Jesus promises to give all “rest,” but he puts a condition: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart.” What is this “yoke,” which instead of weighing is light, and instead of crushing lifts? The “yoke” of Christ is the law of love, it is his commandment, which he left to his disciples (cf. John 13:34; 15:12). The true remedy for the wounds of humanity — whether they are material, such as hunger and injustice, or psychological and moral, caused by a false sense of well being — is a rule of life based on fraternal love, which has its source in the love of God.
I look forward to reading His Holiness on the subject of the Eighth Commandment.
That would be the RC Seventh Commandment.
It’s good to find this text from last Sunday posted here. This was a wonderful teaching, and it echoed the homily Benedict XVI had preached to the bishops who received the pallium (which symbolizes the yoke) on June 29, Feast of Ss. Peter & Paul. That he had so much to say about being yoked with Christ was witness to the richness of his own spiritual depth, as he allowed himself to reflect on his own 60th anniversary of priestly ordination that day. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1102591.htm) His plans for World Youth Day in August show how importantly he regards his own priestly ministry: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1348569?eng=y
and how well he also models ‘being yoked to Christ’ which makes him manifestly joyful in many situations, including ones in which an 84-year-old bachelor might not naturally be!
#3 Not much point in pontificating if you are involved in nicking stuff, methinks.
This sermon by the chief bishop of a non-Anglican church is all very interesting, but surely things like the Lambeth response to AMiE, or the comments by Ugley Vicar, Reform or Church Society would be more relevant to Anglicans?
Okay Pageantmaster, I’ll bite. What are you talking about?
#6 Anglicanum
Well I was referring to a link in #2 above regarding a number of Ordinariate priests who it has been alleged in the Times, and on a Catholic blog, before they left, used their positions as trustees of trusts founded for catholic-minded Anglicans in the CofE, in order to change their constitutions to admit Roman Catholics, and then voted through grants, in one case of over a million pounds, over half the trust’s assets, to finance the Pope’s Ordinariate. The charities are The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and also mentioned is the Church Union.
I originally saw the links on Thinking Anglicans here which linked to the blog of Peter Bolton, a retired Anglican priest, now a Roman Catholic layman whose article was published on his blog here. As you can see, the webpage has been magically made to disappear. I suppose you could say it has been ‘Hunwicked‘.
Never mind, some kind soul has pointed out that the page is available on google cache and may be read here and in case anyone from the Inquisition is minded to Hunwicke that, rest assured that copies in html and pdf forms of the original page and the cached page have been preserved! Perhaps I should add them to my moniker?
His Holiness and his Ordinariate turn out be not above a bit of thieving?
Tea leaves – who’da thunk it?
Anglicanum, it has made me imagine that in our British commenter’s mind there continues to loom that spectre of a Catholic tank on the lawn at Lambeth Palace. I did not intend to take his bait, but it dangles so obviously it seemed reasonable to wonder if Pageantmaster might also be a fisher of men, like the successor of Peter? or a fisher of commenters anyway. It remains to be seen how the CBS matter he refers to is handled, now that it is being turned into a PR debacle. Things are clearly rather different in the UK which to some is apparently the Ordinariate’s ground zero, than they are in the US or Australia, and perhaps Canada. It should probably be kept in mind that the Anglican Use provision was set up in the US, nowhere else, more than two decades ago.
Meanwhile, on the actual blog post topic: the theme of being yoked to Christ was clearly uppermost in the Pope’s thoughts as he addressed bishops, lay Catholics and the world and also reminisced through the week of his 60th ordination anniversary, and this post is a good example of his deep understanding of the theme.
#TACIT
Thanks for biting back, and yes, it is an absolute disgrace. The Catholic Church should hang its head in shame until the money is returned and the mischief done on behalf of the Ordinariate by these scamps reversed.
I remain an Anglican commenting, on an Anglican blog on an Anglican matter.
I will consider the Pope’s words on their merits, when he has shown that on the above matter he can walk the walk, as well as talk the talk.
The attitudes manifest in comments you make on this topic, Pageantmaster, are all but incomprehensible in an American or Australian and I daresay possibly even a Canadian context, where there is freedom of religion.
Mind you, that isn’t the only thing His Holiness has to hang his head in shame about. The Catholic Church in England and Wales is in the High Court in London arguing the extraordinary proposition which would not hold water in the US Courts, that it is not responsible for the damage to victims caused by its priests. The Channel 4 TV report identifies 351 offenses against children by 38 priests at least who the RC church in England is trying to avoid paying compensation to. Not much changes it appears, and nothing is learnt. We, like the Irish are underwhelmed.
#10 Come now, TACit, Australians, Canadians, and as far as I know Americans understand the concepts of right and wrong, theft and embezzlement, and not using a trustee position for personal purposes. Moreover my understanding is that Christians in these countries also recognise the ten commandments and the injunction “thou shalt not steal”. In that context, I do not understand your point about freedom of religion, it is not about freedom of religion, it is about legal and moral probity.
I see.
For my part, I’m waiting for the Archbishop of Canterbury to cede all that property back to the Catholic Church, from whom it was plundered several centuries ago. The Church of England should hang its head in shame until the property is returned and the mischief done on behalf of the Protestants by these scamps reversed. I will listen to Anglican posturing on thievery when someone shows that, on the above matter, they can walk the walk, as well as talk the talk.
#13 Anglicanum
That attempt to divert the conversation away from this theft will not work. The funds of the two Anglican charities were established well after the Reformation and were never anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
Moreover, since you advance the extraordinary proposition [is it a Catholic thing?] that two wrongs make a right, the property of the church in England, both before and after the Reformation were always the property of the domestic church and were never owned by Rome. Indeed that had been firmly established well before the Reformation. It is however one of the ridiculous things one regularly reads on chippy Roman Catholic blogs, although thankfully not here. You are better than that.
I would be more impressed if you were calling for prompt action by the RC Church to restore its credibility. It is a simple thing, and we will all think better of Rome for prompt action, instead of ducking out of dealing with or defending the indefensible. The RC Church should pay back the money, undo the mischief, pay the abuse victims and sort itself out for the future so it does not [to the extent good practice can ensure that] have reoccurences of these problems, and then move on with its ministry having cleaned house.
I’m diverting the conversation. I see. And how is this about the pope’s address again?
#15 Anglicanum
“And how is this about the pope’s address again?”
It is about us accepting the Yoke of Christ, whose burden is easy, and about applying what we learn from Christ in our daily lives and in our relations with one another; conducting ourselves honestly and in good faith; not glossing over our failures, but seeking to put right the wrongs we have committed against our neighbors and making things right with them, and that includes the members of an Anglican organisation as much as the victims of crime and abuse.
It seems entirely on topic to me with the theme of the Pope’s address.
Let right be done!
Understood. Thanks, Pageantmaster.
RE: “His Holiness and his Ordinariate turn out be not above a bit of thieving?”
Actually it was [i]members of the COE[/i] who have thieved by craftily being in charge of an organization of which they were founders, changing the rules, and then happily voting their own cause the money.
Believe you me, this is all quite “regular” over here in TECland.
This is all rather humorous. A group of ex-Anglicans hijacked some
dough. Then Pageantmaster hijacks the thread by injecting
an incredibly off-topic issue. He may be more akin than he
realizes to those whom he condemns.
Pagentmaster is correct. How dare Benedict – who as we all know is intimately involved in every action (especially mischievous and nefarious actions) taken by Catholics – not directly insert himself in the matter of the 1 million pounds?! Surely the PanzerPope’s silence can only indicate that he approves of the theft and actually is probably dismayed that they didn’t empty out the entire Confraternity bank account and make off with pension money for widows.
The shrillness of the anti-Catholicism here on T1:9 has become a bit much lately. I’m disappointed. Not shocked, but disappointed. Between the abject silliness here (hobby horse, anyone?) and the almost desperate tone of the comments in the other article begging Jim the Puritan to go ABC (Anything But Catholicism).. well.. it’s been a growing pattern since the Ordinariates were announced, and it’s very sad to see.
Well:
[blockquote]This is all rather humorous. A group of ex-Anglicans hijacked some
dough. Then Pageantmaster hijacks the thread by injecting
an incredibly off-topic issue. He may be more akin than he
realizes to those whom he condemns.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]Pagentmaster is correct. How dare Benedict – who as we all know is intimately involved in every action (especially mischievous and nefarious actions) taken by Catholics – not directly insert himself in the matter of the 1 million pounds?! Surely the PanzerPope’s silence can only indicate that he approves of the theft and actually is probably dismayed that they didn’t empty out the entire Confraternity bank account and make off with pension money for widows.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]The shrillness of the anti-Catholicism here on T1:9 has become a bit much lately. I’m disappointed. Not shocked, but disappointed. Between the abject silliness here (hobby horse, anyone?) ).. well.. it’s been a growing pattern since the Ordinariates were announced, and it’s very sad to see.[/blockquote]
The hoots, jeers and defensiveness are noted, but it seems to me that a Captain of a ship takes responsibility for the actions of its crew, and in the same way as HH has taken the credit for the formation of the Ordiariate, it is reasonable to hold him to account for its actions, much as we will learn whether in England, the RC Church will be held accountable for the actions of some of its priests, attempts to wriggle off the hook notwithstanding.
Command also gives responsibility – responsibility for the actions of the organisation and its members, and more particularly and more positively, responsibility to sort out and redress wrongdoing by them. If not HH, then whom?
And when preaching on the topic of accepting Christ’s yoke and learning from Him, what could be more on topic than that resolution of HH and the RC Church to put that teaching into practice?
After posting #10 my computer mouse stopped working and then, reality intruded in the form of the workday so it’s interesting to come back 12 hours later to this thread. In the meantime I thought how how foolish it was not to be more clear, knowing I was addressing a lawyer, that of course I meant attitude toward the Catholic Church and not toward right and wrong. And rather than take his bait I had meant with #8 just to point out the presence of a hook to other fish. Chris Molter has a point, the silliness is disappointing, and Sarah makes a penetrating observation about these CBS members being actually CofE members and behaving a lot like some TEC leaders. We’ll just have to see what happens with them next, though it seems more likely Benedict will expect them to figure out what to do about it, than pull them up. In any case his expansions on the theme of being yoked to Christ contain much wisdom and inspiration, which was the point of the post I thought, whether or not a few English Anglo-Catholics were paying attention.
Maybe this clarifies the CBS matter somewhat:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/07/06/ordinariate-receives-controversial-1m-donation/
#24 TACit
Thanks for the link to the Catholic Herald article. Interesting reading:
[blockquote]Mgr Keith Newton, the head of the ordinariate, said the grant guaranteed an income for its priests. He said: “A million pounds sounds like a lot of money but it’s not an awful lot to run something like an ordinariate. It needs at least a million pounds a year – and that’s without thinking that it will grow.â€
Mgr Newton said there was still “a lot of work to doâ€, citing pensions as well as life and health insurance costs for clergy. But he said that all of the 60 or so ordinariate priests now had somewhere to live. “It’s a great relief,†he said.[/blockquote]
“Well, officer, I was left in charge of the sweetshop during the school holidays, and my friends from school came in, and needed some sweets, so I went into the store room and gave them half of the stock. It is a great relief that they now have sufficient sweets to last them for the next year. Of course they still need some new trainers and some soft drinks, but we are working on that. Edwin has been working in a sports shop, and there is a Coke machine in the school canteen…”
Looks like the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament has two autonomous provinces: Britain and the US. The semi-autonomous branches in Australia and Canada are part of the British CBS, which begs the question of whether the Australian and Canadian members have agreed with the British Ordinariate bound trustees nicking half the assets to finance the salaries of British Ordinariate priests for the next year.
#18 Sarah
[blockquote]Actually it was members of the COE who have thieved by craftily being in charge of an organization of which they were founders, changing the rules, and then happily voting their own cause the money.[/blockquote]
There have been reports, backed up by the subsequent testimony of the individuals concerned that they had secretly visited Rome, perhaps before these actions were initiated, sworn allegiance to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church set out in its Catechism, and sworn allegiance to the oversight of the Bishop of Rome, so it is far from clear that they were all, or any of them CofE at the time. This may be worth looking into now I think about it. If that is the case then it is indeed the direct responsibility of His Holiness.
I had thought the grant of £250,000 by the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales was generous, but it pales besides the larceny in relation the the Anglo-Catholic charities.
RE: “There have been reports, backed up by the subsequent testimony of the individuals concerned that they had secretly visited Rome, perhaps before these actions were initiated, sworn allegiance to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church set out in its Catechism, and sworn allegiance to the oversight of the Bishop of Rome . . . ”
So? Doesn’t make them yet converts to Rome. In order to be a convert to Rome you’ve actually got to convert — not simply believe the doctrine, or “swear allegiance”.
RE: ” . . . so it is far from clear that they were all, or any of them CofE at the time.”
Oh, I think it’s clear. But I understand if you prefer not to believe so.
Look, some COE members modified the constitution of this society back in 2010 so that it could include RCs. And they voted where to send the money.
There is some more information here.
#28 Sarah – it depends on the dates and the facts – I will have to check – if I can.
Oh my, Robert Bolton’s article has been un-Hunwicked!
From the Catholic Herald article:
“Fr Christopher Pearson, superior general of the Confraternity, said he would be consulting in the coming year on whether Catholics should be allowed to remain members, and if it could continue to exist as an Anglican charity.
He defended the grant against criticism, saying that the Confraternity was never a Church of England society. He said that when it was founded in 1862 priests who reserved the Blessed Sacrament or led Benediction risked imprisonment. Its assets, he said, did not originate from the Church of England either. He said they were largely down to the investment of donations from the 19th century.
Fr Pearson also pointed out that critics of the grant “had their own incomes, churches, tabernacles, chalicesâ€, but priests in the ordinariate did not.”
Yup, Damian Thompson reported in the Telegraph in July 2008 that two flying bishops Keith Newton, then +Richborough, and Andrew Burnham, then +Ebbsfleet had visited Rome and the request for the Ordinariate was made. This seems to have been around the relevant date, and details of what actually took place between the bishops and the pontiff only gradually seeped out here and there. Of course it could not be public, because it was inconsistent with the vows made to the Crown and CofE, and indeed probably treasonable strictly speaking.
I have an overwhelming feeling of sadness reading again the details of the Synod vote where it failed to acknowledge the place of these faithful Anglo-Catholics in the church: how few of the bishops stood up for them, and even Rowan abstained on key votes. Of course we have seen the results: the setting up of the Ordinariate, the humiliation of Rowan Williams and our bishops; now the setting up of AMiA. Their meanness of spirit is now being paid for and things are not getting any better. However, none of this excuses the misappropriation of the assets of Anglican charities set up to assist CofE parishes to carry out their liturgical needs in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. What a sorry story all round. No one – CofE, Ordinariate, Levada, Newton, Barnes, pontiff or RC Church comes out of it well. But none of that excuses this larceny.
#31 Paula – from Pearson in the Catholic Herald:
[blockquote]Fr Christopher Pearson, superior general of the Confraternity, said he would be consulting in the coming year on whether Catholics should be allowed to remain members[/blockquote]
Pity the consultation did not take place with the members before the trustees unilaterally and self-servingly purported to change the constitution
[blockquote]and if it could continue to exist as an Anglican charity[/blockquote]
I am glad for his admission that this is an Anglican charity, and he has some explaining to do on why he permitted its assets to set up a Roman Catholic institution.
[blockquote]He defended the grant against criticism, saying that the Confraternity was never a Church of England society.[/blockquote]
It is not part of the Church of England but was set up by and for the purposes of a part of the Church of England. This is a dishonest argument.
[blockquote]He said that when it was founded in 1862 priests who reserved the Blessed Sacrament or led Benediction risked imprisonment.[/blockquote]
That is true, but it was founded by members of the CofE priesthood and for the purpose of supporting its aims of changing the practice of the Church of England and its worship. It does not excuse alienating assets to another church
[blockquote]Its assets, he said, did not originate from the Church of England either. He said they were largely down to the investment of donations from the 19th century.[/blockquote]
Once again a dishonest argument. The funds are not owned by the Church of England, but they were donated by members and priests of the Church of England to support Church of England parishes to purchase liturgical materials and plate for use in those parishes, not to pay the salaries of those who had left in a Roman Catholic organisation.
[blockquote]Fr Pearson also pointed out that critics of the grant “had their own incomes, churches, tabernacles, chalicesâ€, but priests in the ordinariate did not.â€[/blockquote]
The fact that people have things which others do not, is no excuse for appropriating them, whether liturgical plate, or sweets, and certainly not for the purposes not of buying plate, but paying salaries of those changing churches.
I had some sympathy for those going to the Ordinariate, but not for this – it is theft, and shameful of them, the Roman Catholic Church and its leaders.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt Pagaent Master but even if it was not the out and out theft you claim it was an action that caused pain and anger amongst good people. For that reason alone it should be reconsidered. I think charity should compel such potentially controversial actions not be undertaken without a majority consent of the members of the fraternity.
#34 Thank you Paula. When HH announced plans for the Ordinariate, who would have imagined that the RC Church would finance it with the assets [not even out of the income] of Anglican charities? I would not have believed it. The assets need to be returned and we need some honesty and repentence. This is not the way to birth a Godly movement.
Perhaps that’s Peter, not Robert, Bolton?
I thought the relevant part was the paragraph Paula quoted above. Interesting. And when the assets are returned, Pageantmaster, then I’m sure the Church of England would return any of what were assets of the Catholic Church in 1533? Just a rhetorical question, to suggest that this argument may simply be ongoing silliness.
I’m detecting recurring mouse trouble so probably can’t continue in this discussion, but did begin to wonder if the [i]underlying[/i] issue to this intended use of assets for the Ordinariate is actually belief of the Real Presence, in the sacrament for which the CBS is named, which the Ordinariate will uphold and teach unlike the Church of England of which Anglo-Catholic members would be a part (keeping in mind that the CBS has never been a CofE Society and its assets did not originate from the CofE: “He defended the grant against criticism, saying that the Confraternity was never a Church of England society. He said that when it was founded in 1862 priests who reserved the Blessed Sacrament or led Benediction risked imprisonment. Its assets, he said, did not originate from the Church of England either. He said they were largely down to the investment of donations from the 19th century.”)
That’s a level of controversy that could be lost especially on Anglicans outside England presented with the assets ‘argument’.
TACit,
Anglicans believe in the real presence, as do all classical protestants. We just don’t believe in the Roman teaching on it!
I’m not as outraged as Pageantmaster, I just find it amusing that there was the need for this at all.
Does anyone know what proportion of Anglo Catholics are going to leave CofE for the Ordinariate? I note that Society of Hilda & Wilfrid have a dozen bishops available to give alternative oversight within CofE, which makes the evangelicals’ five alternative bishops (through AMiE) look a bit paltry. But are the H&W gents actually giving any alternative oversight – does anyone know?
More silliness, I think. The Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine is Catholic doctrine (not Protestant teaching on the Memorial nature of the Eucharist), which the priests referred to by Fr. Pearson in the quote I used upheld, by reserving the sacrament and leading Benediction in the British political climate where they risked imprisonment (a slight improvement on that of parts of the 1500’s when they risked death). Why, after Catholic emancipation in Britain in 1829, there was still risk of imprisonment for those who believed Catholic teaching is perhaps for another post.
This connects with what I said earlier about the attitude being sort of incomprehensible by Americans, etc. in whose nations the prospect of being imprisoned just for one’s Catholic beliefs and practise, let alone killed for them, is hard to imagine.
A quote from the Ruth Gledhill article on this topic: “For 150 years, members of the Church of England have given money for the objects of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament which were to provide tabernacles, chalices and vestments for parishes of the Church of England.”
Hmmm. Was nothing at all expected to result from the introduction and supply of tabernacles in the [Anglo-Catholic parishes of] the Church of England? Such as zeal for the Lord’s house that might after a passage of time kindle the flame of reconciliation with the Church where Catholic practise and belief had been always been preserved (by [i]some[/i] faithful)? If this was an undesired outcome those CBS fellows should have been stopped 150 years ago.
It seems to me, still trying to relate this topic to the actual post, that being yoked with Christ would mean that eventually one might find oneself, you know, plowing/ploughing along the same furrow with Him as he unites His Body into one.
Benedict XVI tends to see ‘burning bushes’ more readily than some, has become in his yoke with Christ the ‘Pope of Christian Unity’, and increasingly is the Pope of (liturgical) diversity in (doctrinal) unity, to quote Fr. Z.
[blockquote] “More silliness, I think. The Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine is Catholic doctrine (not Protestant teaching on the Memorial nature of the Eucharist),…” [/blockquote]
You need to do a short course in both protestant and catholic doctrine.
The Real Presence is a protestant doctrine which descends from the early church. I appreciate that Roman Catholics at Trent decided to adopt certain beliefs which have no apostolic basis, but that is their problem, not ours.
Also, all Christians teach the memorialist nature of the Eucharist (“Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me”). You appear to be confusing this with those who believe the Eucharist is ONLY memorial in nature.
[blockquote] “This connects with what I said earlier about the attitude being sort of incomprehensible by Americans, etc. in whose nations the prospect of being imprisoned just for one’s Catholic beliefs and practise, let alone killed for them, is hard to imagine.” [/blockquote]
Oh, its not at all hard to imagine – remember that the Church in Europe practiced systematic burning, mutilation and dismemberment of Christians since the end of the 14th century. Many thousands of these people were killed by the Church for the sake of their faith. We still draw inspiration from them today.
TACit also wrote:
[blockquote] “Such as zeal for the Lord’s house that might after a passage of time kindle the flame of reconciliation with the Church where Catholic practise and belief had been always been preserved (by some faithful)?” [/blockquote]
It certainly might, that’s true.
It hasn’t yet: after 30 years, JPII’s Pastoral Provision has about 8 congregations to show for it. But the Ordinariate may be different – we’ll see.
Sigh. I could have made my statement a bit clearer by saying ‘merely Memorial’ above, perhaps. Hopefully a well educated Catholic who knows the correct vocabulary might show up and correctly state the Catholic doctrine I attempted to (without pulling paragraphs from the Catechism).
And of course I meant it was ‘sort of incomprehensible’ and ‘hard to imagine’ for Americans, Australians or Canadians [i]the sorts of things that took place in England taking place in our own countries[/i]. It is getting tiresome to have to compose so exactly that the lawyerly among commenters here can’t find a statement of mine to twist rather than engage the points I was trying to make.
Ummm, okay, suitably chastised, can I raise yet another issue:
How hard is it for Australians to imagine being put in prison – it is how our nation started!
Re: your new issue, well yes, the older, eastern part of it at least, and I can perhaps concede that what I said might have sounded different to someone in Georgia, British penal-colony-of-choice until 1776, as well.
Meanwhile, in the interim I looked in my ‘Essential Catholic Catechism’ (which is not the actual CCC but a ‘readable, comprehensive Catechism’) and in 40 pages of sections including the one on the Eucharist, this sentence appears at least 3 times: “…..Catholics speak of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.” So I will leave it there and continue to hope for the well educated Catholic who might help out.
[blockquote]So I will leave it there and continue to hope for the well educated Catholic[/blockquote]
Good luck.
I believe in the Real Presence; guess I must be a Catholic, and I have a degree and stuff.
Pageantmaster, you should realize that one reason you may be meeting resistance from your American colleagues is that your arguments are precisely the ones that TEC is making with regard to the property of departing parishes. It sounds to me like the majority of members involved with the Confraternity decided to go to Rome, and felt they could take their organization with them, just as members departing for ACNA felt they could take their property. I make no judgment here about the propriety of either, at least here, but you should understand what your dealing with.
Well, PM, I have three academic degrees including a PhD, and have written a thesis for each, but in a physical science and not in theology. This is different from a professional degree, I realize. It explains in part why I am greatly attracted to Pope Benedict’s (the topic of the blog, [i]remember?![/i]) teaching approach and depth of learning. We do learn to keep learning, but I have a lot else to do today, and maybe some well educated Catholic will drop by here……
Alta Californian, a further motivation for the CBS members seemed to be despair that any good will come of leaving those endowments to the mercy of the AffCaths who appear (to them) likely to take over. There is an article on the ‘Ordinariate Portal’ website now about this.
What PM and TACit really mean by this talk of degrees is that neither of them are Australian…
48: ROFLMHO! Though of course it’s not really true about Australians…