2 Quick questions on Peter, the ROCK

[jemfinch]

While we assume that Jesus was not speaking Greek, the fact remains that the words were recorded in Greek and disseminated around the Church in Greek. As such, the difference in the Greek words has played a role in the development of Christian thought down the centuries.

Please show some instances where the difference in the Greek words played a role in the development of Christian thought. I’ve seen no counterexamples to the standard Catholic citations of ECFs.

Owing to the fact that we do not have the Aramaic words which Jesus used, and can merely speculate as to what they were, we are left, again, with the text which the Church has been reading for two thousand years, unless we wish to discount the entire history of the church.

As I understand it, it’s those who wish to reinterpret the passage in the Protestant mindset who are discounting the entire history of the Church.

Jeremy

 

[MrS]

While one obviously cannot include in every argument all of the issues which could come up, issues which are extremely relevant ought to be addressed merely out of one’s love for one’s neighbour.

\

Looking at your bio, and out of curiosity… why and for how long have you been a heretic? And what were you before then?

 

[Mystophilus]

Looking at your bio, and out of curiosity… why and for how long have you been a heretic? And what were you before then?

I had forgotten that that was even in there!

I describe myself as a heretic largely because I fall outside of all of the general categories: I do not believe that the Bible is literally true, I do not believe that the Magisterium is necessarily correct, and I do not believe that tradition is inherently right. I believe no one merely on the basis of their affiliation with any given position or institution, although I have a tendency to ascribe a greater degree of dependability to any strong consensus of peer-reviewed academic works under a free press. In short, I believe that no one short of God is definitely right, which means that I also believe that I am quite possibly wrong, which makes the whole thing slightly more complicated.

In essence, the ‘heretic’ label warns people not to assume that I do believe any given thing, which, I hope, will lead them to examine the actual data themselves more carefully.

The ‘why’ is because I have read far too much to hold absolute trust in the capacities of mortals, and the ‘when’ is for my whole life, both the half when I was not a Christian and the half in which I have been, albeit a bad one.

Does that provide a suitable answer?

 

[RCCDefender]

So now you’re saying the Greek text is wrong?! The Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament in Greek. Greek is a very accurate type of language. Many words for the same thing with slight differences. You can stick with your Aramaic argument if you so choose… but I’ll believe the Holy Spirit.

1Cr 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that Rock (Petra) was Christ

Mat 7:24 ¶
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock (Petra):

Mat 7:25
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock (Petra)

Luk 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock (Petra): and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded

NO, the Bible is obviously not wrong, but your fallible interpretation is. The Bible was written in Koine Greek in which petros and petra both mean the same thing, rock. If the passage was to imply a distinction between the insignificance of Peter and the greatness of his confession, then it would make more sense to name Peter lithos since lithos means “small stone.”

Also, the name Simon means “grain of sand.” So, what you are trying to say is that Christ changed Peter’s name from a “grain of sand” to a “small stone.” This doesn’t make any sense, when a man’s name in the Bible is changed it is a very great and significant thing. How significant is it to go from being a “grain of sand” to a “small stone.”

You cannot deny the facy that Christ spoke Aramaic, which is what you seem to be trying to do with your insistance on the Greek. Christ said in essence “Thou art Kepha and on this Kepha I build my Church.” In Matthew the Greek isn’t a mere translation of the Aramaic here, it is a “transliteration” the play on words that Christ used in His native tongue was carried over in the Greek by using Petra/Petros.

 

[MrS]

I had forgotten that that was even in there!

I describe myself as a heretic largely because I fall outside of all of the general categories: I do not believe that the Bible is literally true, I do not believe that the Magisterium is necessarily correct, and I do not believe that tradition is inherently right. I believe no one merely on the basis of their affiliation with any given position or institution, although I have a tendency to ascribe a greater degree of dependability to any strong consensus of peer-reviewed academic works under a free press. In short, I believe that no one short of God is definitely right, which means that I also believe that I am quite possibly wrong, which makes the whole thing slightly more complicated.

In essence, the ‘heretic’ label warns people not to assume that I do believe any given thing, which, I hope, will lead them to examine the actual data themselves more carefully.

The ‘why’ is because I have read far too much to hold absolute trust in the capacities of mortals, and the ‘when’ is for my whole life, both the half when I was not a Christian and the half in which I have been, albeit a bad one.

Does that provide a suitable answer?

it gives an insight to your struggle…

1] if you have a greater degree of dependability in a consensus.… why would you reject the early Fathers who were of like mind, like thinking, like theology… and who are supported by a VAST number of saints, martyrs etc.

if you don’t trust them, your statement is meaningless

if you do trust them (their consensus), then you have chosen to place your own ideas of truth above theirs.

2] absolute trust in the capacities of mortals … okay… but food for thought… if you can “trust” Scripture and the vast consensus that it properly records events…
Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was struck down by the Lord who asked him… “…why do you persecute Me…?”
Yet Paul was persecuting the mortals? He was persecuting the Church? He was persecuting Jesus? Yes to all 3. Those mortals had quite a capacity, as the Catholic Church and its magisterium do today. The “capacity” for Truth comes from the grace of the Lord. The fullness of that Truth is found only in the Catholic Church… Jesus said so… and a vast 2000 yr consesus speaks volumes to support that reasoning.

3] as for being a “bad Christian”… your thinking is accurate… you can’t be a heretic unless you know the Truth (i.e. be a Christian), and them ignore, reject, revise, or teach the opposite

.

 

[jmcrae]

Throughout the rest of the New Testament, Peter is referred to as “Kephas” which indicates at least to my mind that Jesus was speaking to him in the Aramaic language in Matthew 16:18, and that the Apostles and Bishops who were writing about him in the documents of the New Testament understood him to have been named “A Large Rock” in Aramaic by Jesus at that time.

The argument about petra/petros etc. is interesting, but largely irrelevant, especially when you consider the writings of the Early Fathers, and the fact that even the earliest listings of the Popes begin with Peter as the first Pope.

A reading of just that one verse, isolated by itself, may be confusing, and certainly it is possible to get bamfoozled into thinking that Jesus was not calling Peter a “large rock” but in order to allow oneself to be bamfoozled like that, one has to totally ignore both recorded history and the remainder of the New Testament.

 

[SPH1]

Also, the name Simon means “grain of sand.”

Hi,

I’ve heard this before, but my source could not corroborate it. Do you have a trustworthy source? I suspect this is an error.

 

[RCCDefender]

Hi,

I’ve heard this before, but my source could not corroborate it. Do you have a trustworthy source? I suspect this is an error.

I do, but not on me at this time, I’ll have to look for it when I get home.

 

[Batjacboy]

The Holy Spirit wrote the New Testament in Greek.

Nonsense. The New Testament was *inspired *by the Holy Spirit, not *dictated *by the Holy Spirit–otherwise it wouldn’t have different styles, author to author. And the word “wrote” belongs to the one holding the pen. So here’s an accurate statement:

‘St. Paul wrote his epistles, inspired, but not *dictated *(word for word) by the Holy Spirit, and this inspiration preserved the writings from error.’

The author of the Gospel of Matthew chose the Petros/Petra terminology to maintain the Kepha/Kepha play on words (otherwise he would have used Lithos/Petra). That was the author’s choice, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Saying the Holy Spirit “wrote” the New Testament implies a lack of understanding of what Scriptural inspiration is.

 

[Mystophilus]

if you have a greater degree of dependability in a consensus.… why would you reject the early Fathers who were of like mind, like thinking, like theology… and who are supported by a VAST number of saints, martyrs etc.

“peer-reviewed” was a very important attributive there, as was “under a free press”. The early Fathers operated in something of a similar environment, inasmuch as they freely and frankly disagreed with each other on a regular basis.

Thus, for example, we see a large number of early church Fathers who read the πετρα in the Mt 16:18 text as referring not to Peter alone, but to Peter-and-to-every-other-Christian, to the confession of faith, to Christ, etc. This in no way precluded them from writing, in the next sentence, that the foundation was Peter. Many of them, e.g. Origen, considered that multiple interpretations were simultaneously accurate. Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Christ (756), the Church of Rome, the Apostles (857), and Peter (936) as ‘the foundation of the Church’.

However, I wonder whether you missed the comparative in “a greater degree” of trust in such arrangements. This does not indicate absolute faith, merely more faith than in other things: this may be why I have more faith in the early Fathers than in later theologians.

if you don’t trust them, your statement is meaningless

If I do not trust the early Fathers, which statement is meaningless, and to whom, and according to what hermeneutic, and can you be certain that it is the message which is failing in communication and not the recipient?

if you do trust them (their consensus), then you have chosen to place your own ideas of truth above theirs.

So, we are talking about the Fathers here.

2] absolute trust in the capacities of mortals … okay… but food for thought… if you can “trust” Scripture and the vast consensus that it properly records events…

The Bible texts, as a historical record, are a useful source inasmuch as their accounts are not contradicted by other non-pejorative sources, and do not contradict each other to a great degree. Thus, it earns a greater degree of dependability than such isolated accounts as Suetonius’ Lives.

Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was struck down by the Lord who asked him… “…why do you persecute Me…?”
Yet Paul was persecuting the mortals? He was persecuting the Church? He was persecuting Jesus? Yes to all 3. Those mortals had quite a capacity, as the Catholic Church and its magisterium do today. The “capacity” for Truth comes from the grace of the Lord. The fullness of that Truth is found only in the Catholic Church… Jesus said so.

Where did Jesus say that the fullness of the Truth is to be found only in the Church of Rome? Considering that it did not exist in his day, I find the ascription somewhat peculiar.

… and a vast 2000 yr consensus speaks volumes to support that reasoning

An internal consensus, i.e., a consensus within one party of a multi-party debate, demonstrates more about the culture of that party than it does about the accuracy of its conclusions. There is a vast consensus among the people of China, and has been for over four thousand years, that China is the best country in the world. If a majority of outside commentators agreed, I might be more inclined to believe them.

The Roman Catholic Church is, if you will forgive the analogy, in a similar position regarding the consensus: its consensus is internal. Few people outside of the Roman Catholic Church view it as possessing the fullness of Truth. Do you imagine that that is because 5/6 of the population of the world are stupid?

 

[Todd_Easton]

The C1st or C2nd Shepherd of Hermas (from 3.9.2 to 3.9.12) is earlier than any of the abovementioned texts and reads the rock as being Christ himself. I think that, from memory, he may also refer to Peter as the rock, but I cannot seem to find the reference at the moment. Origen, in the same Commentary on Matthew which you quoted, also reads the rock as being every Christian who imitates Christ (in 12.11). Many of the early Church Fathers read the rock reference as being to Peter and also to Christ, to every believer, to the confession of faith, etc, and this multiple interpretation is a far better reading of the linguistic effect in the text: a combination of similarity and difference.

Previously, you proposed that the “rock” mentioned in Matt. 16:18 could not be Peter but must be Christ because of the supposed difference between petra and petros. In return, I replied with three of the earliest Christian writers I could find at the time, (those listed in Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1,) who make overt reference to Matt. 16:18 and who, despite the supposed difference between petra and petros, all understood Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church mentioned in Matt. 16:18.

Since then, I have done a more thorough search of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers at www.ccel.org, using their prepared index of scriptural references for each volume in the Ante-Nicene series, except Volume 5 and 6 which I had to google. The results of my search are presented below. Hermas, whom you offered, is not included in the index of scriptural references for Matt.16:18, probably because the Protestant editors did not feel he was making an overt reference to Matt. 16:18, though he does use similar imagery.

Search results:

Tertullian (A.D. 200)
Prescription Against Heretics, Chap. 22.
Rock = Peter

Tertullian (after A.D. 213)
On Monogamy, Chap. 8.
Rock = Peter

Tertullian (A.D. 220)
On Modesty, Chap. 21.
Rock = Peter

Hippolytus (d. A.D. 235)
The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, par. 9.
a little ambiguous about just who the rock of the Church is but it seems to be Peter:
"By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251/256)
On the Unity of the Catholic Church, par. 4.
Rock = Peter.

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 256)
On the Advantage of Patience, par. 9.
Rock = Peter.

Pseudo-Clementine Literature (3rd or 4th cent. A.D.)
The Clementine Homilies, homily 17, chap. 19.
Rock = Peter.

Origen (about A.D. 230)
Commentary on the Gospel of John, From the Fifth Book, par. 3.
Rock = Peter.

Origen (A.D. 244 - 253)
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 12, chap. 10, 11, 14.
Rock = Peter, and all who imitate Peter in professing Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Some of these early Christians say “Peter” and some say “Peter and others” but none of them seem to have been bothered by the supposed difference between petra and petros and they all seem to agree that the rock of Matt. 16:18 is principally Peter, not Christ. Christ is a Rock, the Rock of rocks, but He is not the rock mentioned in Matt. 16:18.

 

[jmcrae]

The Roman Catholic Church is, if you will forgive the analogy, in a similar position regarding the consensus: its consensus is internal. Few people outside of the Roman Catholic Church view it as possessing the fullness of Truth. Do you imagine that that is because 5/6 of the population of the world are stupid?

Fewer than 1/6 of the world’s population deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the Christianity that was founded by Jesus of Nazareth.

Granted, more than 2/3 of the world’s population either denies or has never heard of the divinity of Christ - but they do understand that Jesus, a Jewish rabbi from Nazareth, founded a religion called “Christianity” whose modern successors are the members of what we today call “the Roman Catholic Church,” and that the man we call “the Pope” traces his succession back to the Apostle Peter, whom Jesus placed in charge of the religion (Christianity) that he founded, shortly before his death.

We see this in the recent world-wide news coverage of Pope John Paul II’s death and the election of Pope Benedict. Even newspapers that pride themselves on their secular atheism and from religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism were publishing lists of the Popes and pointing out that this is the leadership of the religion that was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, a teacher and healer of Israel during the first century of the Common Era, and commenting how amazing it is that such an institution has endured these ~2000 years.

 

[ismaelaleknery]

i say that peter is the rock. hello everyone im new

 

[jmcrae]

Welcome!! :dancing:

 

[MrS]

However, I wonder whether you missed the comparative in “a greater degree” of trust in such arrangements. This does not indicate absolute faith, merely more faith than in other things: this may be why I have more faith in the early Fathers than in later theologians. [1]

Where did Jesus say that the fullness of the Truth is to be found only in the Church of Rome? Considering that it did not exist in his day, I find the ascription somewhat peculiar. [2]

An internal consensus, i.e., a consensus within one party of a multi-party debate, demonstrates more about the culture of that party than it does about the accuracy of its conclusions. There is a vast consensus among the people of China, and has been for over four thousand years, that China is the best country in the world. If a majority of outside commentators agreed, I might be more inclined to believe them.

The Roman Catholic Church is, if you will forgive the analogy, in a similar position regarding the consensus: its consensus is internal. Few people outside of the Roman Catholic Church view it as possessing the fullness of Truth. [3] Do you imagine that that is because 5/6 of the population of the world are stupid?

[1] can’t blame you there… as Fr Corapi has said…we often educate ourselves into imbecility.
However, the Tradition of the Catholic Church…those truths handed down which may or may not be contained in the bible, is a reality.
But you can’t just discount the later theologians. Can you see the need for an authoritative body to make these decisions? I am encouraged by the words of the Lord when He claims “…all power on heaven and earth…”. What He does with it is very direct and very clear. Not only does He give that power to the Apostles, but

[2] then He also promises them that the Paraclete, Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, will come… and lead THEM into ALL TRUTH.

We cannot simply believe all the evidence, all the miracles, all the teachings, all the history, all the witnesses to the real existence of the Savior, and then discount what He said.

[3] Right again… and too many people INSIDE the Catholic Church don’t accept it either. I’m not worried… if we can’t destroy the Church from within with our history of some heretics, many manysinners, numerous weak and immoral leaders… well, I guess the Lord will keep His promise of Matt 16:18.

As to the OP… it is the climax of the Lord asking first
“…who do men say that I am…”
their answers? wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… and they were able to see the Lord - Truth - with their own eyes.
then asking
“…but who do YOU say that I am…”
Only Peter, the Rock, got it right because The Father in Heaven showed him the Truth.

And every successor since then has the same grace… sometimes to be guided into only silence and an unimpressive papacy… sometimes to be the voice of God in matters of Faith and Morals, and
“… he who hears you, hears Me…”

.

 

[MrS]

Previously, you proposed that the “rock” mentioned in Matt. 16:18 could not be Peter but must be Christ because of the supposed difference between petra and petros. …

Since then, I have done a more thorough search of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers at www.ccel.org, using their prepared index of scriptural references for each volume in the …
Search results:

Tertullian (A.D. 200)
Prescription Against Heretics, Chap. 22.
Rock = Peter

Tertullian (after A.D. 213)
On Monogamy, Chap. 8.
Rock = Peter

Tertullian (A.D. 220)
On Modesty, Chap. 21.
Rock = Peter

Hippolytus (d. A.D. 235)
The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, par. 9.
a little ambiguous about just who the rock of the Church is but it seems to be Peter: "By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251/256)
On the Unity of the Catholic Church, par. 4.
Rock = Peter.

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 256)
On the Advantage of Patience, par. 9.
Rock = Peter.

Pseudo-Clementine Literature (3rd or 4th cent. A.D.)
The Clementine Homilies, homily 17, chap. 19.
Rock = Peter.

Origen (about A.D. 230)
Commentary on the Gospel of John, From the Fifth Book, par. 3.
Rock = Peter.

Origen (A.D. 244 - 253)
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 12, chap. 10, 11, 14.
Rock = Peter, and all who imitate Peter in professing Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Some of these early Christians say “Peter” and some say “Peter and others” but none of them seem to have been bothered by the supposed difference between petra and petros and they all seem to agree that the rock of Matt. 16:18 is principally Peter, not Christ. Christ is a Rock, the Rock of rocks, but He is not the rock mentioned in Matt. 16:18.

good post Todd

 

[jmcrae]

It’s also worth noting that the ante-Nicene Fathers were native speakers of the dialect of Greek that was used in the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[Mystophilus]

Previously, you proposed that the “rock” mentioned in Matt. 16:18 could not be Peter but must be Christ

Could you please quote for me the exact passage in that post of mine which you imagined to say that the rock could not be Peter? The reason why I ask you to do this is because I never intended any such thing, could never in good conscience read the Greek so, nor, rereading that post, can I see where it might be claimed that I did.

In that post, I reacted against the popular historical inaccuracy that πετρος ‘being a C1st invention’, and against the popular linguistic inaccuracy of πετρος being ‘merely a masculinised form of πετρα’.

That was all that I said, and all that I meant. I begin to fear that you are ascribing to my words some agenda which I do not have. Here is my agenda: I am a literature student, and a classicist. I abhor inaccurate representations of terms, of history, and of texts; I abhor poor scholarship which ignores data which are inconvenient to its preconceptions, as opposed to good scholarship, which suspends judgement and draws contingent conclusions from the data which it has.

because of the supposed difference between petra and petros.

I like the “supposed difference”. Here is the difference between πετρα and πετρος.

Now, the source is the most reputable Greek lectionary in use in the world today. It is so regarded because of the enormous amount of work which continues to go into the collation and analysis of examples of usage of these terms in Greek texts. When a scholar finds a new usage of a term, s/he contacts the LSJ, and the reference is noted.

If you look at those two entries, you will see that they are different: there are two entries, not one. Note “(dist[inguishe]d. from petra, q. v.)” in the entry for πετρος. If you look closely, you will also see that there is a distinct overlap between them. Note particularly the denotation A.3. for πετρα: “mass of rock or boulder”. Note also the strong morphological similarity: both come from the root form ΠΕΤΡ, which means that they are related to each other, and to the twenty-odd other words formed from that root.

Thus, the usage of the term πετρα in Greek texts was to refer to a mass of stone. Most often, this was a contiguous mass, such as a cliff, or the bedrock. However, it could also be used to refer to a very, very large boulder, emphasising its massiveness. The usage of πετρος was to refer to a separate piece of stone, as opposed to that contiguous mass. In texts such as Flavius Josephus’ C1st Jewish War, for example, πετρος is used for the kind of stones which soldiers throw at each other, and πετρα for the kind of lumps which they heave off fortifications to flatten the besiegers below.

Now, the text in question:
καγω δε σοι λεγω 'οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτηι τηι πετραι οικοδομησω μου την εκκλεησιαν και πυλαι 'αιδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης. (Mt 16:18)
(I also - and - to you - I say - that - you - are - the separate stone - and - upon - this - the - mass of stone - I will build - of me - the - church - and - gates - of Hades - not - will overcome - it.)

If you are not sure about any of those, you can visit [this site](Matthew 16.1), noting that their verse separation is a little different (being from the W-H edition), click on any of the terms, and it will crosslink you to the inflection notation, which is crosslinked to the LSJ. In the inflection notation, you can click on the terms, and it will link you to an explanation. If you have no Greek, but do have patience, you can translate it word by word for yourself.

The writer of Matthew could have chosen different terms there. He could have written επι τουτωι τωι παγωι, had he wished to emphasise the stability of the foundation, and to establish a connection between it and the Temple Mount. He could have written επι τουτωι τωι λιθωι, had he wished to use the most common form for ‘rock’ in the Bible texts. He could have written επι τουτωι τωι πετρωι, *had he wished to establish an identity between Peter and the foundation/ι]. Instead, he used a term which was not the same as that for Peter, but which no reader of Greek could imagine to be unconnected.

…>*

 

[Mystophilus]

(continuation)
I do not know if you are familiar with the term 'ομοουσιος, but it was the outcome of the Christological debate around the First Council of Nicaea. It means that two things are ‘of the same substance’, and was there applied to the Father and the Son. It also applies here. The undifferentiated mass of the πετρα, and the πετρος which is one individual part of it, are of the same substance.

In other words, what that text says in Greek is “You are the [one stone], and upon this [material] I will build my church.” The πετρα is πετρος-and-everything-like-him. Peter is here singled out as the exemplar; first and foremost (and therein is your Petrine supremacy) of many (and there is your καθολικη εκκλησια, your Unified-and-Universal Church).

It is for this reason that the early church Fathers present those different readings of the passage: πετρα = Christ; πετρα = confession; πετρα = all Christians; πετρα = Peter. It is for this reason that one writer could present one reading in one sentence, and then another in the next sentence. The πετρος-πετρα interplay is an impressively artistic piece of writing which does not merely admit to, but actually demands of the reader, multiple, simultaneous interpretations. None of these readings can be described as invalid; all are good interpretations.

Nevertheless, some people would reduce this art to a mere eccentricity of the writer: “Oh, he did not mean to do that. X just equals Y; there was no depth there whatsoever.” Please do not imagine that I would do such a thing.

 

[Mystophilus]

Fewer than 1/6 of the world’s population deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the Christianity that was founded by Jesus of Nazareth.

Granted, more than 2/3 of the world’s population either denies or has never heard of the divinity of Christ - but they do understand that Jesus, a Jewish rabbi from Nazareth, founded a religion called “Christianity” whose modern successors are the members of what we today call “the Roman Catholic Church,”

Can you demonstrate that the 2/3 of the world’s population who are not Christians think that modern Christianity exists exclusively within the Roman Catholic Church?

The amazement at the durability of an institution is one thing, but I have seen from my own experience of teaching (Muslim) West Asian and (atheist, Shinto, and Buddhist) East Asian students that very few of them have any consciousness whatsoever of the differences between the different denominations of Christianity, in much the same way that few Christians know the difference between Hinayana and Mahayana. Many of them talk about ‘Christians’ and ‘Catholics’ as two separate groups, largely because much of their formative contact with English is via American Protestants.