Ideally, FR needs Every Regular User and Member to Contribute.
Please Don't let the Same Loyal Members Carry Everyone!
If you haven't yet Contributed, Please Don't Delay!!!
Posted on 10/15/2013 7:07:57 AM PDT by markomalley
I read at Rorate about a strong speech given by SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay which is effectively a denunciation of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and – yawn – you know the rest.
Here is a sample:
-----
“The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”
[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. ...
Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.” He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove [what] they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
Imagine! Some people will dictate to the Supreme Pontiff the terms by which they will be Catholic.
I’m sure we will hear more about this.
Wouldn’t it be news if they liked the Pope?
CC
In one form or another, we hear “I will not serve,” everyday.
One can expand this statement into a number of directions, but the catalyst is the same. Pride
Read Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” which was published in 1907. It condemned Modernism as a heresy and describes Modernism found in every facet of thought, from theology to philosophy. When you do, you will realize that Pope Francis is a walking, talking demonstration of Modernism and as such he is spouting heresy. Pope Paul IV’s Encyclical “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” makes it clear that any prelate - including the Pope - who promotes heresy has no authority because he does not teach what the Church teaches, and therefore everything he says is null and void.
Catholics would do well to actually read the Encyclicals of the Church before forming opinions.
I find it hilarious how Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said - and this pope said in the beginning, go out into the streets, create a mess, bringing Jesus’ message of love and mercy to sinners of all types and degrees.
What needs to be written by popes has been written - now it needs to be taken out to the worst sinners in even less formal english than vernacular church english.
Hard hearts hate that he eats with sinners. They’re ready to crucify him.
Even Fellay doesn’t want to see the obvious in what he is saying in context, but wants to be prideful and disobedient - the two worst things a priest and faithful catholic can be.
Thank you for your ex cathedra teaching, Pope nanetteclaret.
Modernism is heresy, not doubt. But you don’t have the authority to declare either heresy or heretic.
You would be wise to remember Jesus told Peter: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Whether you like or dislike the Popes from Bl. John XXIII to the present is irrelevant. They have been duly elected by the Cardinal Electors, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Supreme Pontiff. They have received the negative power of infallibility, which neither you, nor I have.
Popes are not impeccable, rather, they are human. However, God has placed them, according to His plan, as Supreme Pontiff. You must choose either to accept this or not, and the consequences that follow.
May God grant you peace.
Yes, you're right. And say it pretty often, too.
You are absolutely right. Thank God for Confession and His oceans of Mercy.
Amen to that!
All I’m saying is read the Encyclicals and use your brain to process them and then make comparisons to Pope Francis, his statements and the teachings of VII. Pope Francis does not have infallibility unless he speaks Ex Cathedra. His ramblings and interviews on airplanes are not infallible, but they do show his thought processes. As a Jesuit, he is supposed to be highly educated, but he has said nothing which indicates that he has even read any of the Encyclicals of previous Popes - or if he has, he has disregarded them all.
I do believe that Popes CAN be elected under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but many times the Cardinals do not allow themselves to be so inspired. It’s called Free Will. If they are all Modernists, too, it is highly likely that they would elect a Modernist Pope. And, by the way, it was Pope Paul VI (who foisted the Novus Ordo on the Church) who did away with Pope St. Pius X’s requirement that everyone in positions of authority in the Church take the “Oath Against Modernism.” What this leads one to believe is that Pope Paul VI a) did not care that the Church was becoming infected with the heresy of Modernism and b) he probably crossed his fingers when he signed the Oath himself.
Read also all the material on Our Lady’s appearances at Fatima. Many people believe that the Third Secret, which has not been revealed (contrary to propaganda otherwise), contains warnings about apostosy in the Vatican.
It is very possible this is no longer true.
It is very possible the true derivation of the Church rests in SSPX, other independent groups, and certain orthodox elements within the Church proper, but not including the pope.
Modernism is heresy, not doubt. But you don’t have the authority to declare either heresy or heretic...Whether you like or dislike the Popes from Bl. John XXIII to the present is irrelevant. They have been duly elected by the Cardinal Electors, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as Supreme Pontiff. They have received the negative power of infallibility, which neither you, nor I have.
Meaning the Holy Spirit inspired even the election of men who morally were more akin to Judas (such as Alexander VI ) than Peter, those who sanction torture and death of theological dissidents (sure it was the way the world was, but the church is not sppsd to be like it), as well as the present pope. And since they cannot be deposed RCs must submit to them.
Likewise they must count as brethren those whom Rome treats as brethren in life and in death, whether it be cruel inquisitors (even without the exaggerations) or the Ted Kennedy types who would have been their subjects of torture (if necessary for "true confession").
Meanwhile, Catholicism is promoted as unified, and conservative evangelicals here are told they need to join it despite its contrasts with Scripture and liberals who make up the majority .
Thank you for your ex cathedra teaching, Pope nanetteclaret.Modernism is heresy, not doubt. But you don’t have the authority to declare either heresy or heretic.
I am always interested in hearing this kind of thing. A Catholic does exactly what we are taught to do, e.g. admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant, and they are mockingly called "Pope so-and-so." Why? Because, in today's modernist Church only a pope has the authority to express the spiritual works of mercy. Only a pope can say that something is wrong or heresy. No, I am sorry, and I mean no disrespect to those who think this, but you are wrong. It does not take a pope, when hearing a person say that atheists are saved because they are atheists, and that it is the role of Catholics not to correct them or instruct them but rather to actually confirm and encourage them in their error because they believe it (which is to teach Catholics to participate in the sins of others, a frankly diabolical concept), to condemn that statement as both error and heresy. If that isn't heresy then there is none, and it doesn't take a pope to see this and point it out.
I am terribly sorry, but I see that I quoted a reference to nanetteclaret in the post immediately above, and failed to ping that person. I am posting this to direct that person’s attention to that comment of my own relating to their post. My apologies for the mistake.
Last time I checked, Judas himself was selected by Christ.
Thank you for your reply. The Error you describe falls under Indifferentism and False Ecumenism (that all beliefs are the same), “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true,” and “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” These are Errors number 15 and 16 condemned in the “Syllabus of Errors.”
All I am saying to everyone is to read the Encylicals and see what previous Popes have taught and how that corresponds (or doesn’t) to the teachings of the Church since VII. It isn’t difficult!
God also commanded Abraham to kill Issac, but assuming a Divine prerogative is not for men to do. Judas was elected by the omniscient Lord who knowingly choose him as a man who would be possessed by the devil to betray Christ in fulfillment of prophecy.
In contrast, popes are elected as successors to Peter and to build the church, as men possessed by the Holy Spirit and conditionally infallible, with rejection of such being called sinful rebellion. And who cannot be deposed while they live.
Justifying election of devils based on the Lord choosing Judas is like Christ choosing Judas to fill the role of Peter, supposing he was a faithful man, and invalidating rejection of him or his successors.
Unlike the omniscient and assuredly infallible Lord, pastors are to follow Scriptural requirements for leadership, but Rome has elected men who were not even worthy to be church members. (1Cor. 5:9-13) And we are not under the type of O.T. theocracy, but one in which authenticity is not based on formal decent, but conformity of faith based on Scriptural substantiation.
Certainly God can work even with sons of Belial being in leadership, but that does not validate men knowingly electing manifestly immoral impenitent men as succeeding Peter, but invalidates them as being so while validating dissent from such presumption.
And so, evil men are selected by the Holy Spirit as instruments of God's just chastisement. What is your point?
In contrast, popes are elected as successors to Peter and to build the church
And Jesus himself warned that bad ones would be selected. (Lk 12:41-48). Again, what's your point?
Some people prefer to believe that the Church began in 1969.
Catholics don’t even know if they’re coming or going these days.
Why anyone would touch Catholicism with a ten foot pole under these circumstances is beyond me.
I belong to the true church, in which nothing is between me and Jesus!
All of these organizations and so-called churches have totally missed the point of the faith.
So just who are they chastising?
You are wise to read the Encylicals, and continue to be wise in recognizing what is and is not ex cathedra.
However, Catholics who are 40 and under are conditioned to the very formal and academic statements of both Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. When faced with unscripted, and informal remarks, as well as the inaccurate commentary of an ill-intentioned media, we often find ourselves uneasy.
The Papacy is about continuity of the teachings of the Apostles. While prepared, precise statements reduce the room for doubt, they also increase, at least intellectually, the distance between the “average” person and the Pope.
I also believe you are correct that Cardinal Electors are capable of ignoring the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however, Jesus promises the Gates of Hell won’t prevail against it. That is one heck of a promise!
Regarding Pope Paul VI and the pledge against Modernism, that is before my time and I can’t speak to it, except to say I must trust in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, and holy priests who present the Sacrifice of the Mass.
I disagree, as your statement is not consistent with Christian unity. Additionally, there may individuals, or groups of individuals who don’t cleave to the Magisterium, (I think that will always be the case), but that doesn’t mean the Pope is leading is leading us down the primrose path
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed. That doesn’t mean that a pope can not fall into heresy.
You make some pretty sweeping generalizations, though you also make some valid points.
However, your first point is incorrect. Even though Alexander VI was a notorious person, he was not elected according to the “modern” rules, but by the powers of the time, over 500 years ago. Fortunately, he did very little in the realm of religious matters.
As I stated previously, Popes, by their nature as men, are not impeccable, though some have certainly been saints!
Regarding the Inquisition (again, 500 years in the past), they offered more legal rights to the accused then any court of the time. It is easy to view ancient history with the eyes of a modern man, and criticize it.
Finally, the Church is the creation of Jesus Christ, though it is manned by sinful people. As sinners, we should strive to perfection, though many of us have a lot more striving to do than others.
Conservative evangelicals would do well to read the Church fathers. In them, they will find the primary explanations of Church teachings, with their Biblical references. They will also recognize the continuity of teaching from the Apostles, and immediate students of the Apostles, through today.
Finally, as a mental exercise, when do Protestants think the time for protestation will be over?
One correction if I could...Pope Francis is not the first "Modern" pope. What the Cardinals voted in was their first unabashed Post-Modern pope. I think that is a BIG difference.
One correction if I could...Pope Francis is not the first "Modern" pope. What the Cardinals voted in was their first unabashed Post-Modern pope. I think that is a BIG difference.
Agreed. Francis doesn’t even try to hide it.
Thanks to the Reformers, the RC ecclesiastical community returned at least partway to that which was original, with the problem being some of the duplicitous doctrinal description & language adhered to as much for reason of not being able to admit ever making a mistake, which resulted in such things as doctrinal statements saying one can merit grace, when also denying that same concept, both prior to where that is found, and by demonstration, a "saint" disavowing the idea right afterwards. CCC 2010, I think it is.
Toss out singular "papacy" and much of the theology that goes with it (there would need be some readjustment in that regard, more than an entire tossing-out) along with claim that the RC ecclesiastical community be the sole Universal, or even just "the center of all things" with all else at best some sort of satellite (whether other ecclesiastical communities recognize it or not) and continue reducing the language down and away from describing "Mary" as "font from whom all blessings flow" as some sort of aqueduct (not the source, per se, but most definitely declared to be THE channel, in many Romish quarters) and then you may be have something.
Until then --- the statement highlighted above is just so much Romish fantasy.
“Pope Fellay.”
I’m sure it has a nice ring to him.
“I find it hilarious how Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said - and this pope said in the beginning, go out into the streets, create a mess, bringing Jesus’ message of love and mercy to sinners of all types and degrees.”
Yeah, Francis is so merciful he doesn’t even require Jews or other types of infidels to convert.
That was DEFINITELY Christ’s message. /s
“Last time I checked, Judas himself was selected by Christ.”
Selected to betray Him. Does that mean the Popes are selected to tear down Christianity?
“And Jesus himself warned that bad ones would be selected. (Lk 12:41-48). Again, what’s your point?”
How are you finding “There will be heretic Popes selected who will rule over the church of God” out of those passages? It’s not there. Do you have the authority to imagine that interpretation? If not, who dreamed up that fiction and who are they within the RCC?
And Jesus himself warned that bad ones would be selected. (Lk 12:41-48). Again, what's your point?
You are either playing dumb or fail to see the point. They are not qualified to be even pastors, and while allowed by God for His purposes, that does not validate men knowingly electing manifestly immoral and impenitent men )or heretics) as succeeding Peter, but ends up invalidating them both and validating dissent from such presumption, (though till replaced conditional obedience is enjoined). Such dissent is not disallowed on the basis that the laymen has "no authority to declare either heresy or heretic," as was stated. No authority is autocratic, but is subject to Scripture as supreme.
Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses and would not be reformed, being replaced by those who had no authority to do so, according to them. But who established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. "For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14)
So the Holy Spirit did not inspire the choice of a pope. At least we agree on this. As for election, the fact is that none of the popes were elected by the method that was used for the only known apostolic successor, which was by the OT means of casting lots. No politicking or delay.
Regarding the Inquisition (again, 500 years in the past), they offered more legal rights to the accused then any court of the time. It is easy to view ancient history with the eyes of a modern man, and criticize it.
I was aware it was preferred over cultural courts, but was the lesser of 2 evils in theological matters, and rationalizing or minimizing its unScriptural use of the sword of men in that regard, but comparing it to the times is akin to rationalizing or minimizing clerical pedophilia in these times. We are not to be conformed to the world, not a little less evil.
Conservative evangelicals would do well to read the Church fathers. In them, they will find the primary explanations of Church teachings, with their Biblical references. They will also recognize the continuity of teaching from the Apostles, and immediate students of the Apostles, through today.
Rather than seeing continuity with Scriptural apostolicity, many Prots do read them more than you think (and most of what is seen on the web is from the work of Protestants), often to the chagrin of RC apologists, who end up being educated in things they overlooked or marginalized, and their unScriptural teachings, as well as seeing the lacking of uniformity among them and lack of the often-claimed "unanimous consent
And Rome judges them more than they judge here, for as said by Manning (while not denying the RC claim to antiquity) in the light of appeal to the CF's,
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.. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227 .
Finally, as a mental exercise, when do Protestants think the time for protestation will be over?
Actually, i see RCs doing the most protesting, from the use of RCC to challenges of her claims due to her incessant advertizing/promoting Rome, as if more indoctrination would overcome her being exposed as she has been here, as being the fraud she is. But i have never seen you on these very frequent (about 10 these week) threads.
Very true. Not all of them voted for him, of that I am sure. Our task now is to pray for the Cardinals who did not vote for him and who are faithful to the Magisterium. They have to be going through literal hell.
To your last point, I tire of hearing about “Romish fantasies,” name calling, and heresy finger-pointing games. I am not interested in non-discussion.
Now, to address your points ceriatem.
God allows free will. People will make both good and bad decisions. While in many cases, there is an appearance of frustration in God’s will, we can’t see the big picture, with His eyes. In my opinion, that is how we got Alexander.
Regarding the casting of lots, while there may have been an OT precedent, like many OT precedents, it wasn’t binding. I know of no Christian body that picks a leader by lot.
I don’t think pedophilia can ever be excused or diminished, regardless of century. However, I think the Inquisition can be reasoned to, meaning, educated people of the time considered the Inquisition and its methods appropriate (though wrongly)for the preservation of faith the protection of souls. Does that excuse them for killing people of conscience, no.
Regarding the Church Fathers, I am glad you and others read them, as they often cast light on the true beliefs of the Church, and dispel commonly held misconceptions.
A former Anglican priest, now a Catholic priest, wisely pointed out that converts bring gifts to the Church, whether pastoral, knowledge, or experiential. In each case, the Church is built up.
May God’s peace fill you day!
The point was that we have RCs claiming the Holy Spirit inspires those who choose the popes, and thus who judge them as heretics is censured and (any dissent it seems) .
While God can allow influences that deceive men as part of His judgment, and make it work for good for those who love Him, yet as said, that does not validate men knowingly electing manifestly immoral impenitent men or heretics as succeeding Peter. And it works towards replacing them both and validating dissent from such. As seen in how the church began.
Regarding the casting of lots, while there may have been an OT precedent, like many OT precedents, it wasn’t binding. I know of no Christian body that picks a leader by lot.
Regarding the casting of lots, while there may have been an OT precedent, like many OT precedents, it wasn’t binding. I know of no Christian body that picks a leader by lot.
Of course not, as that means was only used for the one and only apostolic successor, in distinction to the election of deacons (which corporate election model Rome once followed for popes). Had there been another apostolic successor, i believe it most likely would have been by the same means. But which Rome seems unthinkable for Rome, while instead papal elections have often involved much craftiness and intrigue (and a long term clear preference for Italians!).
However, I think the Inquisition can be reasoned to, meaning, educated people of the time considered the Inquisition and its methods appropriate (though wrongly)for the preservation of faith the protection of souls. Does that excuse them for killing people of conscience, no.
I understand the cultural context, yet neither Scripture nor Catholic tradition supported it, but it was later adopted from the State, being enabled to do so. Early Protestantism had to unlearn such from Rome, as reformation is progressive, while in Catholicism it is an example of what an autocratic authority can teach, whether it be that heretics are to be tortured or burned, or that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven above the choirs of angels to the throne of the Most Holy Trinity as the triple crowned Queen of the Universe.
Meanwhile, just as a inquisitor had to obey his church (lest he be a subject of the Inquisition) so RCs today are often told they must do the same, and that they have no place in of judging the pope as being in error.
While i certainly disagree with the Catholicism of the trsdional RC who was basically told this here, i uphold his right to dissent based upon sincere and objective examination of the evidence, with a teachable spirit, and which must precede judgment. And which manner of dissent Rome actually allows for, if not a negative conclusion resulting from it.
I can appreciate your thoughtful reply, though disagree with some of its points.
Alexander VI wasn’t an heretic, and had been trained in both law and theology. I don’t think that, at the time, anybody considered him the next Caligula, rather, I think he decided to live it up, feeling untouchable.
Regarding dissent, all Catholics can dissent on any matter not declared dogmatic. Should they dissent on dogmatic matters, they are free to walk out the door to another denomination.
Secondly, Peter was directly chosen by Jesus, and then Linus, and Anacletus after him. However, I don’t see any reference to it done by casting lots.
Regarding the Inquisition, let us not forget that Protestants took on many similar behaviors, though without trial, namely hanging, death by fire, as well as the confiscation of property and destruction of property. Please see (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html) for the appropriate quotations and references.
Slightly out of order, the site mentioned above also reference the ABSOLUTE intolerance of Luther, Zwingli, and other leading Reformation figures. The Reformation was more about freedom of conscience for me, but not for thee.
The Marian doctrines are all Scriptural, as well ancient. It would also require its own thread.
Finally, Popes have the NEGATIVE power of Infallibility. Specifically, the Holy Spirit prevents the Popes from proclaiming dogma that is untrue. This, however, does not mean that every word that comes out of the mouth of a Pope is infallible.
Regardless of every point I have made, how do we as Christians show our love for one another and to the rest of the world? How do we spread the Gospel message to the marginalized and suffering? How are we to display this unity of purpose?
May you receive God’s peace and continue to cleave to Him.
I did not say he was a heretic, but included that as one of two things.
I don’t think that, at the time, anybody considered him the next Caligula, rather, I think he decided to live it up, feeling untouchable.
Actually most of affairs seems to have been done prior his election. Alexander fathered at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children
Regarding dissent, all Catholics can dissent on any matter not declared dogmatic.
Thank you for conforming that. But RCs also debate over how many dogmatic teaching there are and meanings to varying degrees.
Should they dissent on dogmatic matters, they are free to walk out the door to another denomination.
And RCS debate whether Lumun Gentium teaches these may be saved.
Secondly, Peter was directly chosen by Jesus, and then Linus, and Anacletus after him. However, I don’t see any reference to it done by casting lots.
That is how the story goes, but then there is modern research .
Regarding the Inquisition, let us not forget that Protestants took on many similar behaviors, though without trial,
As with Catholic dissent, i acknowledged that.
The Reformation was more about freedom of conscience for me, but not for thee.
As said, they had much to unlearn from Rome.
The Marian doctrines are all Scriptural, as well ancient. It would also require its own thread.
Absurd , even more so when including what is "unofficial." And been there.
Finally, Popes have the NEGATIVE power of Infallibility. Specifically, the Holy Spirit prevents the Popes from proclaiming dogma that is untrue. This, however, does not mean that every word that comes out of the mouth of a Pope is infallible.
I know that, and not only Popes as individuals, and if it is not untrue than it is true. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Regardless of every point I have made, how do we as Christians show our love for one another and to the rest of the world? How do we spread the Gospel message to the marginalized and suffering? How are we to display this unity of purpose?
First by recognizing that true Christians are divided from false ones, doctrinally and experientially. Regarding the second, while we realized a spontaneous fellowship of the Spirit that transcends denominational lines, due to a shared conversion and personal relationship with the Lord Jesus, centered in Scripture, and His working in our lives, yet we find few among RCs who identify with this, but who instead preach their church, if anything, as out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
But Rome does not even consider our churches worthy to be called such anyway, and likely damns us who left. Not that we miss her, as most leave due to the spiritual lack they experienced in Rome.
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.