything else is secondary. I’ve got a priest on the way over here in a few minutes, I’ll ask him and if I’ve screwed it up I’ll let you know.
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.