Posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:57 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist.
This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303).
Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
In the year 383, he revised the Latin New Testament text in accordance with some Greek manuscripts. Between the years 390 and 406 he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew, and this completed work is known today as the "Old Latin Vulgate". The work had been requested by Pope Damasus, and Copies of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate appeared uncorrupted as late as the 11th century, with some revisions by St. Peter Damian and Lanfranc. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Place of the Bible in the Church", C.U.A.)
Pope Benedict XV wrote about St. Jerome's translation in his 1920 encyclical, Spiritus Paraclitus, "Nor was Jerome content merely to gather up this or that teacher's words; he gathered from all quarters whatever might prove of use to him in this task. From the outset he had accumulated the best possible copies of the Bible and the best commentators on it," . . . "he corrected the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Greek; he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin; . . . he discussed Biblical questions with the brethren who came to him, and answered letters on Biblical questions which poured in upon him from all sides; besides all this, he was constantly refuting men who assailed Catholic doctrine and unity."
(Excerpt) Read more at cathtruth.com ...
For this and others to be valid,
Prove what was inspired of God was never written or that it was needful to pass one, and was. Without resorting to Rome says so.
Prove that all tradition that Rome says was passed on was the wholly inspired word of God, and included such things as the Assumption.
Show were a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for providence and assurance of truth.
Prove that infallible decrees of Rome which make traditions dogma are the wholly inspired word of God.
The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.
Prove it.
oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.
Prove these were preserved thru Rome, and why the Orthodox are wrong in disagreeing with Rome on what Tradition teaches.
Titus 1:3 - God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.
Prove it.
Yes. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=355#355
Scripture isn’t proof enough for you?
Sad.
Still no reply. Shocking!
Scripture does not provide proof for you?
Sad.
Not propaganda at all. That fact that one here or one there, even a Catholic Cardinal such as Cajetan questioned the Canon in terms of whether the Church in the 4th century defined it accurately is no surprise. Luther, an ordained Catholic priest did the same thing.
Trent only defined, in the “most definitive terms” the NT Canon. Even before Trent, at the Council of Basle-Ferrera 1435 to 1442, Session of 11 spoke of the same canon stating these are the books that are accepted and venerated by the Roman Church. That canon is no different from the 1 defined at the end of the 4th century and the same one that would be defined “most definitively” at Trent
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.
At the 4th Session of the Council of Trent, we see the decree on the Canon. The language is much more “dogmatic”
Note And it is thought that it meet that a list of sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in anyone’s mind as to which books are received at this synod..they are.....
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
Same list as drawn up by Pope Damasus in 382, same one drawn up by the Regional Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397, respectively, same one in Pope Innocent’s Letter to the Bishops in Gaul in 405AD, same one again reaffirmed by the Council of Carthage in 419, which directed that it be sent to the Bishop of Rome for affirmation. See Canon 24. Again, the context of the canon is what is to be read in Liturgy and this reflects the tradition of the Church in North Africa and they want confirmation from the Bishop of Rome [him specifically] and other Bishops to be confirmed to ensure that their Canon is Universally accepted. And this Canon was indeed the same one that Rome held to.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
and again, same one that Jerome translated into his Latin Vulgate translation.
No propaganda at all!!! The fact that an individual, even Catholic may question the canon is not relevant, some theologians may question the notion of ordination is reserved only for men. Despite all these doubts on the canon, the Catholic Church in union with the Pope has had the same canon defined since the later part of the 4th century. With each progressively statement, the Church defined it more forcibly but the same canon was always being defined, more defined, more-more defined, definitively with dogmatic language defined.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
God and Paul say otherwise, the novelty is Rome's. Against both in that all have sinned, and justification is by faith.
xone:
I have the same NT passages in my Catholic bible. You can play scripture tag all you want. I reject Luther’s understanding of Saint Paul, not Saint Paul’s teachings. Big, big, big, big, difference.
Again he had Phd [Doctoral degree] in theology and taught at a Catholic University. That is an historical fact. I did not deny that in my earlier post. What I denied is that he was a Doctor of the Catholic Church. That group of Saints, both men and women, entails a different meaning. The Doctors of the Catholic Church are linked below. My post was entirely accurate.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
I forgot the 2 new additions to the ranks of Doctors of the Church. Pope Benedict, a few months before he resigned as Pope, named 2 new Doctors of the Catholic Church.
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-names-2-doctors-church-churchs-top-honor-104208193.html
At any rate, I have to suspend this conversation till Tuesday.
+1
Can’t or won’t answer?
That kind of comparison is itself propaganda, as the reason there was doubt and disagreement was because the canon was not settled in the 4th c. or after (thus Luther could invalidate 2 Mac. as RC support). See further below.
Moreover, in the case of the canon it simply was not that of some liberal RC scholars arguing for a modern unBiblical idea of women in authority over men, but that of doubts and disagreements that had been going on for centuries among men that were held in high esteem even by popes, even a group of men "outstanding for its theological scholarship." (Jedin)
I also am informed that just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament (as did the work of Erasmus) and soon received papal sanction.
While the rejection of female priests has always been something held by the Catholic church, and thus can be held as infallible (again, the distinctive priest part being what is rejected by the Holy Spirit), this simply cannot be said for the RC canon.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus
St. Cyril...[of Jerusalem], while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard.
The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha.
The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
Further documentation here
Trent only defined, in the “most definitive terms” the NT Canon. st definitive terms” the NT Canon.
More propaganda.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states (emphasis mine throughout the proceeding),
► “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
Catholic hold that the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.” “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 20,26.
As Catholic Church historian and recognized authority on Trent (2400 page history, and author of over 700 books, etc.), Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
Same list as drawn up by Pope Damasus in 382,
The problem besides the fallible nature of this is that the authority of the Decretum Gelasianum , is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that is was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. More :
The Decretum Gelasianum is attributed to Pope Damasus I, who commissioned Jerome to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate) Yet despite the Decretum Gelasianum being invoked as proof of a settled larger canon,
Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures.” — Introductory materia l to the appendix of the Vulgata Clementina, text in Latin
Pope Damasus I is quite a character himself, having employed a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. (J. N. D. Kelly, “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes” (Hardcover), pp. 32 ) He is recorded as being the first to call in secular power to attain ecclesiastical ends, unlike the apostolic NT church, thus acting as a church walking according to the flesh.
same one drawn up by the Regional Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397,
You are also just reading standard RC apologetics here also, despite my link that would have informed you. It is a matter of unsettled (with confusing nomenclature) debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils:
“The claim that Hippo & Carthage approved the same canonical list as Trent is wrong. Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) received the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras [Ezra in the Hebrew spelling] as canonical Scripture, which Innocent I approved. However, the Vulgate version of the canon that Trent approved was the first Esdras that Jerome designated for the OT Book of Ezra, not the 1 Esdras of the Septuagint that Hippo and Carthage ( along with Innocent I) received as canonical. Thus Trent rejected as canonical the version of 1 Esdras that Hippo & Carthage accepted as canonical. Trent rejected the apocryphal Septuagint version of 1 Esdras (as received by Hippo and Carthage) as canonical and called it 3 Esdras.” More
Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, states,
► "This is a matter of record, not of interpretation. On March 29, 1546 the Council Fathers took up the fourth of fourteen questions (Capita Dubitationum) on Scripture and Tradition. At issue was whether those books that were not included in the official list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, Fourth Ezra, and Third Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence.
It is a historical fact." Responding to this, Protestant apologist James Swan states,
► “Let's grant Michuta's assertion that Trent passed over in silence on the book of Esdras in question. This means in the Roman system, as interpreted by Michuta, the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. In which case, their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles. It would also possibly mean, the canon is still open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and thrust Catholics into uncertainty.”
“It was Jerome, who is considered the only Church father who was a true Hebrew scholar, who was responsible for separating Ezra and Nehemiah to be designated as 1 and 2 Esdras respectively as separate books in an official Bible and who relegated 1 Esdras of the Septuagint to a noncanonical status which later became designated as III Esdras. He did this because he followed the Hebrew canon.” (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1911)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states concerning the status of 1 Esdras among the fathers who followed the 'Septuagintial plus':
► "The origin of 3 Esdras cannot be adequately explained....Until the 5th century, Christians very frequently ranked 3 Esdras with the Canonical books; it is found in many LXX MSS [Septuagint manuscripts] and in the Latin Vulgate (Vulg) of St. Jerome. Protestants therefore include 3 Esdras with other apocrypha (deuterocanonical) books such as Tobit or Judith. The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." (New Catholic Encyclopedia; New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume II, Bible, III,pp. 396-397. http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700673/apocrypha.html).
As for the Vulgate, the apocrypha was included, apparently after Jerome died, but not universally in all versions:
respectively, same one in Pope Innocent’s Letter to the Bishops in Gaul in 405AD, same one again reaffirmed by the Council of Carthage in 419, which directed that it be sent to the Bishop of Rome for affirmation.
Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.
► “The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
► “The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html)
The canon of Trent was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation, apparently, as said, after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
And the Jews had their oral tradition also, and were the stewards of Divine revelation, and by RC logic they should be followed.
What I said was correct, the Council of Trent was the most definitive definition of the Canon. Individuals at times may have questioned it, ok, they questioned it. But at the Council of Basle-Florence, which I linked earlier, it had a definition of the canon. That canon was the same as Trent after it, and was the same in the Vulgate Bible that came before it. The list drawn up at the Council of Carthage in 419AD is the same canon.
Canon 24 is the Definition of the Canon of the Bible, and this Regional Council of Carthage directed that its canons be sent to Pope Boniface for confirmation
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
If you go to Session 11 of the Council of Basle, the Bull for reunion with the Copts, you see the Canon of the Bible defined there. In the 2nd paragraph immediately preceding the Canon list, you see the sentence begin “First then, the Holy Roman Church,.....then in the paragraph immediately preceding the canonical list, you see it stating “It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as
follows...
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm
The canonical list is the same as the one at Trent after it, and at the Council of Carthage in 419AD before it, which as I stated earlier, was sent for confirmation to Pope Boniface in Rome. Now, as the New Jerome Catholic Commentary does note [1990, p. 1036], the fact that Trent discussed the canon again does indicate that the questions the Protestants were asking raised doubt about the binding force of the Bull “Cantate Domino” from Session 11 of the Council of Basle-Florence that I linked. So the New Jerome Commentary goes on to say in reaction to Protestant questioning, in 1546, the Council of Trent promulgated De canonicis Scripturis and the language such “So that no doubt may remain as to which books are recognized” Trent would list as sacred and canonical “with all their parts” and as inspired by the Holy Spirit 73 books, including the OT books [Deuterocanonicals} not accepted by Protestants.
And yes, I am well aware that Cardinal Cajetan was one that questioned the Deuterocanonicals and I know the votes. However, had Trent not defined the canon in line with the Tradition of the Church going back to the end of the 4th century, one could imagine that the Pope may have rejected this canon, for the Pope had the right to do so and Popes have rejected canons in the past. For example, Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon as never to this day been accepted by Rome thus as of now, it has no binding force on the Catholic Church.
Now, in Pope Innocent’s Letter to Bishop Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, it reads “A short annotation shows what books are to be accepted as canonical. As you wished to be informed specifically, they are as follows: the Five books of Moses, that is Gensis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; and Jesus Nave, one of the Judges, four of Kingdoms, an also Ruth, sixteen books of the Prophets, five books of Solomon, the Psalter. Likewise, of histories, one book of Job, one book of Tobias, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Macabees, two of Esdras, tow books of Paralipomenon. Likewise of the New Testament, four books of the Gospels, fourteen epistles of Paul, three Epistles of JOhn, two epistles of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse of John..Others, however, which are written under the name of Matthias or of James the Less, or under the Name of Peter and of John, by a certain Leucius, or under the name Andrew, by the philosopohers Nexochairis and Leonadis, or under the name of Thomas, and such others as may be, are not only to be repudiated, but as you know, are also to be condemned. [Translation from Father Jurgens: The Faith of the Early Fathers [1979] Volume 3, p.180]
The list of Pope Innocent I is the same as the one listed in the Council of Carthage in 419, and the Councils of Basle-Florence (1442) and Trent (1546).
Again, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary [1990, p.1036] when discussing canonicity in a few paragraphs before the cite I gave earlier discussing the Council of Basle/Florence and Trent, writes about the earlier canonical listing.
With regard to the Canonical Listing of Scripture:
“By the end of the 4th century, “canon” describing a collection of scriptural books had become common ecclesiastical usage in both East and West. There had been earlier lists of bibilical books, e.g., in the 2nd century, the Muratorian Fragment and Melito and in the 3rd century, Origen. But now lists took on ecclesiastical status and became more set in content, which thus gave rise to the twofold thrust of “canon” that would dominate subsequent theology [norm for the Church and list]. In addition to those of Eusebius and Athanasius, list are found in Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephiphanius, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilocius of Iconium, Jerome, Canon 59-60 of the Council of Laodicea [360], and the Decree of Pope Damasus (382). A basic list was endorsed by the Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage III (397) and Carthage IV (419).
Athanasius is the oldest witness to the citation of 27 NT books. Both he and Jerome list 22 books from the Jewish Scriptures.., these 22 books correspond to the 39 protocanonical books [these would be the ones Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox all have in their OT canons]..In De doctrina Christiana [396AD], Augustine listed 44 OT books [=46 since Lam and Bar were combined with Jer] including the deuterocanonicals and his great stature in the West tended to close the discussion on the extent of the canon in the West. Thus, the Western Councils mentioned above and the Letter of Pope Innocent I in 405 agreed on a list of 46 OT Books and 27 NT books. Yet, the reproduction of several lists in 692 at the Council of Constantinopile known as Trullo II warns against being too simplistic about the fixity of the consensus that existed at the end of the 4th century.
It is after the sentence above that the New Jerome commentary states “In continuity with the dominate tradition, there were 46 OT books and 27 books (73 total) listed in a Bull at the Council of Florence in 1442..The discussion at Trent revealed doubt about the binding force of the Bull from the Council of Florence thus the Council of Trent in 1546 promulgated De Canonicis Scriptura with the language “So that no doubt may remain as to which books are recognized” as canonical and sacred “with all their parts as inspired by the Holy Spirit” 73 books were listed as canonical.
See Session 4 from the Council of Trent.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html
In closing, what all this debate shows is that even the NT books, are some of them, were doubted into the 4th century, not only the 7 Deuterocanonicals are some of them. It just shows what I have always the stated, the Bible as we know it today did not exist as a universally recognized set of books until the 4th century, yet the Church still taught orthdodoxy via the Creeds, the Liturgy, the orthodox writings of the Church Fathers, the Councils, and yes, the scriptures, in communion with the important Bishops who had Apostolic tradition and succession [Ireneaus of Lyons 180AD discusses this concept].
The New Jerome Commentary goes on to say “In extending that canonical recognition, the Church had to reflect on tradition thought derived from apostolic origins. The NT books, for instance, were composed in the 1st century churches; but the Church Catholic [Ignatius of Antioch] or “great church” preserved these books and organized them into collections, using them in her Liturgy. In the ongoing process, other works were rejected as not stemming from apostolic times or as containing views not consonant with the rule of faith. Various debates caused a listing of the biblical books. Once solemnly categorized, these books became an even more decisive norm for judgments in faith and morals”
So I think this closing statement expresses notions of the principles of canonicity that I mentioned earlier. you see 1)Liturgical usage, 2)Apostolic Origin, 3) Consonant of Faith and message, and the consensus of the Councils and various list led to 4)Universal acceptance.
Now regardless of what 1 Bishop or Priest or even Church Father thought, and yes there were questions, the Canon of the Catholic Church was generally defined in the 4th century, as I have stated. The same canon was defined at the Council of Basle-Florence in 1442 and was defined even more definitively/dogmatically at the Council of Trent in 1546. Yet, the canons from the 4th century to Trent are the same canons.
Now as a side note, the statement about once the canon was defined, the Scriptures became more the norm for Doctrine of faith and morality, that most likely explains Cyril of Jerusalem’s views. Still, he did not reject Tradition and was not a sola scriptura adherent in line with Protestants.
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.
