![\"GKC84(PD)\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/11\/GKC84PD.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nBen Douglass is a friend, fellow apologist, and orthodox Catholic of the self-described \u201ctraditionalist\u201d variety. Recently, he posted on his site an interesting and provocative essay entitled\u00a0Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn\u2019t Use<\/a>\u00a0(co-authored by David Palm and Nick E.). I thought I\u2019d give my $00.02 worth and see how much our opinions line up, in an area of obvious relevance to my own work and his. His words (presented in their entirety) will be indented and in\u00a0blue<\/span>, and I\u2019ll be answering as I read, per my usual socratic method.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The following is a list of arguments against Protestantism which, in our judgment, Catholics should not use, either because they are not true, or because, while they might be true, it is impossible to prove that they are, for a plausible alternative explanation of the data exists. This is certainly not a complete list: it is merely one missive fired for intellectual honesty. Neither is it an infallible list: it is possible that one or more of these arguments might be saved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Good (wisely qualified) beginning. I hope my own input is conducive to further constructive discussion. 1.<\/b>\u00a0Do not allege that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. This tally comes from the 2001\u00a0World Christian Encyclopedia<\/i>, and it includes all denominations and paradenominations which self-identify as Christian, including Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Old Catholics, Mormons<\/a>, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Gnostics, Bogomils, etc. And even so, the number is too high. The\u00a0World Christian Encyclopedia<\/i>\u00a0artificially inflates the number of Catholic \u201cdenominations\u201d by counting Eastern Churches in communion with Rome as separate denominations. It likewise inflates the number of Eastern Orthodox \u201cdenominations\u201d by counting Churches in communion with each other as distinct.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This reference lists 8,973 denominations under the heading \u201cProtestant,\u201d and 22,146 more under the heading \u201cIndependent.\u201d Some, but not all, of the \u201cindependent\u201d denominations may justly be described as Protestant. Still, these numbers may be inflated similarly to the numbers for Catholics and Orthodox. Suffice it to say that there are thousands of Protestant denominations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions). In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., \u201corthodox\u201d Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I completely agree with the main point made here: regarding the alleged 33,000 denominations figure. That has been my stated, documented position since\u00a0I wrote a paper on it\u00a0almost five years ago, dated 4 September 2004: conceding the essential elements of the opposing position, on the same basis that Ben Douglass made his conclusions.<\/p>\n I also agree with Ben\u2019s rejection of the notion that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/span>\u00a0is the\u00a0sole cause<\/span>\u00a0of this denominationalism that exists (whatever the actual number may be). But I suspect that I would regard it as a\u00a0relatively greater<\/span>\u00a0cause (among many) than he does. I\u2019ve written a million things about both\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/span>\u00a0(including, recently,\u00a0an entire book<\/a>) and denominationalism. It gets extremely complex. But here is a rough summary of my position in this regard from my paper where I asserted what Ben does about the bogus 33,000 figure:<\/p>\n Protestant apologists . . . (even ecumenical Protestant apologists and other thinkers) have a huge problem trying to biblically justify denominationalism and sectarianism and in determining the internal causes of same (which we Catholics would identify as:\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, private judgment, so-called \u201csupremacy of conscience,\u201d the sectarian and exclusivistic mindsets, anti-institutionalism, anti-sacerdotalism, rejection of a binding apostolic tradition and Church, and of apostolic succession, episcopacy, even American cultural individualism running rampant within American Protestantism, etc.) that they have by no means ever resolved or even squarely faced.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In any event, I completely agree with Ben that\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/span>\u00a0can be blamed for \u201cthe extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals.\u201d<\/p>\n Conclusion for #1:\u00a0substantial agreement<\/span>. 2.<\/b>\u00a0Avoid the term \u201canti-Catholic.\u201d The term is ill-defined. If it refers to a form of bigotry or prejudice then it could only be applied to individual Protestants (or other non-Catholics) on a case by case basis, and that only after they had exhibited a demonstrable pattern of bad faith. If, on the other hand, it refers to theological opposition to Catholicism, then it ought not to be used as a term of disdain. For Catholics are theologically opposed to Protestantism. Indeed, according to\u00a0Dominus Iesus<\/i>, Protestant \u201cchurches\u201d are not, properly speaking, churches. The distinctives of Protestant theology are heresy, and the Council of Trent has pronounced anathema upon them. If, then, Protestants who believe Catholicism to be heretical are anti-Catholic, by the same standard Catholics who believe Protestantism to be heretical are anti-Protestant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here Ben and I strongly disagree, and my beef with him is based on what I would contend is faulty logic on his part, on several scores. I\u2019ve written about this topic, too, at great length, and on many occasions.\u00a0Anti-Catholic<\/i>\u00a0is not ill-defined at all, It has been widely, carefully defined by religious sociologists and historians (as I have thoroughly documented), and is in widespread use.<\/p>\n Some of the confusion here, in Ben\u2019s mind, and in the minds of many Protestants I\u2019ve encountered who object to the term on similar grounds, is the lack of understanding that the term can (like many descriptive terms) be used in\u00a0more than one sense<\/span>. Ben simply claims that it is \u201cill-defined.\u201d But I\u00a0document<\/span>\u00a0that it is very well-defined indeed. His analysis is subjective; mine is objective, based on solid academic work from many scholars. I\u2019ve written till I\u2019m blue in the face that my own use is strictly theological, and has to do with the classification of Catholicism as a theological system, as non-Christian. I\u2019ve documented the use of the term in this sense, by sociologists and historians. It\u2019s completely legitimate. The second application has nothing whatever to do with bigotry.<\/p>\n The term can\u00a0also<\/span>\u00a0mean bigotry, Know-Nothingism, violence against Catholics, etc. I even freely concede (and always have) that it is used in the relevant academic literature\u00a0more<\/span>\u00a0so in that sense than in the doctrinal or theological sense. But it doesn\u2019t follow that there is\u00a0no<\/span>\u00a0purely theological usage. If a word has more than one definition or sense than this additional sense can be properly used, as long as it is made clear what sense is intended (and no one has reiterated or made this more clear than I have through the years: exactly what I mean). We can\u2019t simply stop using a perfectly legitimate word because someone has an illogical, emotional objection to it. That exhibits a liberal, almost purely subjective mentality: the exact sort of thing that Ben himself would object to when he opposes even legitimate ecumenical efforts, let alone illegitimate, bogus, liberal \u201cecumenical\u201d endeavors.<\/p>\n Of course<\/span>\u00a0it can \u201conly be applied to individual Protestants\u201d: that is, the ones who deny that Catholicism is properly classifiable as fully Christian theology. These constitute only a tiny fringe element of all Protestants, as I have also always reiterated to the nth degree (and it is presupposed in the tons of things I have written in a positive vein about Protestants who are not at all anti-Catholic). Anyone who classifies\u00a0all<\/span>\u00a0Protestants (or, routinely, the specific Protestant they are dealing with) as \u201canti-Catholics\u201d simply because they\u00a0disagree<\/span>\u00a0with Catholicism (which one would expect a Protestant to do by definition!) is a clueless dumbbell. I wholeheartedly agree insofar as Ben is saying\u00a0that<\/span>\u00a0(and again, always have), but he takes his analysis too far.<\/p>\n The second illogical element of Ben\u2019s argument in his #2 is the following assertion:<\/p>\n The distinctives of Protestant theology are heresy, and the Council of Trent has pronounced anathema upon them. If, then, Protestants who believe Catholicism to be heretical are anti-Catholic, by the same standard Catholics who believe Protestantism to be heretical are anti-Protestant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He fails to draw crucial distinctions. The first sentence above is true, but the second makes illogical conclusions based on fallacy. The issue is not the presence of any heresy\u00a0whatever<\/span>. Obviously, both sides think the other has heretical elements, or there wouldn\u2019t be a separation in the first place, of good men who hold different opinions, usually in good faith. Protestants do that internally as well, which is one reason why they form competing denominations. The crucial aspect here is to recognize that the Catholic holds the (trinitarian) Protestant to still be\u00a0within the fold of Christianity<\/span>; still a brother in Christ, whereas the tiny minority position of Protestant anti-Catholicism holds the Catholic Church to not even be\u00a0fundamentally<\/span>,\u00a0essentially<\/span>\u00a0Christian, because it holds that we deny the gospel of grace and descend to rank idolatry every time we worship at Mass.\u00a0 That<\/span>\u00a0is the crux of the issue. So there is no \u201cdefinitional equivalence\u201d in the sense that Ben tries to establish. Precisely because this is the case, \u201canti-Protestantism\u201d as used in scholarly circles refers almost exclusively to legal and bigoted opposition to Protestantism (that I have also opposed in writing on many occasions), since there\u00a0is<\/span>\u00a0no theological anti-Protestantism among Catholics, excepting the most extreme \u201ctraditionalists\u201d who depart from the Mind of the Church.<\/p>\n Conclusion for #2:\u00a0substantial disagreement<\/span>. 3.<\/b>\u00a0Do not justify lack of charity by appealing to the example of St. Jerome. Not everything a saint does is necessarily worthy of emulation. St. Cyprian was insubordinate to the Pope. St. John Chrysostom said some indefensible things about Jews.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Absolutely right. Any Catholic who knows anything knows that even saints (besides the Blessed Virgin and very few other possible candidates) are not without faults and sin. Jerome\u2019s level of charity in disputation was certainly not his finest attribute, and some of his methods wouldn\u2019t\u00a0work<\/span>\u00a0all that well today even if they could be ethically defended on some level.<\/p>\n Conclusion for #3:\u00a0complete agreement<\/span>. 4.<\/b>\u00a0Do not exaggerate the inadequacy of Sola Scriptura, as if it were not possible to understand the Bible at all without the Magisterium. In reality, if one, without help from any external authority, gives the Bible a diligent, sincere, and attentive reading, it will be possible to achieve the right answer to a fair number of questions. Sola Scriptura is inadequate because it cannot give the Church definitive answers to\u00a0every<\/i>\u00a0question which she needs answered in order to function as the Church. For example, it cannot give the Church a definitive answer regarding whether Christian marriage is dissoluble. On the other hand, the Bible is clear enough that the text alone suffices to tell the Church that homosexuality is evil, among other things. If one fails to recognize this then it will be impossible to come to terms with the patristic witness to the clarity of Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a great point, and I am in complete agreement with it. It is a gross caricature of the Catholic position (whether held by Protestant critics or some undereducated Catholics) to hold that the Bible is utterly obscure. In other words, to deny the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture is not the same thing as asserting a radically unclear, confusing Scripture, in and of itself. It is far more a practical and epistemological and authority issue than an exegetical one. I have maintained the same position that Ben expresses here in many papers (and indeed this approach is presupposed in my high emphasis throughout my apologetics efforts, on \u201cbiblical evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n My position in this respect is summarized in several entries from my recent [since revised]\u00a0book about\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/span>:<\/p>\n 420. Scripture\u00a0is\u00a0<\/span>clear for the most part. I presuppose this in most of the writing I do, giving biblical evidences, but people have always disagreed on\u00a0interpretation<\/span>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 425. I think Scripture is pretty clear (I\u2019ve always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn\u2019t clear\u00a0enough<\/span>\u00a0to bring men to agreement.<\/span><\/p>\n 432. We believe in material sufficiency and the ability \u2014 very broadly considered \u2014 of the regenerate, Spirit-filled individual to understand much of the Bible. But we think that the \u201ccheck\u201d of historical interpretation is necessary as the final determinant of true doctrine and guarantee of unity.<\/span><\/p>\n 433. Catholics believe that Scripture is largely and substantially clear but a teaching authority and limits to hermeneutics and exegesis are still desirable, necessary, and suggested in Holy Scripture itself. Look at, for example, the Jerusalem Council, or Peter\u2019s early sermons where he \u201cofficially\u201d interprets Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n 434. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It\u2019s the same with Protestants.<\/span><\/p>\n 437. Catholics don\u2019t think Scripture is nearly as unclear and obscure as we are often caricatured to supposedly believe. But we\u00a0do<\/span>\u00a0know that heretics throughout the centuries have distorted the Scripture, for whatever reason, so that an authoritative statement of orthodoxy becomes practically necessary in order to preserve unity as well as orthodoxy.<\/span><\/p>\n 439. Many Protestants falsely assume that because Catholics believe Scripture does not function as a perspicuous authority apart from some human ecclesiastical authority, therefore Catholics must believe that\u00a0every<\/span>\u00a0individual passage is an utter \u201cmystery, riddle, and enigma\u201d (to borrow from Churchill\u2019s description of Russia). Of course, this doesn\u2019t logically follow at all, and is a straw man.<\/span><\/p>\n 470. The fact that the Law as a whole needed interpretation doesn\u2019t rule out the possibility that certain\u00a0parts<\/span>\u00a0of it were clear and apparent without the need for much interpretation (just as with the Bible as a whole). Catholicism does not require a totally obscure Bible at all. This is a myth. But could the\u00a0entire Law and Bible<\/span>\u00a0be understood without the need of authoritative teachers? No. And that is rather obvious to this day. Protestants continue to absurdly claim that the Bible is perspicuous, yet fail to agree amongst themselves. And their reasons for why this is (stupidity or sin on the other guy\u2019s part) are as absurd and silly as the original false premise.<\/span><\/p>\n 478. It is not that Scripture is so unclear and esoteric that it is an utter mystery and an undecipherable \u201ccode\u201d which only Holy Mother Church can break, and which no individual can possibly understand. Rather, the Church is required to speak\u00a0authoritatively<\/span>\u00a0as to what Holy Scripture\u00a0teaches<\/span>, just as it spoke authoritatively with regard to what books were to be\u00a0included\u00a0<\/span>in Scripture. In both instances, Holy Scripture is inherently what it is: God\u2019s inspired, inerrant, infallible written revelation, but human error, sin, and inability to achieve unity of belief on the basis of individualism made the teaching Church absolutely necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion for #4:\u00a0complete agreement<\/span>. 5.<\/b>\u00a0Do not insist that Protestants need to know, as a matter of faith, that Matthew wrote Matthew. According to the internal logic of their system, they do not. It suffices that the book of Matthew be inspired by God, regardless whether the traditional attribution is correct. As such, there is a limited value in asking Protestants the question, \u201cHow do you know that Matthew wrote Matthew?\u201d If a particular Protestant does in fact accept the traditional authorship of Matthew, one might ask him on what basis he does so. If he replies that he does so on the basis of the patristic testimony, this can be an opportunity to expose any double standards he might hold as to the reliability of the patristic testimony at large. Nevertheless, it is fallacious to argue that, since Protestants need to know that Matthew wrote Matthew, and since Sola Scriptura cannot provide that knowledge to them, therefore Sola Scriptura is false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I certainly believe that Matthew wrote the book bearing his name, but I agree that this argument achieves little or nothing in shooting down\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/span>. That belief-system has plenty enough holes in it without resorting to a non-starter like this.<\/p>\n Conclusion for #5:\u00a0complete agreement<\/span>. 6.<\/b>\u00a0Do not think that it suffices, for falsifying Sola Scriptura, to demonstrate that inspired oral Apostolic Tradition existed during the Apostolic era (2 Thess 2:15, etc.). Protestants grant this. One must proceed to demonstrate the perduring presence of this Tradition within the Church throughout all ages. Or at least, one must justify laying the burden of proof on Protestants to demonstrate that all oral Apostolic Tradition was eventually inscripturated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I think Ben is absolutely correct again. Such an argument exhibits little understanding of an informed Protestant position. It is really the \u201cinscripturation\u201d issue that is key. Why is it that we should believe that all authoritative tradition should cease simply because the Bible was completed? That position is nowhere in the Bible itself, and is purely assumed or gratuitous on the Protestant\u2019s part. Thus, the argument is far more nuanced and multi-faceted, and cannot be argued in the simple manner above. To do so only convinces a Protestant that the one using this argument doesn\u2019t\u00a0understand<\/span>\u00a0the position he wishes to oppose.<\/p>\n Conclusion for #6:\u00a0complete agreement<\/span>. 7.<\/b>\u00a0Do not argue that since St. Paul knew that the magicians who opposed Moses were named Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8), these names must have been preserved in the old covenant equivalent of Apostolic Tradition. According to the Catholic dogma of the inspiration of Scripture, God furnished the sacred authors with an infallible judgment in evaluating the truth of non-inspired and hence fallible historical records (Pius XII,\u00a0Humani Generis<\/i>, 38). As such, judging by the standard of Catholic theology (which conservative Protestants share on this point), it is possible that St. Paul learned these names from ordinary human historical records, and not from Jewish Sacred Tradition. To establish the presence of Sacred Tradition within the old covenant a Catholic must look elsewhere (e.g., 2 Chron 29:2).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I agree; another worthwhile point to make. This particular argument and ones like it suffice mainly to refute a less sophisticated Protestant argument that would hold that no non-biblical (i.e., Old Testament) traditions whatever were ever cited in the New Testament. But we mustn\u2019t try to prove\u00a0too<\/span>\u00a0much. Effective apologetics requires much study, to avoid such pitfalls.<\/p>\n Conclusion for #7:\u00a0complete agreement<\/span>. 8.<\/b>\u00a0Do not cite 2 Peter 1:20-21 against the Protestant principle of private interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter explains, in the preceding verses, that the Apostles did not invent their claims about the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, but saw it first hand when He revealed it to them in the Transfiguration. He then exhorts his readers to heed the \u201cprophetic word.\u201d He continues, \u201cNo prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one\u2019s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men borne by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.\u201d In context, the \u201cinterpretation\u201d which St. Peter refers to is on the part of the prophet, not the reader. That is, St. Peter\u2019s point is that no prophet made up his own prophecies. The prophets spoke what they received from God to speak, just as the Apostles spoke what they received from God to speak on Mount Tabor. Hence, their words rest on divine and not human authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is an interesting point that is valid to a degree, but only secondarily, and I think Ben over-argues insofar as he believes that the passage has no implication against a\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/span>\u00a0position whatever. I think it does have at least a secondary application in that respect. Not all reputable Catholic interpretations of this passage agree with Ben\u2019s take. For example,\u00a0A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture\u00a0<\/span>(edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, 1953) allows Ben\u2019s position as a secondary possibility, but its first comment is quite otherwise:<\/p>\n It is of prime importance to know that prophecy of Scripture is not subject to private interpretation by every individual, as the false teachers assume it is, because prophecy is from God, and is not like mere human conjectures of future possibilities. Scriptural prophecy is divine revelation, and concerns future events known to God alone. Christ, and those appointed by him to teach in his name, have the authority to interpret God\u2019s revelations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The well-regarded, orthodox\u00a0Navarre Bible<\/span>\u00a0concurs:<\/p>\n 20. Prophecy and Sacred Scripture in general are not man-made; they are the word of God: there is nothing in the Bible that is\/not inspired by the Holy Spirit (v. 21). Therefore, against the false teachers of his time and of all eras, the sacred writer rejects any interpretation of Scripture based exclusively on human ingenuity; as the Second Vatican Council reminds us, it is \u201cthe Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God\u201d (Dei Verbum<\/span>, 12).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These words repeat the teaching of the Council of Trent: \u201cNo one should dare to rely on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals [\u2026] to distort Sacred Scripture to fit meanings of his own that are contrary to the meaning that holy Mother Church has held and now holds; for it is her office to decide on the true sense and interpretation of Sacred Scripture\u201d (De libris sacris<\/span>; cf. Vatican I,\u00a0Dei Filius<\/span>, chap. 2).<\/p>\n 21. This verse makes it clear that there is such a thing as biblical interpretation (cf. 2 Tim 3:13ff), and it specifies what it is. Scripture has been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; God and the human author are involved in the writing of the sacred books in such a way that the end-product is, at one and the same time, entirely of God\u2019s making and entirely of man\u2019s.<\/p>\n So does\u00a0Haydock\u2019s Bible Commentary\u00a0<\/span><\/span>for this passage<\/a>: Ver. 20.<\/span>\u00a0No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation<\/span>; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek,\u00a0is of any private interpretation<\/span>, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one\u2019s private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) \u2014 The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ver. 21.<\/span>\u00a0For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time<\/span>. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one\u2019s private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)<\/p>\n Pope Benedict XV<\/span>\u00a0(not XVI!) interpreted the passage in the same fashion:<\/p>\n 16. Would that other ecclesiastical teachers learn from him how skilfully, how diligently they must work in preaching the doctrine of Christ! And indeed the piety of the faithful has nothing stable and advantageous except to adhere entirely to the mysteries and precepts of the faith. Those who legitimately teach the Sacred Scriptures are warned by the example of the Edessine not to distort the Sacred Scriptures to the good pleasure of their own inclinations, nor, in investigating them, to depart a finger\u2019s breadth from the constant interpretation of the Church. \u201cNo prophecy of Scripture originates from private interpretation. For never by will of man was prophecy brought forth. But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.\u201d[33] And that Spirit who has spoken to men by the prophets is the same one who for the Apostles \u201copened their minds that they might understand the Scriptures\u201d[34] and the same who constituted his Church to announce, interpret, and preserve revelation, so that it might be \u201cthe pillar and mainstay of truth.\u201d[35]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notes:<\/span><\/p>\n 33. 2 Pt 1.20-21.<\/p>\n 34. Lk 24.45.<\/p>\n 35. I Tm 3.15.<\/p>\n (Principi Apostolorum Petro<\/span><\/a>, 10 October 1920)<\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n