Eastern Catholic vs. Western Orthodox?

[John Larocque]

Interesting history at that blog. I was scanning material hosted on Fr. Chadwick's site, which stated that it was Henry VIII and Edward who retired the York and Hereford in favour of Sarum. There was a Sarum-rite revival by Queen Mary. Most Anglo-Catholic historians will tell you that the 1549 BCP is not the Sarum rite, but Cranmer's revision of the rite in a Protestant direction.

Subsequent monarchs then obliterated all the older rites in favour of various flavours of the Book of Common Prayer. Anglo-Catholics had to make do with dressing up the existing BCP, because they were forbidden from celebrating from the actual pre-Cranmer text (Latin or translated  English).

Fr. Chadwick uses this reconstruction:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Sarum.html

This web page of his links to a bunch of  resources including a Russian Orthodox version.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070208083242/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm

There's also a bunch of stuff on Wikipedia as well.
http://civitas.dei.pagesperso-orange.fr/sarum_index.htm

 

[Hermogenes]

^ I am interested in something, Hermogenes.  In light of knowing a tree by the fruit it produces, what is it exactly about the Western Rite in practice that causes the knee-jerk reaction?  Have you seen its use produce bad fruit somewhere along the way?  Have the people you encountered who worship according to the Western Rite seemed less than Orthodox or spiritually malnourished?

I know its a generalization, but I've yet to have a conversation with someone who has said, "You know, I've spent the last 6 months attending a Western Rite parish and I've got to say, it's just missing the mark.  They're missing out on a lot and I'm concerned about their spiritual well-being.  I myself have noticed a marked shift in my spiritual welfare as a result of attending.  I can't wait to get back to the Byzantine Rite."

I know that's extreme, but so much energy is spent dealing with misinformation and misunderstandings and unfounded accusations (none of which I'm accusing you of!) and I just quite honestly don't think that's fair.

We can talk about the Western Rite in theory until our faces turn blue, but is that really going to accomplish anything?  In what other circumstances is it fair to pass judgment upon something, having never experienced it for oneself?

I don't mean to derail this thread.  Please carry on, but if anyone wants to add their thoughts to this, or their own personal experiences with the Western Rite (or even start a new thread if necessary) I'd be highly interested.

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant. In some cases, the people I've talked with had only ever attended the Western Rite.

I should say, I've been a member of a 12-step program for many years, and I remember in the beginning being told quite clearly that no one cared what I preferred or what I liked. They pointed out that I didn't have a very good record of preferring or liking things that were good for me. The same is true of all areas of my spiritual life. I need a guide, a director (or sponsor) who can help me see the good things I would do better to like and prefer.

 

[Sleeper]

^ I am interested in something, Hermogenes.  In light of knowing a tree by the fruit it produces, what is it exactly about the Western Rite in practice that causes the knee-jerk reaction?  Have you seen its use produce bad fruit somewhere along the way?  Have the people you encountered who worship according to the Western Rite seemed less than Orthodox or spiritually malnourished?

I know its a generalization, but I've yet to have a conversation with someone who has said, "You know, I've spent the last 6 months attending a Western Rite parish and I've got to say, it's just missing the mark.  They're missing out on a lot and I'm concerned about their spiritual well-being.  I myself have noticed a marked shift in my spiritual welfare as a result of attending.  I can't wait to get back to the Byzantine Rite."

I know that's extreme, but so much energy is spent dealing with misinformation and misunderstandings and unfounded accusations (none of which I'm accusing you of!) and I just quite honestly don't think that's fair.

We can talk about the Western Rite in theory until our faces turn blue, but is that really going to accomplish anything?  In what other circumstances is it fair to pass judgment upon something, having never experienced it for oneself?

I don't mean to derail this thread.  Please carry on, but if anyone wants to add their thoughts to this, or their own personal experiences with the Western Rite (or even start a new thread if necessary) I'd be highly interested.

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant. In some cases, the people I've talked with had only ever attended the Western Rite.

I should say, I've been a member of a 12-step program for many years, and I remember in the beginning being told quite clearly that no one cared what I preferred or what I liked. They pointed out that I didn't have a very good record of preferring or liking things that were good for me. The same is true of all areas of my spiritual life. I need a guide, a director (or sponsor) who can help me see the good things I would do better to like and prefer.

I see.  Thanks for responding.

 

[Deacon Lance]

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

 

[Irish Hermit]

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

[size=10pt]
And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

Ah!  The Red Sun-Prince!  I believe he rejected Islam and Judaism and also the Western Rite, for various reasons.  The Western Rite was rejected for the reason you give from Dostoyevsky,  IIRC.

 

[Deacon Lance]

Ah!  The Red Sun-Prince!   I believe he rejected Islam and Judaism and also the Western Rite, for various reasons.  The Western Rite was rejected for the reason you give from Dostoyevsky,  IIRC.

The envoys reported: "When we journeyed among the Bulgars, we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and there is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there.

 

[Iconodule]

Ah!  The Red Sun-Prince!   I believe he rejected Islam and Judaism and also the Western Rite, for various reasons.  The Western Rite was rejected for the reason you give from Dostoyevsky,  IIRC.

The envoys reported: "When we journeyed among the Bulgars, we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and there is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there.

Don't forget alcohol, "the joy of the Rus."

 

[Hermogenes]

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

There's quite a bit in the statement you quote besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."

 

[Aristibule]

How do the 1662 and 1928 differ, besides in modernizing the language? Do they have different rites, or are the rites themselves much different?

You can check it out here: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928.htm, as the menu at the bottom shows what was the same from 1662, what was entirely new and what was edited: you can see the changes were substantial. Of course, that matters only in the context of the former comments of our Metropolitan of blessed memory. No one is using the 1928 Proposed English BCP amongst the Western Orthodox. The liturgies we do have are all substantially *more*, and far less ambiguous.

There's quite a bit in the statement you quote besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."

We have our own story encouraging the use of the Orthodox Roman rite (in the English use) which pertains to the local councils of Cloveshoe, specifically Cloveshoe II, which directed that amongst those who spoke the English tongue, the Roman rite was to be followed in all things. (It also directed that those who did not know Latin were to be taught prayers in the English tongue, and to join in by 'intention' with the Latin prayers.) This council was presided over by St. Cuthbert of Canterbury, and at it letters were read from the Patriarch of the West, Pope St. Zachary (the last of the Byzantine Papacy.)

So, there is a very solid, Orthodox, canonical reason to use the Western rite - *especially* the Roman rite in an English use (of which Sarum is the most preeminent) within the Anglosphere.

Other things which the Council of Cloveshoe II encouraged were frequent communion for the laity, that the clergy keep themselves in a state of readiness to partake of the Holy Body & Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that clergy and monks should not wear the dress of the laity.

And, of course - a late quote from the mid-13th c.: "Among the churches of the whole world, the Church of Salisbury shines like the sun in full orb in respect of its divine service and ministries, so far that she spreads her beams on every side, and so corrects the shortcomings of other churches." - Giles de Bridport, Bishop of Salisbury (Sarum)

 

[Irish Hermit]

We have our own story encouraging the use of the Orthodox Roman rite (in the English use) which pertains to the local councils of Cloveshoe, specifically Cloveshoe II, which directed that amongst those who spoke the English tongue, the Roman rite was to be followed in all things. (It also directed that those who did not know Latin were to be taught prayers in the English tongue, and to join in by 'intention' with the Latin prayers.) This council was presided over by St. Cuthbert of Canterbury, and at it letters were read from the Patriarch of the West, Pope St. Zachary (the last of the Byzantine Papacy.)

So, there is a very solid, Orthodox, canonical reason to use the Western rite - *especially* the Roman rite in an English use (of which Sarum is the most preeminent) within the Anglosphere.

Clovesho (I cannot recall which one of them, was it II?) also formulated a canon that the Romen Rite in use at the time was never to be superceded in Britain.  This canon is ignored by the English Orthodox.

Dr Winch Winch emphasizes:  "The canons of Clovesho II have never been rescinded, either by proper authority of the English Church or by any higher magisterium. We English Orthodox are bound to them exactly as churches of the East are bound by their canonically established traditions."

Here is "The Canonical Mass of the English Orthodox"

http://civitas.dei.pagesperso-orange.fr/winch.pdf

 

[Aristibule]

The canon is: "That all the most sacred Festivals of Our Lord made Man, in all things pertaining to the same, viz.: in the Office of Baptism, the celebration of Masses, in the method of chanting, shall be celebrated in one and the same way, namely, according to the sample which we have received in writing from the Roman Church. And also, throughout the course of the whole year, the festivals of the Saints are to be kept on one and the same day, with their proper psalmody and chant, according to the Martyrology of the same Roman Church."

The Canon that the received did remain the same, and was that found in the later books of the English uses - it is simply the Roman canon.

So - the Roman Canon, and other matters, required by the Council of Cloveshoe II are indeed followed by the English Orthodox. We also follow the further directives of the Russian Synod in the 1860s which were carried out with England specifically in mind.

Dr. Raymond Winch's work has some things that fall short. There is some worth in the book, some that is questionable. It reminds me much of the Non-Jurors approach. We have a pdf that was made of the original work without the TAC foreward that was done by Eadmund Dunstall.

 

[Irish Hermit]

/\  Clovesho II formulated 30 canons (or more?).  I especially remember the one about the demand to maintain the liturgy in Britain forever and a day as it was then because Dr Winch made quite a point of it in his correspondence over several years with Fr Jack Witbrock.

Do you know where to find the Canons, on the Net on in a written work?  I suppose that they do not apply to you in the States but they would to people engaged in WR worship in the UK.

 

[Aristibule]

They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

 

[Sleeper]

When I ask why Western Rite, the most common answer I get, even from quite sophisticated people, is some variation of "I just like it better." It's a preference. I'm not saying we don't have a right to preferences, but it seems to me they are not the best determinants when we're dealing with spiritual truths. Even comments like, "It's so beautiful" seem irrelevant.

And yet that is why St. Vladimir chose Byzantine Christianity.

"Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendour or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty." Slav envoys to St. Vladimir

"Beauty will save the world." from The Idiot by Dostoyevsky

There's quite a bit in the statement you quote besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."

And there is quite a bit more to what myself and others have shared besides "I like it" and "It's beautiful."

 

[peterfarrington]

Father Aidan,

Thank you very much for such an engaging and interesting account of your own WR activity. Have you written any of this in more detail anywhere?

I used to have an audio tape of some of your material, but unfortunately it is lost, and I still have the beautiful and comprehensive blue book of prayers.

Do you have any current mp3s of your worship? Or even video? What is the best way to keep up to date with you WR activities?

In Christ

Father Peter

 

[Hermogenes]

They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

The state where I was born and raised was never a colony of England. It was a colony of Spain, and then of Mexico. It was independent for a very brief period in 1848. But gold had been discovered the same year, so ... Now, it is a colony of the United States.

Has anyone else noticed this, the way Brits have a habit of referring to Americans as colonials (sometimes even as "stroppy colonials")? I mean, a small part of the current territory of the US was a British colony until it won its independence 234 years ago, but they refer to the entire country as a colony, like Hong Kong. Because they must know how much people love being talked down to and patronized by the inhabitants of a drizzly little island where they drink warm beer and weak tea and eat food that is classified according to color ("It is my favorite, sir; it is brown").

 

[peterfarrington]

Who refers to the Americans as colonials? Ari is an American not English.

I don't know anyone who calls Americans colonials.

 

[Hermogenes]

Who refers to the Americans as colonials? Ari is an American not English.

I don't know anyone who calls Americans colonials.

Sorry, it was a non-specific rant. I'll try to get a hold of myself.

 

[peterfarrington]

Apology accepted. Now Americans are criminals and rebels against God ordained authorities. I'll allow that.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Apology accepted. Now Americans are criminals and rebels against God ordained authorities. I'll allow that.

Well, not ALL of us, Father! However, there are too many rivals for the Imperial Throne. I prefer the Lascarids myself. Less disappointing than the Paleologoi.  ;D

 

[Hermogenes]

Apology accepted. Now Americans are criminals and rebels against God ordained authorities. I'll allow that.

If we are, we have quite a lot of company.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

If we are, we have quite a lot of company.

It's not a sin if everybody does it.

On a related note, it's nice how an authority is ordained by God if they kill the current king and take his throne, but if you kill the king and burn the throne then you are somehow Godless.

 

[ialmisry]

They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

The state where I was born and raised was never a colony of England. It was a colony of Spain, and then of Mexico. It was independent for a very brief period in 1848. But gold had been discovered the same year, so ... Now, it is a colony of the United States.

Has anyone else noticed this, the way Brits have a habit of referring to Americans as colonials (sometimes even as "stroppy colonials")? I mean, a small part of the current territory of the US was a British colony until it won its independence 234 years ago, but they refer to the entire country as a colony, like Hong Kong. Because they must know how much people love being talked down to and patronized by the inhabitants of a drizzly little island where they drink warm beer and weak tea and eat food that is classified according to color ("It is my favorite, sir; it is brown").

Depending on where you are from, it was part of the Russian Empire.

Doesn't matter. Calfornia, for instance, has adopted the English Common Law, and doesn't go by either the Spanish or Mexican codes, except in case law.

California Civil Code Section 22.2 "The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State."

 

[peterfarrington]

Those who killed King Harold were not doing God's will. Those who killed King Charles were not doing God's will. I don't think it matters if Presidents are removed. But Kings are icons in some sense, and certainly the incarnation of the national family. To kill the King is patricide.

Father Peter

 

[Papist]

^ oh, royalism.  ;D Well, I am with  ya there. I still pray for the King of Spain because I live in New Mexico.

 

[lubeltri]

They would apply to the States, as we are a colony of England, and specifically speak the English tongue - most of us know no other. (We are the fruit of St. Olaf's mission.)  And - I am engaged in worship in the UK as well.

The acts of Cloveshoe II were recorded in a Cottonian manuscript that is now lost, though Spelman had recorded them from that manuscript. Haddan & Stubbs have it in their Councils & Ecclesiastical Documents, though they edited with a bias.

The state where I was born and raised was never a colony of England. It was a colony of Spain, and then of Mexico. It was independent for a very brief period in 1848. But gold had been discovered the same year, so ... Now, it is a colony of the United States.

Has anyone else noticed this, the way Brits have a habit of referring to Americans as colonials (sometimes even as "stroppy colonials")? I mean, a small part of the current territory of the US was a British colony until it won its independence 234 years ago, but they refer to the entire country as a colony, like Hong Kong. Because they must know how much people love being talked down to and patronized by the inhabitants of a drizzly little island where they drink warm beer and weak tea and eat food that is classified according to color ("It is my favorite, sir; it is brown").

Them's fightin' words!

British beer happens to be some of the best in the world, and they have tea brewing down to an art form. As for their food, it can be very good if freshly prepared. "Good plain food," as Tolkien liked to say.

I just had a steak and ale pie with a pint of Fullers today for lunch

-

As a native of New York and a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I do pray for Her Magisty the Queen.

 

[peterfarrington]

Ahhhh. Steak and Ale pie and a pint of Fullers.

Yes, you are right. There is nothing better than English beer. And there are more and more micro-breweries opening all the time. In my own area we have the oldest brewer in the country - Shepherd Neame. And there are so many other great brewers and great beers.

 

[lubeltri]

From my Roman Missal:

    (P) O Lord, save Elizabeth our Queen.

    (R) And hear us in the day when we call upon Thee.

    (P) Let us pray.— Almighty God, we pray for thy servant Elizabeth our Queen, now by thy mercy reigning over us. Adorn her yet more with every virtue, remove all evil from her path, that with her consort, and all the royal family, she may come at last in grace to thee, who are the way, the truth, and the life. Through Christ our Lord.

    (R) Amen

 

[Schultz]

Ahhhh. Steak and Ale pie and a pint of Fullers.

Yes, you are right. There is nothing better than English beer. And there are more and more micro-breweries opening all the time. In my own area we have the oldest brewer in the country - Shepherd Neame. And there are so many other great brewers and great beers.

I absolutely love Shepherd Neame, so much so that my old band was named after one of their ales.  Sadly, it's now near impossible to find their beers now in my area.


BUT we are getting off topic here.  Let's try to focus on the OP. 

 

[peterfarrington]

Sorry, but it was Hermogenes fault for starting to diss the British! 

May I re-iterate that I would like to hear or read much more from Father Aidan about his sources and methodology.

Father Peter

 

[ialmisry]

^ oh, royalism.  ;D Well, I am with  ya there. I still pray for the King of Spain because I live in New Mexico.

Then why don't you pray for the Emperor of Mexico?

 

[Shanghaiski]

If we are, we have quite a lot of company.

It's not a sin if everybody does it.

On a related note, it's nice how an authority is ordained by God if they kill the current king and take his throne, but if you kill the king and burn the throne then you are somehow Godless.

Actually, from what I have read, usurpers were not viewed kindly in Christian Roman history. Phocas, for example, did not appear to have public adulation as the God-crowned emperor after killing St. Maurice. And what did we get after/because of Phocas? Why, a disastrous war with Persia that created a power vacuum for Islam to emerge. Then there was Michael VII Paleologos who had the rightful emperor, the boy John IV Doukas Laskaris blinded and shipped to a monastery. He exiled Patriarch St. Arsenius who denounced him for this and for his disastrous Church policy following the misnamed "Council" of Lyons, and created a schism that was to last nearly 100 years together with many martyrs who gave their lives for the love of Jesus Christ at the hands of his troops. While these impious men and usurpers made images of themselves with halos (as was the custom) and were seen and prayed for at multiple church services, I doubt very much  if their pious contemporaries and subjects thought them to be the "elect" of God rather than the scourge of God. Same goes for all the heretical emperors.

 

[Aristibule]

America *is* an English country, and yes - many in the UK do call it 'the Colonies'. Every time I go to the UK, I am guaranteed that at some point I'll hear America referred to as 'The Colonies', Americans and myself as 'Colonials' - which includes Canadians (I being UEL and a quarter Canadian ancestry).  And they have a point - we're the big one that got away - which explains some of the US/Canadian 'love-hate' thing. Not surprising for a colony that was primarily settled by non-inheriting second sons of English gentry, English debtors looking for opportunity to repay, 'excess population' of the British Isles, and those who were considered dangerous by the new regimes in England of Cromwell or the House of Hanover. But, regardless of anti-Americanism, or the more novel theories of American origins - we are still basically a 17th/18th c. product of English (and Scottish, Welsh, Cornish) society. All our early immigrants underwent the same process of Anglicization as their relatives who had migrated to Great Britain. The Huguenots, Palatine Germans - most of the non-English groups who migrated to America had also migrated to England during the same period. Some of them assimilated so well (such as the German Tolkien) that people think of them as English. This is nothing radical to admit (and, having been a radical once, it took me years to accept): we use the English tongue, though based upon older county dialects of England. We use English common law - everywhere but in Louisiana. The majority population is still English ancestry (even if they claim Irish or German primarily.)

Which is why a return to England feels so normal for Americans. It's 'Grandma's House'. We'd still be connected if it wasn't for the usurpation of a German king who didn't care, and an oligarchy who didn't care about their countrymen, not even in their own countryside or cities...let alone those who had ventured over the sea (or been shipped there.) For rural Southerners or rural New Englanders - it just isn't all that strange. Not like a visit to Mexico or Panama. For that matter: from a Southern perspective, Canada is stranger than England.

One can read American cultural historians such as David Hackett Fischer for more of the above: see "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America." He could even explain why our elections have gone the way they have due to transplanted English cultures.

 

[peterfarrington]

Lol! You must spend a lot of time with Anglicans or ex-Anglicans as I don't know anyone else who would speak of the US as the colonies. And not many of them now either as the CofE becomes different to what it was.

Father Peter

 

[Hermogenes]

Lol! You must spend a lot of time with Anglicans or ex-Anglicans as I don't know anyone else who would speak of the US as the colonies. And not many of them now either as the CofE becomes different to what it was.

Father Peter

When I lived in Vienna virtually every Brit referred to me either as a Yank or a colonial, even though, technically, I'm neither.

 

[peterfarrington]

I have to say I find that very odd too because I have never referred to an American as a Yank and can't recall anyone else doing so either except perhaps an 80 year old talking of the war.

 

[lubeltri]

My great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and namesake, a veteran of the Seven Years' War, fought on the Loyalist side in the Battle of Bennington in 1777. Alas the Patriot rebels won that battle, and after capture and a period of imprisonment, he fled to Canada, later returning to Vermont after the war. The family moved to northern New York State not long after, where I was born. My family originally came from Devon, southwest England.

So, yes, I consider myself a colonial 

 

[Aristibule]

I was affectionately called a Colonial in Devon just earlier this month by someone undeniably British.  I am also a United Empire Loyalist - and a descendant of Revolutionaries (many of whom were Jacobites.) I'm pretty average as far as the American population is concerned.

 

[Hermogenes]

I was affectionately called a Colonial in Devon just earlier this month by someone undeniably British.  I am also a United Empire Loyalist - and a descendant of Revolutionaries (many of whom were Jacobites.) I'm pretty average as far as the American population is concerned.

"Let's Give Ourselves Back to England"?  LOL

 

[Aristibule]

Don't tempt us.  I'd think England should find itself first.

"Haul away boys, let them go. Out in the wind and the rain and snow. We've lost more than we'll ever know 'Round the rocky shores of England" - Roots, Show of Hands