The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

[BobRyan]

Bob said --

NO example of the NT saints "praying to the dead" as the RCC teaches mankind to do.

NO examle of ANY NT saint calling Mary "The Mother of God" - NOT even ONE.

NO example of ANY NT saint praying FOR a dead relative that they should leave purgatory! -- NOT EVEN ONE.

The list goes on. You get the point.
Still no challeng to that? No "actual" verse?

LastDaze said -
Neither can we find ONE example of the Church of scripture being literally thousands of separatist ecclesial governments that do not share one ecclesial body, that have endless schismatic divisions, that share no united teaching for all churches,

Is it your position that the Catholic church did NOT "divide" into eastern and Roman Catholic schisms?

Is it your position that Martin Luther was not a Catholic, trained by the Catholic church etc?

The fact is that the RCC is the "center" of all major schisms in history if not the cause.

that contain no authorized bishopric dating to the apostles,

All Christian churches today can trace their roots back to the apostles through some group of other Christians that gave rise to the current set. (No news there).

The RCC has no more right to claim that Peter was a Roman Catholic than Baptist do to claim that Peter was a Baptist.

In fact - given the fact that Peter never taught Purgatory, Never called Mary "the Mother of God", Never prayed TO or FOR the dead, never baptized an infant, never claimed to forgive sins... one could argue that though he was not a Southern Baptist - he WAS MUCH MORE Southern Baptist than Roman Catholic!

Finally - your approach above seems to argue that ALL other Christian groups must fit into ONE church and defennd schisms as just and true WHILE the RCC denomination must only defend its own unified clergy and does not have to take the blame for all the schisms IT started!

A fascinating kind of argument you make!

And what about the RCC owning up to the millions of Christians it slaughters BY POLICY of "extermination" see the (Lateran IV council for examples)


Notice how you try to lump ALL non-RC churches into one giant organization and acccuse them of not all agreeing?? That would be like me blaming RCC because the RCC and Baptists don't agree!!

How much sense does that make??

LastDaze

that do not share ministers between all churches, that do not receieve all members both in fellowship and greeting, and which have no effective excommunication.

Your argument here is hard to follow. WHY should "WE" expect all non-Catholic churches to behave TOGETHER any different than Catholics and Baptist relate TOGETHER??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />jcf: Where else can we obtain God's nature if we don't use His word and His word alone to get it. It's in His word that we find God's thoughts and His character revealed in detail.

We do participate in God's nature through His Word and His Word is Christ, the Eternal Logos. We are united with the Word in baptism and are nourished by the Word Himself in the Holy Eucharist.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hi DT,

What I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears.

The eternal word dwelt in Jesus and Jesus had to be obedient to it, in other words, when Jesus obeyed the word it is said, the word became flesh, it was lived out in Jesus through His obedience.

Hebrews 5:8 Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

YAHWEH, the eternal word was in Jesus reconciling the world.

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

YAHWEH gave Jesus His Spirit without measure so that Jesus could speak the Father's words.

John 3:34 God sent Jesus. Jesus speaks the words of God, because God gave him the Spirit without limit.

YAHWEH said He would send a prophet like Moses for among the brethren to speak His words.

Deuteronomy 18:18 "I (YAHWEH) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

Now, as far as water baptism goes. We are baptized (washed) with words.

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

This why Paul said, I come not to baptize (with water) but to preach (wash with words).

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

The literal water baptism was of John as a shadow of what was to come through Christ.

Mark 11:30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

Mark 1:8 "I (John) indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

As far as being spiritually nourished by a cookie this is not so for the kingdom of God is not in what we eat.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

What we eat can neither make us unrighteous nor can it make us righteous.

Mark 7:14-19 Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen," he said, "and try to understand. Your souls aren't harmed by what you eat, but by what you think and say!" Then he went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had just made. "Don't you understand either?" he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't harm your soul? For food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the digestive system."

 

[BobRyan]

The eternal word dwelt in Jesus and Jesus had to be obedient to it, in other words, when Jesus obeyed the word it is said, the word became flesh, it was lived out in Jesus through His obedience.

In the beginning was the WORD the WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD! (John 1)

In that SAME context John 1 ALSO says "THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

There is no OTHER context in all of scripture in which the statement "the WORD BECAME FLESH" is available so as to find ANOTHER meaning.

The WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD even BEFORE God the Son was incarnated. (according to the chapter) so when the WORD BECOMES something - it is the SAME WORD of the context set by John 1.

This is impossible to escape.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The RCC is blatantly wrong on so000 many points (Purgatory, infant baptism, Popery, Mariolotry, murdering the saints, infallability, tradition over doctrine...) -- why on earth would you water down a focus on those gross errors with this debate on the Trinity??

What a perfect ploy for the RCC member to use here to defocus the thread away from the clear and blatant errors of the RCC that all can see.

Why not put the Trinity discussion in the parking lot for the sake of clear focus - or at least start it as it's own thread??

Bob

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The RCC is blatantly wrong on so000 many points (Purgatory, infant baptism, Popery, Mariolotry, murdering the saints, infallability, tradition over doctrine...) -- why on earth would you water down a focus on those gross errors with this debate on the Trinity??

What a perfect ploy for the RCC member to use here to defocus the thread away from the clear and blatant errors of the RCC that all can see.

Why not put the Trinity discussion in the parking lot for the sake of clear focus - or at least start it as it's own thread??

Bob

Hi Bob,

The trinity doctrine is the foundation of the RCC and is why thousands of Christians were murdered for their refusing to receive this teaching. The trinity doctrine was formed by way of the Nicene Creed not the Apostles creed nor the Scriptures. It's a doctrine that interprets verses to make them fit a trinity God. As a result of the Nicene Creed a curse was put on anyone who refused the outcome of the council of Nicea. Those who refuse the Nicene Creed are to be excommunicated from the church and not to be counted as a Christian. Many saints of God were murdered as result. This is the spirit behind the trinity doctrine, it's not of God. Many false doctrine grew from the trinity doctrine such as Mary being the mother of God, Mary being born without sin, the immortal soul, the preexistence of Christ, Jesus not really dying and many others.

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The eternal word dwelt in Jesus and Jesus had to be obedient to it, in other words, when Jesus obeyed the word it is said, the word became flesh, it was lived out in Jesus through His obedience.

In the beginning was the WORD the WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD! (John 1)

In that SAME context John 1 ALSO says "THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

There is no OTHER context in all of scripture in which the statement "the WORD BECAME FLESH" is available so as to find ANOTHER meaning.

The WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD even BEFORE God the Son was incarnated. (according to the chapter) so when the WORD BECOMES something - it is the SAME WORD of the context set by John 1.

This is impossible to escape.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Bob,

It's the words of Jesus' Father that dwelt in Jesus.

Deuteronomy 18:18 I (YAHWEH) will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my (YAHWEH's) words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I (YAHWEH) shall command him.

Jesus also had His own words but He did not speak his own words.

John 7:16-18 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Jesus had His own will but He did not do His own will.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Jesus was a man who was born of a virgin as a sign to us that YAHWEH is with us, not that Jesus is YAHWEH. It was the sign of the virgin birth that showed us that YAHWEH was with us.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus' name is not Immanuel and he was never called Emmanuel, Jesus' name represents the fact the YAHWEH is with us (for us, not against us).

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Is it your position that Martin Luther was not a Catholic, trained by the Catholic church etc?

The fact is that the RCC is the "center" of all major schisms in history if not the cause.

In Christ,

Bob

I have to say that I find this statement somewhat bizarre. What about Anglicanism? I think you'll find that that was down to a certain King Henry. What about Methodism (split from Anglicanism)? Pentecostalism (deriving from Methodism)? Plymouth Brethren (from Church of Ireland)? House Churches/ charismatic movement (split from Free Evangelical Churches)? And, of course, the Baptists (split from Anglicanism)? That's just a few of the English-speaking sects and denominations. What on earth had the Catholic Church to do with those schisms?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Claudia_T]

What is the cause of Divisions in the Church?

Romanists have persisted in bringing against Protestants the charge of heresy and willful separation from the true church. But these accusations apply rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. It is they who caused the original division in Christianity.

However, many Protestants then did their own part in causing even further divisions in the church for various reasons.

Human theories and speculations will never lead to an understanding to God's word. Those who suppose that they understand philosophy think that their explanations are necessary to unlock the treasures of knowledge and to prevent heresies from coming into the church. But it is these explanations that have brought in false theories and heresies. Men have made desperate efforts to explain what they thought to be intricate scriptures; but too often their efforts have only darkened that which they tried to make clear. For instance, when the Bible plainly says things like: 1Jn:2:3: "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." 1Jn:2:4: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Rv:22:14: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Mt:19:17: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" --they do not want to accept such plain statements as truth but instead seek to twist the Word of God, for the same reason the Jewish leaders did, they can see it would involve a cross, if they were to follow the Word of God.

The priests and Pharisees thought they were doing great things as teachers by putting their own interpretation upon the word of God, but Christ said of them, "Ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. He charged them with the guilt of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7. Though they were the teachers of the oracles of God, though they were supposed to understand His word, they were not doers of the word. Satan had blinded their eyes that they should not see its true import.

This is the work of many in our day. Many churches are guilty of this sin. There is danger, great danger, that the supposed wise men of today will repeat the experience

Page 111
of the Jewish teachers. They falsely interpret the divine oracles, and souls are brought into perplexity and shrouded in darkness because of their misconception of divine truth.
The Scriptures need not be read by the dim light of tradition or human speculation. As well might we try to give light to the sun with a torch as to explain the Scriptures by human tradition or imagination. God's holy word needs not the torchlight glimmer of earth to make its glories distinguishable. It is light in itself--the glory of God revealed, and beside it every other light is dim.

God does not conceal His truth from men. By their own course of action they make it obscure to themselves. Christ gave the Jewish people abundant evidence that He was the Messiah; but His teaching called for a decided change in their lives. They saw that if they received Christ, they must give up their cherished maxims and traditions, their selfish, ungodly practices. It required a sacrifice to receive changeless, eternal truth. Therefore they would not admit the most conclusive evidence that God could give to establish faith in Christ. They professed to believe the Old Testament Scriptures, yet they refused to accept the testimony contained therein concerning Christ's life and character. They were afraid of being convinced lest they should be converted and be compelled to give up their preconceived opinions.

The treasure of the gospel, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, was among them, but they rejected the greatest gift that Heaven could bestow.

"Among the chief rulers also many believed on Him," we read; "but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." John 12:42. They were convinced; they believed Jesus to be the Son of God; but it was not in harmony with their ambitious desires to confess Him. They had not the faith that would have secured for them the heavenly treasure. They were seeking worldly treasure.

And today men are eagerly seeking for earthly treasure. Their minds are filled with selfish, ambitious thoughts. For the sake of gaining worldly riches, honor, or power, they place the maxims, traditions, and requirements of men above the requirements of God. From them the treasures of His word are hidden.

Disobedience has closed the door to a vast amount of knowledge that might have been gained from the Scriptures. Understanding means obedience to God's commandments. The Scriptures are not to be adapted to meet the prejudice and jealousy of men. They can be understood only by those who are humbly seeking for a knowledge of the truth that they may obey it.

Do you ask, What shall I do to be saved? You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God's word.

 

[wopik]

the universal church incorporated all the old pagan religions under its umbrella, that's why it's called the universal church.

The pagan religions formed a single, catholic faith at Rome.

 

[wopik]

that's the reason we still keep the mythraic sunday and dec. 25 dates.

that's why we still keep the old resurrection customs of Attis, Osiris and Ishtar (pronounced Easter).

The Apostles kept none of this pagan stuff.


http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/sabbath_to_sunday/3.html

 

[Logan]

Greetings Wopick, You stated:

The pagan religions formed a single, catholic faith at Rome.

In what year did the these pagans form this faith in Rome? Who was in charge of the religion? What were some of their beliefs that differ from your opinion of christianity?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb] Is it your position that Martin Luther was not a Catholic, trained by the Catholic church etc?

The fact is that the RCC is the "center" of all major schisms in history if not the cause.

Originally posted by Matt Black:

I have to say that I find this statement somewhat bizarre. What about Anglicanism? I think you'll find that that was down to a certain King Henry. What about Methodism (split from Anglicanism)? Pentecostalism (deriving from Methodism)? Plymouth Brethren (from Church of Ireland)? House Churches/ charismatic movement (split from Free Evangelical Churches)? And, of course, the Baptists (split from Anglicanism)? That's just a few of the English-speaking sects and denominations. What on earth had the Catholic Church to do with those schisms?

AS it turns out - the protestants were protesting the church of the "Holy Roman Empire" so "yes" the protestant denominations WERE started primarily by CATHOLIC founders.

As for England - the name of "Wycliff" comes to mind - a CATHOLIC theologian leading the way for the reformation even BEFORE Luther!

Knox, Calvin, Luther, Wycliff, Zwingli, Lefevre, Berquin in France, Menno Simons in Holland, Tausen in Denmark all trained by the RCC and most ordained as priests or having obtained the rank of theologian.

Then again - there is always the entire EASTERN ORTHODOX Church!...

EVERY church in existence today traces its founding BACK to those groups ALL of which were started by Catholic clergy or theologians.

And then the RCC has the nerve to pretend that any one SINGLE non-RC denomination must take on "responsibility" FOR ALL splits spawned by Catholicism in order to be non-Catolic "still". What a warpped sense of logic they use!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Wopick stated:

The pagan religions formed a single, catholic faith at Rome.

Originally posted by Logan:
In what year did the these pagans form this faith in Rome? Who was in charge of the religion? What were some of their beliefs that differ from your opinion of christianity? [/QB]

Hmm lets see what Catholics say ..

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.

How much influence did this have on the RCC “really”?

Ibid - Pg 39

"the alliance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life. It carried many advantages, but it also entailed
some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world."

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand.

Pagan prayer methods.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

..


Paganism missing a commandment

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129

You ask about the Buddhists having anything like the Ten Commandments to go by. The answer is that have Nine of the Ten. Only the specific seventh day being held holy would be Beyond the reach of ordinary right reason.”

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It has recently been pointed out on another thread that facts like this pagan connection - coming to light - merely makes some Catholics even more delighted with their church.

To each his own. As long as you are getting what you are looking for ...

I am just trying to make sure you have the light to make informed choices.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Logan]

Greetings Bob,

That was all very nice but, I was looking for something more concrete. Such as some actual writings from the Christians of those days and prior to Constantine, not just some modern person person's opinion. What did the people like (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Ireanaus, Justin etc..) believe. What did they teach about baptism and other doctrines in dispute among Christians of today?

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, you didn't mention any of the denominations cited in my post! Come on: was Methodism started by a Catholic? Was Pentecostalism?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Matt you didn't mention any of the reformers cited in my post.

Is it your claim that Wesley did not read from the works of the reformers?

Is it your claim that that the writings of Catholic reformers did not influence Wesley at all?

Is it your claim that Welsey would not have been born and trained as a Catholic EVEN without the Catholic reformers having set the stage for him?

Is it your claim that even without Wycliff the reformation would have started anyway and England would have broken away without any Catholic reformers exposing the errors of the RCC and perparing the people to re-think their loyalty to Rome?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Logan:
Greetings Bob,

That was all very nice but, I was looking for something more concrete. Such as some actual writings from the Christians of those days and prior to Constantine, not just some modern person person's opinion. What did the people like (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Ireanaus, Justin etc..) believe. What did they teach about baptism and other doctrines in dispute among Christians of today?

I was just trying to point out the fact that the Roman Catholic experts on history "already" admit to this documented historic problem of paganism and the RCC.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for Augustine...

In the person of Barlaam, the East rejected Augustinian theology. The East perceived that Augustine accepts the neo-Platonic presupposition that the saint is able to have vision of the divine essence as the archetype of all beings. Barlaam contended under the influence of neo-Platonism that through ekstasis, the reason going out of the body when it functions in a pure way, one has a vision of the divine archetype. Palamas calls this the Greek pagan error and maintained that man attains theosis through participation in the divine energies.[12]

Later, for political reasons, the Byzantine emperors sought union with Rome to save the empire. The Emperor, the Patriarch and a delegation came to Ferrara in 1438 to participate at a council with the pope and bring about union between the Greeks and the Latins.

In the debate between the Greeks and the Latins, numerous times the authority of Augustine came up. The adamant Greek Orthodox theologian, Mark Eugenikos, used the work of Augustine to support his views. In regard to the errors of Augustine, he tried to place him in the best possible light, following the example of Saint Photios. He makes reference to Saint Gregory of Nyssa who agreed with the Origenist doctrines. He says "it would be better to give them over to silence, and not at all compel us, for the sake of our own defence, to bring them out into the open."[13]

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

The pagan influence on the early 3rd and 4th century church is as stated by the RC historians previously quoted.

In Christ,

Bob