Posted on 04/07/2011 9:45:42 PM PDT by verdugo
In this discussion I will not employ such terms as "traditionalist," "conservative" or "neo Catholic" to distinguish different "strains" of Catholicism in the post conciliar Church. As useful as such terms may have been in the past, the ecclesial crisis has advanced to the point where one must speak frankly of who is, and who is not, adhering to the Roman Catholic religion in its integrity. This is also necessary because the proponents of New Church have not hesitated to render judgments on the Catholicity of those who have held fast to Tradition during this crisis, denouncing these faithful Catholics simply because they will not embrace the unheard of novelties of the past forty years.
For the good of the Church, this absurd situation must be corrected. As Holy Scripture warns us: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." For too long EWTN and other "mainstream" aiders and abettors of the post conciliar revolution have been allowed to adorn themselves with the cloak of respectability, while they impugn faithful Catholics who defend Tradition and refuse to follow them down the path of compromise. The cloak must come off so that the truth about these people can be revealed not for their disgrace, but for their own good and, above all else, for the good of the Church.
For as I will demonstrate here, whether or not they understand subjectively that they are Modernists, this is what EWTN and the other post conciliar purveyors of novelty are, objectively speaking. It is, therefore, they, not traditional Roman Catholics, who are theologically suspect. It is they, as the evidence to be presented here will prove, who are advancing novelties that are objectively contrary to the Faith, sacrilegious, scandalous and even offensive to good morals. It is their "new" version of Catholicism, not the perennial practice of the Faith, that ought to be condemned. It is the proponents of New Church, not the adherents of the Catholic Church of all time, who should be examined for their views.
Let me emphasize at the outset that this entire discussion presumes, for the sake of charity, that those responsible for EWTN's Modernist content do not subjectively intend to depart from the Faith. They may even think in their distorted view of the situation – a view which leads them to condemn faithful Roman Catholics as I extreme traditionalists" that they are actually defending the Faith. Some may even possess that state of mind Our Lord warned His disciples would be that of the Pharisees: "yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God." (John 16:2) But if they are acting in good faith or out of blindness at present, they will have no excuse for continuing in their course of conduct once they consider (or if they refuse to consider) with an open mind the evidence presented here in this book; and they will no longer be entitled to the presumption that they do not understand that they are promoting Modernism.
In any case, justice, the good of the Church and the good of souls demand that Catholics who are only endeavoring to practice the Faith without alteration not allow themselves to be framed by the accusation, so often leveled by EWTN and other New Church organs, that they are "extreme traditionalists," "disobedient" and even "schismatic." It is time for the accusers, not the accused, to stand trial. For as the evidence will show, it is the accusers, not the accused, who are implicated in the collapse of faith and discipline in the Church since Vatican II.
This book is divided into three parts. In Part I, I lay the groundwork for an understanding of the current crisis in the Church, which the late John Paul II described as "a silent apostasy." I show that this crisis is essentially a resurgence of the Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X early in the twentieth century a heresy that seeks to alter the very meaning of Catholic doctrine and dogma according to a process of "evolution," to overturn the Church's dogmatic faith and liturgical tradition, to attack the very identity of the Church, and indeed to destroy the very concept of objective truth itself. Others have referred to this process as a "creeping apostasy," which by slow degrees induces Catholics to accept corruptions of the true Faith under the pretense of authentic Catholic teaching "updated" for the times. This, we will see, is the dominant tendency of EWTN's content. In Part II, I discuss in considerable detail EWTN's role in contributing to this Modernist crisis since Mother Angelica's coerced departure. The evidence will show:
First, that EWTN promotes, defends and advances the "New Mass" and all the other "officially" approved reforms" of the liturgy which have broken with Tradition in precisely the ways demanded by the Protestant rebels of the sixteenth century, and practically destroyed Catholic worship and Eucharistic faith over the past forty years, as even high ranking Cardinals have admitted;
Second, that EWTN has, under the guise of a "new understanding" of Catholic dogma since Vatican II, helped to undermine Catholic adherence to (a) the infallibly defined dogma that outside the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved; (b) the closely related constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs that the only means of achieving Christian unity is the return of the Protestant and schismatic dissidents to the Catholic Church; and (c) the abolition of the Old Covenant in favor of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, and the consequent objective necessity of Jewish conversion for the salvation of the Jews; Third, that EWTN has promoted and encouraged a Judaizing tendency in the Church not unlike that which confronted the original Jewish Apostles in the first century;
Fourth, that EWTN has excused, defended and promoted sacrilege in Catholic holy places in the name of "interreligious dialogue";
Fifth, that EWTN is contributing to a tendency to replace Roman Catholicism with a common denominator natural religion that deemphasizes adherence to revealed truth as necessary for salvation;
Sixth, that EWTN has advocated a senseless and unCatholic quasi idolatry of the Pope's person that does a grave disservice to the Pope, his office and the Faith;
Seventh, that EWTN is leading the destruction of the traditional Rosary;
Eighth, that EWTN promotes a cult of sexual Gnosticism and "Natural Family Planning" (NFP);
Ninth, that EWTN has generally corrupted the Faith by trying to combine it with rock music and show business in a vain effort to make Catholicism "cool" (EWTN's own word) and appealing to the base instincts of a mass audience;
Tenth, that EWTN attacks and attempts to ostracize from the Church the defenders of Roman Catholic Tradition, and especially those, such as Father Nicholas Gruner, who defend the traditional Catholic understanding of the Message of Fatima and its prophetic relation to the crisis in the Church.
In short, I will show that post Mother Angelica EWTN has become a "moderate" (and therefore more dangerous) Modernist enterprise that presents a corruption of authentic Roman Catholicism passed off as solid orthodoxy, and that as such EWTN is now a serious and highly insidious threat to the integrity of the Faith and a major obstacle to the restoration of the Catholic Church.
In Part III, I will sum up the case against EWTN and New Church in general, in the context of the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI as his successor. And, to conclude, I will suggest ways in which we members of the lay faithful can, with the Message of Fatima in view, work according to our stations in life for an end to the ecclesial crisis over which New Church (including EWTN) presides.
>> So how exactly did the Novus Ordo become the norm? Pope John XXIII was ecstatic. Paul VI promulgated it as the norm, replacing all other forms. No one has thrown it out, yet. <<
My entire point was that the modern liturgical abuses, let lone the licit Novus Ordo mass had anything to do with Vatican II, so it’s not an issue of the doctrines of Vatican II contradicting previous doctrines. As for me, I eagerly look forward to the “reform of the reform,”
>>Having dealt with both groups, I find SSPV more admirable for theirs is a principled stand, whereas SSPX is RINO-like in willing to compromise principles to gain power. <<
There’s nothing principled or courageous is participating in no dialog, only slander. SSPV isn’t analogous to Tea-Party Republicans; they’re analogous to Montana separatists. SSPX is analogous to the Constitution Party.
>>Just look at Williamson; he’s a snake in the grass. <<
Why? because he’s an anti-semite, or because he accepted discipline and apologized? Because the SSPC has a fanatical obsession with the Jews.
>> And where exactly did I “deny the validity of our popes”? <<
If you’re not denying the validity of our popes, why do waste our time with so many endless screens filled with establishing the historical precedent of anathematizing a pope?
But just for the record: Pope Honorius I was anathamatized for assenting to a heresy while under duress.
Now, why do you think the popes had to assent to the anathema of Honorius? Because he had adopted a false theological belief, (i.e., a heresy)? What lessen would they find in reiterating the anathematization?
No, they condemned Honorius because he had cowardly signed off on a heretical position, presuming him to have known better! If he had NOT known better, why bother with assenting to his condemnation? Were the monothelites so menacing to the 11th century church? Of course not, what was then menacing, and what is now menacing, was the fear that a pope would permit and even participate in the promulgation of a heresy THAT HE REASONABLY KNEW TO BE FALSE, out of duress.
Do you have a source link?
I’m not going to read all that.
I asked for a simple yes or no answer from you multiple times, as to whether or not you considered Pope Benedict to be a valid pope. NOT whether or not you considered him to be validly elected. Dancing around with semantics won’t get the job done, will it?
If you’re not going to SAY whether YOU consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope, after multiple requests...I can only infer that you’re not willing to do so.
We will agree to disagree. My PERSONAL interactions with both groups left me with different opinions than yours.
re: If you’re not going to SAY whether YOU consider Pope Benedict to be a valid pope, after multiple requests...I can only infer that you’re not willing to do so.
You didn’t answer my question below, about your false accusation. and I did answer you already, too many answers, a waste of my time. I’ve explained a bunch of times and in different words that I’m not a sedevacantes, that B16 is the valid pope, that none other was elected. If you really knew what a sedevacantes is, no further explanation would be necessary from me, than what I wrote in my profile.
verdugo asked: And where exactly did I “deny the validity of our popes”?
That's your conundrum because you are the other side of the coin of sedevacanteism, you have fallen into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum (I am a Catholic that follows antiquity/tradition, I do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions.)
Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).
The point of posting Pope Honorius is that he was a validly elected pope who as history records, was a good pope in all matters but this "heresy affair", for which he was excommunicated. The point is that it could easily happen again. It is historical legal precedence. The post-Vatican II popes have taught much worse errors than Pope Honorius I, none infallible, but then neither did Honorius or any pope.
POST VATICAN II ERRORS - ECUMENISM MOVEMENT- ALWAYS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH:
Excerps from "Mortalium Animos", Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity, January 6, 1928.
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism andatheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one"[1]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"[2]? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a mostgrave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those schemes which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians.
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you"[18]. For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.
No, you didn't.
Pope Honorius is the exact historical cause for the recognition of the third condition of infallibility: The Pope must promulgate the doctrine publicly and out of his own free will. Thus, the anathema of Honorius accuses him of "not attempt[ing] to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitt[ing] its purity to be polluted."
You must either accept that Vatican II was not doctrinal, and therefore cannot be heresy, or was doctrinal, and is therefore correct. As for me, I don't accept the sort of assertions by NTHockey that Vatican II wasn't doctrinal. Vatican II made doctrinal statements agreed to a consensus of all bishops, including Lefebvre; Lefebvre only turned against Vatican II upon seeing its implementation, not based on the assertion that anything stated was heretical. Honorius' heretical statements were not made in free will, and was countered by overwhelming opposition; you're asserting that EVERY BISHOP IN THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH, LeFEBVRE INCLUDED is a heretic, since every bishop assented to Vatican II.. That's a far cry from Honorius' situation.
NTHockey denies the intent to establish doctrine. To me, that's irrelevant. The popes and the unanimity of bishops made doctrinal statements. That meets the condition of Vatican I's definition of infallible. While much of Vatican II wasn't doctrinal, and the purpose of assembling Vatican II wasn't doctrinal, but it contained matters that were doctrinal.
However, there's a slight out through which I had previously declined to call NTHockey a sedevacantist: One could argue that the bishops may have failed to correct doctrinally false matters not because they personally held such heretical opinions, but they failed to recognize the need for such opposition. As such, although every bishop would be heretic, they would not be united in which heresy they promulgated. But that's a historical stretch.
Sorry, NT: SSPV are openly, proudly, sedevacantist. I can't presume why you perfer them to the SSPX, but I certainly can't presume you don't share their sedevacantism unless you come up with an argument which would be novel to me, and which dissociates yourself from them.
Catholics are convinced by quoting doctrine from authorities:
Cardinal Ratzinger's (today Pope Benedict XVI)address to the Chilean bishops in 1988:
"There are many accounts of it [the Second Vatican Council] which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."
re: Doesn’t Vatican II teach some things that are the opposite of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church?
In all the discussions and debates I've engaged in with traditionalist, who I respect for their knowledge on the subject, they have shown me how everything that appears to be the opposite of what was consistently taught, actually can be interpreted according to tradition. It's an odd thing about Vatican II, it appears that the ambiguities are there as a snare for anyone that wishes to interpret Vatican II against 1900+ of consistent teaching, but they are not there for those who follow what the Cchurch has always taught:
Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. ?
"Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years." (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)
(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
--------------------------------------------------------
Because of the ambiguities and double speak in the Vatican II, and many of the documents that came from the post Vatican II bishops, using Vatican II to justify all kinds of changes, departures from antiquity/tradition, I would not advise just anyone to seek answers about the Faith from Vatican II and would be leary of any theologian that exclusively refers to it.
See my post #65 and let’s leave it at that. I have fought this battle so many times that it is not worth it anymore. Nobody gets convinced or swayed and a lot of time and energy is wasted. If it makes you feel better to label me a sedevacantist or heretic or nut, fine. It makes no difference to me.
>> The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, <<
There’s quite a massive difference between defining no dogma, and containing no dogma. What Benedict is saying is that Vatican II neither contradicts nor adds to any dogma. There are certainly , however, doctrinal statements, which were approved by the consensus of bishops; Lumen Gentium has little to do with pastoral issues, for instance, and everything to do with doctrine.
What Benedict is doing in fact is precisely what you ought to be commending him for, yet instead insist he’s a heretic because of: he’s establishing that to the bishops that the ancient doctrine must be adhered to, and that any appearances of contradicting ancient doctrine are mere illusions based on poorly chosen or ambuguious wordings.
That’s MY position, not yours.
You’re the one insisting that it’s heresy, remember? You’re the one calling even Benedict a heretic.
Exactly, and since it does not add, and becuase it is loaded with ambiguities and double speak, I do not need to use it for anything. I can quote prior councils popes, and encyclicals which say everything clearly:
HOW DID THE PROGRESSIVISTS HIJACK VATICAN II?
SCHOLASTICISM, the apex of 1900+ years of perfecting theological and philosophical language, WAS ABANDONED AT VATICAN II for patched up, incoherent, more appropriate to a Babel and its confusion of languages:
The progressivists at Vatican II succeeded in deliberately abandoning the rigor of precise language. The only ecumenical council to do so in the history of Catholicism. They abandoned Scholasticism, which is nothing but the apex of a long process of perfecting theological and philosophical language, a process unleashed by the polemics between the Fathers and Catholic doctors, and the heresies and errors that sprung up during the first twelve centuries of the Christian era. Indeed, in the battles waged in favor of orthodoxy, nothing was more indispensable than a systematization of, the elaboration of a highly precise technical language placed at their service. This prevented the infiltration of ambiguous expressions that could favor the promoters of error. So great was the effort made to clearly express theological and philosophical concepts that finding precise terms and formulas that left no shadow of doubt about a controversial doctrinal point was like discovering a treasure.
Explaining the origin, nature and excellence of Scholastic doctrine, Pope Sixtus V 1588 stated:
"By the divine generosity of Him who alone imparts the spirit of wisdom and, along the ages and according to necessity, ceases not to enrich His Church with new benefits and endow her with new defenses, our forefathers, men of profound science, invented Scholastic theology. …, assiduous zeal, great works and vigils, cultivated this science, enriched it and gave it as a legacy to future generations, organized in perfect order, amply and admirably developed. Undoubtedly the knowledge and habit of such a wholesome science, which emanates from the most fecund sources of the Sacred Scriptures, the holy Fathers and the Councils, has been an invaluable help to the Church at all times, whether to facilitate a wholesome comprehension and true interpretation of the Scriptures, to read and explain the Fathers with greater assurance and usefulness, or to unmask and refute the several errors and heresies; but these latter days, which have brought us the critical times predicted by the Apostle, in which blasphemous, proud and seductive men make progress in evil, erring themselves and leading others into error, the science of which we speak is more than ever necessary to confirm the dogmas of the Catholic faith and refute heresies." (Sixtus V. Bull Triumphantis, 1588, in Leo XIII, Encyclical Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879 (Petropolis: Vozes, 1960), n. 28.)
Thus, Scholastic Theology and Philosophy gradually built over the centuries an invulnerable wall protecting Revelation and the Magisterium from the insidious attacks of adversaries. That is why they deserved such high praise from Sixtus V, who saw in them "this tight and perfect cohesion between cause and effect, this symmetry and order resembling those of an army in battle array, these luminous definitions and distinctions, this solidity of argumentation and subtlety in controversy by means of which light is separated from darkness, truth distinguished from error and the lies of heresy, deprived of the prestige and fictions enveloping them, are unveiled and laid bare.” (Ibid n. 23)
Nevertheless, the language adopted by Vatican II discarded that tight and perfect cohesion between cause and effect, those luminous definitions and distinctions, that solidity in argumentation typical of Scholastic language. They discarded that Scholastic perfection in favor of texts that were "patched up","worked over", "incoherent", "promiscuous” , "more appropriate to a "Babel" and its "confusion of languages” (these various expressions are used by renowned theologians).
That which the Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of old feared, was thus achieved: the entrance of ambiguity into the expression of theological thinking.
re: You’re the one insisting that it’s heresy, remember? You’re the one calling even Benedict a heretic.
Please copy and paste in italics my exact words, when you accuse me of saying something. If not, it is called detraction.
>>>>re: You’re the one insisting that it’s heresy, remember? You’re the one calling even Benedict a heretic. <<<<
>>Please copy and paste in italics my exact words, when you accuse me of saying something. If not, it is called detraction. <<
How’s this:
>>>>”... all 5 Vatican II popes are not even Catholic. Pope St. Pius X would have excommunicated all five before they even became bishops.”<<<<
Play all the stupid games you want. It’s called deceit.
I stand by what I wrote above. However, you state that I called B16 or JPII heretics, which I didn't. If I called them heretics, I would have to prove it, and that's very difficult for me to prove, same as to prove that Vat II contains heresies. Besides, I have no authority to enforce the charge.
Your calling “playing stupid” and deceitful is detraction. This is a complicated matter as both JPII and B16 are progressivists. The progressivist never says outright anything heretical that is not duplicitous, that can't be interpreted some "orthodox" way. I've learned over the years not to go that route. I'll let the proper authorities, the popes of the future judge them. You, just like the sedevacantes ( who make the same arguments against me, from the other side) make things simple in your minds, because this is a difficult matter, that you can't comprehend. I on the other hand do not presume to understand.
However, I will say again that “Pope St. Pius X would have excommunicated all five before they even became bishops”.
O right. I’m sure you meant Pius X would have had them excommunicated for having overdue library books. I think you’ve exposed yourself for what you are quite plainly for any future reference. I have no further reason to deal with you.
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.