G
GKMotley
Guest
That’s good. Was that parish one of the pre-existing Anglican Usage ones, or was it a new start, post Anglicanorum coetibus?
English Catholicism as a separate Western Rite?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’m not sure because they merged two existing parishes to make the Ordinariate one in 2016 and I don’t know and can’t now look up the history of the two previous. After they merged and bought their own church, which is serving a pretty big and populous area, the pastor said they were getting some new people joining every week.
G
GKMotley
Guest
This is also good.
Can you tell which state this was in?
Can you tell which state this was in?
J
joyfulandactive
Guest
Paperwight you are of course correct. If we go that far back there were sadly many English martyrs for the faith and of course uprisings and protests such as the Pilgrimage of Grace. Resistance was strong in many areas such as Yorkshire and the West Country, but after generations of “reeducation” native English Catholicism was of a very different flavor by the time the hierarchy was allowed back in England. This is why it can be painful for English Catholics when the newly minted Catholics in the Ordinariates suggest they would be perfect for overseeing sites such as the Basilica at Walsingham. They don’t seem to appreciate how Walsingham is a symbol of the destruction that was wrought on the church by the reformers and picking the plum sites of English Catholicism such as these is tone deaf to the suffering of the English church. To clarify, I think the Ordinariates are wonderful but their members can have an Anglican perspective, with little comprehension of how to this day there is a very anti-Catholic slant to British history taught in schools. For so long Catholics were treated and perceived as a members of a foreign church and it’s adherents traitors.
Last edited:
T
TomH1
Guest
When did Scottish people not object to being called Scotch? During which time period did this happen? What historical sources back-up this claim?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Are you doing a Brexit?
G
GordonP
Guest
When they called themselves Scotch. That is, up until the early 19th century, when the word was abandoned in favor of Scottish. Oddly, “Scotch” itself had replaced the earlier “Scottish” sometime in the 17th century.
Both Bobbie Burns and Sir Walter Scott referred to themselves as Scotch, not Scottish.
Here’s the entry from the Oxford English Dictionary, which goes into the history:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/scottish
Wikipedia has a whole article about it, with sources:
Scotch (adjective) - Wikipedia
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s the southeastern PA group and because it’s near a state border, it’s currently serving people from PA, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
That’s it, however CAF does have a rule that we’re not really supposed to identify specific parishes or priests (other than those in the public news media) for discussion on the forum, so probably better to not link to it on here.
Last edited:
G
GordonP
Guest
Thanks for telling me. I will edit my post.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Which is why I asked carefully.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think most American Catholics would think so. I think to most Americans the Anglican Use is just another English-language Mass but just more ornate than the Novus Ordo Americans are used to.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
The Scottish linguist AJ Aitken is quoted in the latest edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Butterfield, 2015) as reporting that “Paradoxically, for working class Scots the common form has long been Scotch […] and the native form Scots is sometimes regarded as an Anglicized affectation.”
(Aitken, in the Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1992)
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
This is such a weird hill to die on.GordonP:
When did Scottish people not object to being called Scotch? During which time period did this happen? What historical sources back-up this claim?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Oh, I don’t know. There’s a long, long history of people objecting to certain terms being used to refer to them. Not the English, naturally, no one could imagine a pejorative expression for us, but with lesser peoples, you know, they can be more sensitive.
G
GKMotley
Guest
And the Sassenach are nae sensitive.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Except when in the hearing of their Scottish wife.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
No kidding. I just accept that some people say Scotch, some people say Scots, it’s safer to say Scots, so I say Scots.
Big deal.
I am probably about 15 to 25 percent Scots or Scotch or whatever and I can tell you I don’t care one iota which word is used.
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
By about 9 PM tonight I’ll be a high enough percentage Scotch that I’d have to start putting it on government forms.HopkinsReb:
No kidding. I just accept that some people say Scotch, some people say Scots, it’s safer to say Scots, so I say Scots.
Big deal.
I am probably about 15 to 25 percent Scots or Scotch or whatever and I can tell you I don’t care one iota which word is used.
G
GordonP
Guest
The moderator reversed my hiding of my post on their own initiative. Apparently, there is no such rule, at least that I can find. Not saying that there might have been when you joined. Or maybe because my link was to an article in the public news media.
Last edited:
- Status