Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[rovimax]

Then most on this forum must be confused about what Church teaching says. Btw Protetsants recite the Apostles Creed. Catholic means universal as in the one holy universal church.

I recite the Apostle’s Creed wholly when I completed my return in the RCC in 2000. Sorry I forgot to write about it…

 

[graceandglory]

Grace, you’re welcome but I’m not Javi. I’m sure it was an honest mistake. Peace and God bless!

Weird, I knew I was responding to you. Glad you caught it!

 

[rovimax]

Some Catholics BELIEVE their Church will not go astray. There’s a difference. And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean if someone believes otherwise that they believe Jesus abandoned His Church. Jesus would never do that. He told us the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It really depends on what your belief is about the definition of church. If you believe it to be the institution called the Roman Catholic Church, then you might be correct. But if like other Christians, one believes the Church is the the entire body of Christ believers, then Christ I’m certain would be capable of correction and reformation when needed, to in fact ensure the gates of hell do not prevail against it.

Hi Lib,

An institution only exists if it has members/persons representing it. Am I correct? Same as you and other Christians, we believe that the Church is the Body of Christ, Jesus is the Head of the Church. But we must remember that Jesus established Only One Church.So in this One Church there is only One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism. That’s why Paul stressed that the Church unity must be preserved. In 1Cor 12, Paul explained that as Christ’s Body although we are of different parts, there should be no divission. If one part of the body suffers all the other part suffers with it, if one part is praised then the other parts shares its happiness. So if Christians are divided like the different Protestant denominations, can we still call them in the name of One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism? That is why Angels will rejoice if one sinner was saved bacause members will go astray. Yes both you and I agree that the Church at times will need reformation same as a body who got sick and needs a Doctor.

In James 5:16 … it was written that the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

In John 17 Jesus prayed for the Apostle’s ( Apostle’s are part of the Church ) that they may be One just as the Father and Jesus are One.

Jesus is righteous no question about it. His prayer was heard and done. Divided Christians with their own denominations will have to prove if their Church was established by Jesus.

 

[Lib_Christian]

We should strive to fit our theology to scriptures.

Again you missed the entire point of the passage you provided. They searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching them was there in the Old Testament. Even with Paul teaching them, ‘many’ of them believed, not ALL of them believed. So, searching the scriptures, ALL of them did not find the truth or have FAITH. But then, you skipped that and jumped to a pre-determined notion on the other passage.

Now, please show where God inspired it be written that each ‘infant’ should teach themselves the scriptures? Again, you missed the point, they knew the scriptures since their infancy because the scriptures had been TAUGHT to them, orally.

Prod, I agree. That’s why I read Scripture to see if the theology I’ve been taught fits for me. But that’s fine, you can do it the other way around if that’s what works for you. Yes so not all found faith. Not all find faith today either. We have non Christians, agnostics, and atheists who haven’t found the faith either. I’ve already shown you. You just missed the point. I became a Catholic at 1 month old. So I also had Scripture taught to me orally. And then when I became of age I could read it for myself. You just choose not to believe when God wrote Scripture that he intended these verses to mean the whole Scripture available to us at the time we are being taught or reading it. You choose to believe it was only for the OT. I understand at the time Paul wrote they were searching the OT because it was the Scripture available at the time. But now we have more Scripture. But it’s absolutely fine for you to believe whatever you want. I have no problem with that. Peace and God bless!

 

[Lib_Christian]

OK, here’s a challenge to my Protestant and Eastern Orthodox brethren, and to the other people who deny that Simon, the person became the Rock. In the following passages, taken from John Chapter 1, a bunch of people confess that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, starting with St. John the Baptist, and ending with Nathanael who is one of the 12 Apostles. Yet, ONLY Simon was renamed later as Cephas (Rock). Moreover, here when Simon meets Jesus, Jesus immediately greets him with this prophesy (verse 42): “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

Why? Why rename Simon only, and not St. John the Baptist, as well as John, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael the Apostles?? They also confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, yet Jesus didn’t tell them that they were going to be renamed as Cephas??

And how about the man possessed by the devil? The devil also confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, and yet Jesus didn’t tell him that he was going to build his Church on the devil, or on the devil’s confession?

How about the practicing homosexual Bishops in certain Christian denominations, who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, but teach that the practice of homosexuality and artificial birth control are not sinful? Is Jesus Christ’s glorious Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail, also built on them?

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm

I’m not Jesus. None of us were there. John the Baptist wasn’t an Apostle. Perhaps because Jesus was building His Church at the time Simon said what he said. Why would Jesus build his church on what the devil in hell said?

First of all you should study other faiths to see their explanations about their beliefs on homsexuality. But you don’t honestly want to go there about people teaching against homosexuality and then practicing it, do you? You are a Catholic, right? You don’t think there are any practicing homosexuals teaching in the Catholic Church? What about teaching that child molestation is wrong but then practicing it and covering it up?

 

[ConfusedTim]

I find this perplexing. Viewed from a Catholic perspective the bible cleary provides evidence that Peter was the Rock and first pope. On the other hand protestants say this is not the case and decide to interpret scripture differently. Rather than leave it at that and have endless disagreements the sensible thing to do is to review other supporting historical evidence. When this is done it is absolutley clear that Peter was seen as the first Pope and that by the time the last book of the NT was written there had been 5 successors. What more is there to discuss?

 

[Lib_Christian]

I find this perplexing. Viewed from a Catholic perspective the bible cleary provides evidence that Peter was the Rock and first pope. On the other hand protestants say this is not the case and decide to interpret scripture differently. Rather than leave it at that and have endless disagreements the sensible thing to do is to review other supporting historical evidence. When this is done it is absolutley clear that Peter was seen as the first Pope and that by the time the last book of the NT was written there had been 5 successors. What more is there to discuss?

I agree different perspectives on what is clear. I guess if someone wanted they could discuss on where the Church strayed and needed reformed from a Protestant perspective. But it would go in circles too. Different perspectives again.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

If you protest Catholic teaching you are not a Protestant? Do you know what a Protestant is? It’s one who Protests, and who protests Catholic teachings, etc.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

**In 1791 the Roman Catholic leadership in England wrote to the House of Lords describing themselves as,’ Protestant Catholic Dissenters’.[Ch.Def. Robinson pg, 39.Cal.DP.H.L]

By the way the classical definition of protestant is, according to my Funk and Wagner, a Lutheran!**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I find this perplexing. Viewed from a Catholic perspective the bible cleary provides evidence that Peter was the Rock and first pope. On the other hand protestants say this is not the case and decide to interpret scripture differently. Rather than leave it at that and have endless disagreements the sensible thing to do is to review other supporting historical evidence. When this is done it is absolutley clear that Peter was seen as the first Pope and that by the time the last book of the NT was written there had been 5 successors. What more is there to discuss?

Trent, the founding conference of the modern Roman Church claimed that to be properly understood scripture had to be seen through the understanding of tthe Holy fathers! Very few of whom believe that Peter was either the first pope, and even less that Peter was the Rock!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Are you honestly suggesting that the Catholic Church currently has four popes? Or would it be more accurate to say that there is one validly elected pope and three nut cases?

**Touchy arn’t you! They describe themselves as popes, you can gt their blogs or whatever on the internet! That they might be ,‘nut cases,’
you seem to have some expertise in the matter! I’ll leave it to you? I notice you didn’t argue about the different Roman Catholic Churches!
**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Randy Carson!

so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
[/INDENT]

**This is Salmon’s personal belief, well and good, was he infallible as well? **
I prefer to follow your own Roman] teachings that everything should be interpreted by and through the Fathers and Councils.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

ECFs on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
All very nice and up to your usual standard!

That petr was pre-eminent, who has denied it? I haven’t!
Wheree does it all fall in to Rome’s hand?

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

These things were given to all Apostles.

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Nothing alters does it, did you go to the joseph Stalin school for Apologetics? Repeat it oft enough and someone will listen!
Origen (248 A.D.)

“f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

**Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

**Ambrose **

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

**With all your sterling work on tthese boards, you have learnt very little except you’ve become some sort of a human photocopier.

All these excerpts go to bolster our image of Peter from the fathers! Well and good as far as it goes, though no one is attacking Peter!
Neither the Holy fathers or anyone on this board!
No doubt it makes you feel virtuous, but in fact it reveals just how little you know! The Holy father’s have to be consulted, and you’ve **undoubtedly worked at in the Forum Library! Has no one told you that the fathers have a wider audience? They were a College,[in the most part,] of Bishops. After Christ and tthe Apostles this is what makes the Catholic Church tick. For the defence of the Church against wrong doing, they met in Councils. These are the human base of the Church,Seven Ecumenical Councils and they, through the medium of the fathers , guided by the Hoily Ghost are what you should be looking to! We’ve done the quotes! Look beyond it and at the [official,] Christian world at that time See just what the Bishops, of the first thousand years, say through the Councils!! They do not support your claim, that is why your Church doesn’t refer to them, unless it can’t help doing so.The traditional Catholic Church, that is the Church of the first 500 years doesn’t support the idea of the Papacy.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Dear Luck

May i refer you back to a quote from another poster named Padrej who is an Anglican Bishop and said this about you on the 28th December 09 in the Anglian Thread. I think the same applies here:

As an Anglican Bishop I am appalled at your behavior and misquoting of facts in church history on this thread, but have kept my peace until this point when you hit one of my pet peeves regarding the Bible. If you are going to be an Anglican be an Anglican and KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. If you desire to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong and show yourself to be a fool, be my guest and continue to post to this thread.

 

[Javl]

Javi, et al, hopefully this will help. Obviously unless Tweety or I or anyone else has formally requested our bishops to note in our baptismal records a desire to defect, then we are Catholic whether you like it or not. It’s a long letter to copy and paste here due to forum limits. But I have included points here.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS
AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA

Vatican City, 13 March 2006

Prot. N. 10279/2006

Your Excellency:

For quite some time, a considerable number of Bishops, Judicial Vicars and others working in the field of canon law have been posing to this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification concerning the so-called actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica

The issue was carefully examined by the competent Dicasteries of the Holy See in order to identify, first of all, the theological and doctrinal components of an actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica and then in turn the requirements or juridical formalities that **would be necessary so that such an action would constitute a true “formal act” of defection. **

1. **For the abandonment of the Catholic Church to be validly configured as a true actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia so that the exceptions foreseen in the previously mentioned canons would apply, it is necessary that there concretely be:

a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church;
b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and
c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.**

1. The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.
   On the other hand, **heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesiastical authority in the required manner.**4. The defection must be a valid juridical act, placed by a person who is canonically capable and in conformity with the canonical norms that regulate such matters (cfr. cann.124-126). Such an act must be taken personally, consciously and freely.
2. It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will as described above in n. 2.
3. In such cases, the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned above is to provide that **this act be noted in the baptismal registry **
4. **It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by **the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection ****

With the certainty that the Bishops of your Conference, conscious of the salvific dimension of ecclesiastical communion, will well understand the pastoral motivations underlying these norms, I welcome this opportunity to renew my sentiments of fraternal esteem.

Faithfully yours in the Lord,

Julián Card. Herranz
President

Bruno Bertagna
Secretary

---

This notification was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, who directed that it be transmitted to all Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

According to the CCC, (#830) a Catholic is one who accepts and professes the faith, which means all teachings, without dissent. If you dissent, you may call yourself Catholic but in reality are NOT. This IS the teaching of the Magisterium.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, I agree. That’s why I read Scripture to see if the theology I’ve been taught fits for me. But that’s fine, you can do it the other way around if that’s what works for you. Yes so not all found faith. Not all find faith today either. We have non Christians, agnostics, and atheists who haven’t found the faith either. I’ve already shown you. You just missed the point. I became a Catholic at 1 month old. So I also had Scripture taught to me orally. And then when I became of age I could read it for myself. You just choose not to believe when God wrote Scripture that he intended these verses to mean the whole Scripture available to us at the time we are being taught or reading it. You choose to believe it was only for the OT. I understand at the time Paul wrote they were searching the OT because it was the Scripture available at the time. But now we have more Scripture. But it’s absolutely fine for you to believe whatever you want. I have no problem with that. Peace and God bless!

The problem I see is a person thinking they can interpret scriptures for themselves. We have thousands of denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines, all based on someone’s private interpretation and all claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit reveal different truths that conflict with each other?

In Nehemiah 8, the people had scriptures explained to them by those of ‘authority’, no one was interpreting scriptures for themselves. In Acts 17, the people were searching scriptures based on what they were being taught by Paul, according to the interpretation the authority, Paul, was teaching them. Even with the example Paul wrote to Timothy, we see instruction from the authority.

The point you seemed to have missed, or deliberately avoid, is the fact that it is NOT written in scriptures for people to interpret them for themselves. Scriptures tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and that the manifold wisdom of God can be made known through the Church. The truth of God’s inspired word comes from interpretation. There are not multiple truths that contradict each other.

We do have a New Testament, to go with the Old Testament, but we have to read it in context. You do not get context by taking ‘snippets’ out that seemingly support your theology, or the theology you’ve been taught. You infer I do it the other way around and I’ve repeatedly stated one must fit their theology to scriptures. This seems to indicate a rejection of what is being said, simply because it supports the Catholic position.

 

[Javl]

**In 1791 the Roman Catholic leadership in England wrote to the House of Lords describing themselves as,’ Protestant Catholic Dissenters’.[Ch.Def. Robinson pg, 39.Cal.DP.H.L]

By the way the classical definition of protestant is, according to my Funk and Wagner, a Lutheran!**

What were they protesting in 1791? Also have you checked the definition of Protestant in the dictionary or in Wikipedia?

Yes, Luther was a Protestant, but so were Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Meno, the Wesley brothers, and many others. A Protestant is who who separates himself/herself from the teachings of the Catholic Church. You may consider yourself catholic ( small “c” ) but are not Catholic ( large “C” ) since you do not accept the teachings of the CC ( Magisterium ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree different perspectives on what is clear. I guess if someone wanted they could discuss on where the Church strayed and needed reformed from a Protestant perspective. But it would go in circles too. Different perspectives again.

To accept that the Church needed to be discarded and reformed outside itself, is to say Christ failed in establishing a Church that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against. The differences in doctrines are documented in writings of the early Church fathers, who wrote alot to support Catholic theology.

Some Catholic beliefs were written about by Martin Luther, but some Protestants say, ‘he was just a man and got it wrong…’. Calvin wrote in support of some Catholic beliefs, but again it’s said, ‘he was just a man…’ They were right reforming the Church, but they got their beliefs wrong, when they conflict with more modern thinkers??? That an evident conflict, They were right, when it allows people to decide for themselves, they were wrong when it conflicts with lifestyles and serving God fully. That’s the way it appears…

 

[Lapey]

I’m not Jesus. None of us were there. John the Baptist wasn’t an Apostle. Perhaps because Jesus was building His Church at the time Simon said what he said. Why would Jesus build his church on what the devil in hell said?

First of all you should study other faiths to see their explanations about their beliefs on homsexuality. But you don’t honestly want to go there about people teaching against homosexuality and then practicing it, do you? You are a Catholic, right? You don’t think there are any practicing homosexuals teaching in the Catholic Church? What about teaching that child molestation is wrong but then practicing it and covering it up?

Sir, you keep bringing this up as a weapon against us who believe the Catholic Church to be truth. You are shallow and simple minded if you cannot realize bad people doesn’t make the Church bad. If that would be the case nothing on this planet would be good.

You claim to be “catholic” but you write things that show me you haven’t been to a Catholic Mass in 40 years; Latin mass and no women talking or participating in the liturgy. If you believe these to be true you have not been to mass since Vatican II. You have heard of that, right?

You seem a little angry at the Church, I am curious as to your reason for anger?

But I guess the real question to you and Miss tweety would be, who came to do what??? Did Jesus come to make us all get along and allow things to happen because it is right for that person even though it is not right for me? Did He come to teach me tolerance of what is wrong in the world and ask me to keep my mouth shut and not try to change people and bring them to the truth? Jesus came to change the world, and you want Him to change to the world. Can’t you see any truth in what I write?

Matthew 10:34-39-
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.
For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’
"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

This does not mean it is our duty to hate; we are called to hate sin and love sinners! We are all sinners. It does however mean we will cause people to pull away from us and the Church because we are consistently teaching what is truth.

This weekend was the feast of the Epiphany. The three wise men are a great example of how understanding the truth can affect history:

Matthew 2:12
And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed for their country by another way.

St Thomas Aquinas puts a little spin on this verse, he writes that they went back in a different way; in other words they saw they believed and now faced with the truth that the King is born and the Messiah is here so we must make a change in our lives. Their lives were changed because they came to know Christ!

You may not agree with what the Church teaches or what she asks me to follow as prescripts for leading a moral life, but that doesn’t change the truth. Relative truth is not only dangerous, it is deadly my brother! He who finds his life will lose it, it’s time for you and tweety to find the life Jesus came here to give you. Not the one the world has chosen for you.

This passage above is very powerful, and it should scare anyone who preaches the Gospel of the world, you know what you believe is ok for you just not me. There is a reason the teachings of the Church have been consistent for almost 2000 years, because truth does not change with the times; truth is always truth!

Remember this, who is changing who? Is the Church here to change the world? Or, is the world here to change the Church? Relative truth, it’s the popular way these days. I’ll stick with unpopular living and give my life to Jesus to live for me, even if that means not using birth control.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Dear Luck

May i refer you back to a quote from another poster named Padrej who is an Anglican Bishop and said this about you on the 28th December 09 in the Anglian Thread. I think the same applies here:

**As to whether the Padrej is correct or not, even just how much of a bishop he is a matter for question? I have asked, but have not received a satisfactory answer. If either you, or anyone else think I misquote the facts history on this thread, they should dispute them. Tell my how and where I am wrong! You haven’t even tried. Many have tried, but have not convinced me otherwise. Until they do, or expel me from the site, I shall continue to defend my Church and faith!

Many thanks for your interest!
**

 

[luckyfredsdad]

What were they protesting in 1791? Also have you checked the definition of Protestant in the dictionary or in Wikipedia?

I never use Wiki for religious education or enlighteenment, at least if I have a choice. It seem like a House magazine for the Vatican?

**I was taught at school that classicly protestant was a follower of Luther! A Calvanist was a Reformer and an Anglican was a traditional Catholic. At great trouble , I have just checked again and my Funk and Wagner, tells me that Prot=Luther. Neither my Church nor myself have ever protested against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Medieval accretions, such as Papal Jurisdiction and Infallibility and their consequent deviations or additions yes, also as Wakeham, I think said, protestant subtractions, yes I plead guilty!
In England, 1571 , when the papacy chose to withdraw its supporters from communion with the Church in England, there was some discussion as to what their name should be. The very obvious one was Papist,but this would support the bigots in the idea that Rome was no longer Catholic, but simply sect. It was then they hit on the term Roman
to describe the English followers of Trent. After all, they were followers of the Bishop Of Rome, they had accepted the coup and it would differentiate them from the Traditionalists who were after all
Anglican by birth as it were and English Catholics.
**