The world used in the Slavonic is "pravoslavanja," orthodox. I wish we would indeed use Orthodox, it not more correct, it sounds better liturgically, to my ears.

Personally, I'm glad the word Orthodox isn't used in the Ruthenian liturgy. Most of the people fear it, and would think "Oh no! Are we Orthodox now!". (They should be so lucky) Many Orthodox would take it as a slap in the face. "How dare they use the word Orthodox when they are Catholic"

There would be way too much confusion and suspicion.

Why would they fear it? We have used "orthodox" and "orthodox Christians" in the UGCC English translation for years; the Melkites have as well.

I have personally witnessed people and even clergy (of an Eastern Catholic Church other than UGCC or Melkite) freak out because the word "orthodox" was used. It saddened me deeply.

Unfortunately, I have seen this as well in the BCC, from laity and clergy alike...I believe it has to do with the divisions that occured like with the formation of ACROD so it was a way to say "we aren't them"...

Since the aversion to this term in Carpatho-Russian Greek-Catholic circles and publications began well before the formation of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese, either the two phenomena are unrelated or the Ruthenian antiliterate energumens were remarkably prescient!

Fr. Serge

I have seen this too, for the same reason.

-- John

I remember the first time I heard "Orthodox Christians" in a Greek Catholic church was at a Ukrainian Catholic liturgy.

I was quite surprised when I heard it, thinking that the word Orthodox was only used in Orthodox churches!

My SF uses 'Orthodox Christians' all the time and I ~think~ my parish does too [ Ukrainian ]

The Eastern Orthodox don't have a patent on the word "orthodox," and since from a Catholic point of view we are certainly Orthodox, why not use it?

Additionally, the Liturgy doesn't belong to the Eastern Orthodox. I think, as an outsider, the translation should be stuck to as originally as possible.

Alexis

For a Catholic to reject "orthodox" in that sense is as silly as for an Orthodox to demand that "catholic" be removed from the creed . . .

hawk

On one or two occasions, I have heard Orthodox Christians recite the Nicene Creed (oh, all right, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) substituting some euphemism for "Catholic". I managed to stop myself from snickering.

Fr. Serge

The Bishop of my Eparchy, Bisop Robert Moskal, wrote this (which I've posted before) and it pretty much sums up this topic:

http://stjosaphateparchy.org/BishopLetters.html


Monomakh

Aside from the creed, the cornerstone of our parish reads "XYZ Orthodox Catholic Church". I think that's how we're officially incorporated because I see that name on most official documents. We also still have older parishioners who were actually Greek Catholic as children too.

At the funeral of a dear friend's father, held in an ECUSA church, one of my friends refused to say the word "catholic" when we said the Creed because he "just couldn't do it...I'm not Roman Catholic and I won't say it!".

The fact that we were in an Episcopal church was totally lost on him, even after I explained the use of that word from an Anglican POV to him.

Dear Friends,

Just felt I had to ask this question:

In Slavonic, the Orthodox use the term "KaFOlik" and "KaFolicheskaya" for "Catholic."

But when referring to RC's, the Orthodox Russians use the term "KaTolik."

Can anyone comment on the one letter difference? There was a Russian Staretz who once asserted the only real difference between Catholics and Orthodox lay in "one letter."

Alex

Sometimes one letter can be a great difference; one iota separated the orthodox from the Arians.
FDRLB

In either Church-Slavonic or Russian, one may also say Kaftolicheskyi.

I suppose the difference lies in the distinction between a certain ecclesiology and a certain ecclesial structure!

Fr. Serge

Dear Alex,
I don’t know if this is the kind of comment you meant, but here is what I think has happened. In “KaFOlik”, which is taken directly from Greek, the theta in katholikos has become a Ф (as in Фёдор from Θεοδορος).
However, “KaTOlik” has probably been borrowed from Latin/Italian , where catholicus > cattolico.
So the two forms neatly separate the two meanings “universal” and “in communion with the See of Peter”. This sort of thing happens a lot in languages. It’s something like the way regal/royal in English is the same word twice, and something like the way flower/flour is division into two of a single word.

Regards.

Actually, I strongly suspect that "Katolik" is a calque from Polish.

Fr. Serge

Well, all I know is that to my public school friends in the PA coal region, this Polack went to "da katlick school". Maybe it's a calque of the Irish-English Coal Region dialect...

In some districts of the USA there were two sorts of people: "publics" and "Catholics". This referred, of course, to the schools which each attended.

Fr. Serge

This topic seems to have wandered from "Orthodox" to "Catholic". Hmmmm... if it starts moving towards "Protestant" or "Nondenominational" or some such direction we may have to close it!

C. I. X.

Admittedly language is not my strong suite so I am asking for a clarification. If we are talking transition of terms, orthodox from the Greek is true belief. But from the Slavonic does it not come out as true glory? Is that as in proper worship being we believe what we pray? So is not “catholic” a reference to the church while “orthodox” describes the faith? Then there is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the orthodox faith?

At least in the circles most of the Forum travel in, neither "Protestant" nor "Non-Denominational" are so emotionally charged as to provoke the same sort of anger that "Orthodox", "orthodox", and "Catholic" are apt to provoke. [There is also the word "catholic", which has no particular religious significance - if I should say that a gourmet friend has catholic taste in restaurants, I am not discussing his religious outlook, if any.]

This is not to say that on their own "home ground", so to speak, "Protestant" or "Non-Denominational" cannot provoke an argument - it's just to say that this Forum is not that home ground so we are not apt to get into a controversy over either of these terms.

Fr. Serge (who protests against many things, but is nevertheless not a Protestant, and supports catholic taste in foods, with the exception of those which he does not enjoy).

Personally, I've always seen соборный to mean catholic in Slavonic, in the sense that it's used in the Creed, where as Roman Catholics are referred to as католики.

FWIW.

John

My 2 cents... In some of the Ruthenian parishes I've visited (and in my own parish) they use Orthodox quite often in all the obvious places (i.e. where the green book states "true faith").

I don't know that I have ever heard "orthodox" or "orthodox Christians" publically in the BCC except from a couple of priests I can count on one hand who were assisting from the UGCC or Melkite churches. On the other hand I have never NOT used these terms serving in the UGCC, and both are the within the official translation according to our Synod.

Once when I was to serve at a BCC Pontifical DL the bishop in question specifically instructed me NOT to use either term. Neither terms are in the approved BCC translations of either the 1965 or the RDL Liturgikons.

Don't say the "o" word too loud, you might get a nasty-gram from the Bishop. One priest in the Eparchy of Parma received a letter telling him to stop using the word "orthodox" and use the phrase "true faith."

Is he still a Greek Catholic priest?

Slava Isusu Christu! (Glory to Jesus Christ!)
Slava Na Viki! (Glory be Forever!)

All I can say is I wish I knew Greek. You guys are leaving me in the dust. I really need to sit down and learn some Greek and also to follow Father Serge's advice and learn the Old Slavonic alphabet. I'm not a dummy, but you are just leaving me behind, totally lost.

But, in all seriousness, thanks. It is making me think and learn more. To push the boundaries of what I know. And that's always a good thing. So keep it up! Make me learn more! I love to learn.

Tim

Dear Tim,

Christ is Risen!

If it will make you feel any better, you might enjoy knowing that linguistic one-upsmanship is a game at which many can play. ["You don't speak Syro-Aramaic? Didn't you go to school?"] Since no one can possibly speak every language on earth, there is no end to it!

On the other hand, languages really are important, and not just for liturgical purposes. Besides, once you start you often find that you can't stop.

Fr. Serge

Kind of hard to verify that one.

In the two Parma parishes I have belonged to, apparently the priests never got that letter.

Maybe in those parishes no one ever complained about them using the dreaded “O” word? I have no question whatsoever about the veracity of the account given by Stephanie. It does seem that those who tend Latin are seldom called to account while those to tend East towards our official books are most certainly called to account.

I can understand the history that gave a negative connotation to the term “Orthodox” among Ruthenian Catholics. It can be overcome, and the term certainly should be returned to its rightful use. It is a matter of education, example, and encouragement. Educational could be done through sermons preached by the bishops, adult education classes and literature (well prepared and chock full of quotes from many sources, including the various popes (and even get specific statement from Pope Benedict XVI). Example would be for the bishops themselves to use it, have it used at the seminary, and reprint the still-to-come complete and accurate Ruthenian recension books. Then encourage priests to use it. If some older priests have a major issue, give them a blessing to continue with “true faith”. In one or two generations the change will have been made gently and no one need be offended.

We have a string of bishops who would have reacted negatively (like waiving the red flag in front a bull) at the use of the "O" word. But inasmuch as it is going to be discussed, a time of reference, who the bishop was, where the matter was coming up, even if it was out of concern from veering from an approved text, whether there was cocern about agitation for leaving the Greek Catholic Church... There are a lot of unknowns in an alluded to letter (from an unnamed bishop to unnamed priests) that has been paraphrased.

All these things factor in, and short of reproducing the letter and asking both parties to come explain what happened to us as a third party, just throwing that one out there doesn't help.

I won't beat the matter to death, other than to say without saying such a letter isn't possible and in certain times (with certain bishops) probable, the fact remains the "o" word is used generously at the two Parma parishes I have been members of... So to be clear, it shouldn't be understood that it is banned in the metropolia.

Have any of you opened a Latin Missal recently?

I really do not think it strange at all that on pages 638-639 of the Latin Missal, the word 'orthodox' does appears in the Canon of the Mass. After all, the original Latin Mass was standardized by St. Pope Gregory the Great many centuries ago, and this Mass was indeed very "orthodox." In fact, he also penned the PreSanctified Liturgy that we Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox Christians use during Great Lent.

Here are the words taken verbatum except that I cannot provide the special character (the special ash character ae) or you might see a strange little box.

et ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicae, et apostólicae fídei cultóribus.

and all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

I wonder if that saying is also found in the newest version of the Novus Ordo Missae?

Reference:
Juergens, Sylvester P. (1958). The New Marian Missal for Daily Mass. Los Angeles, CA: Veritas Press.

Current English translation of Eucharistic prayer I:

"We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our Bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles."

"The Vatican II Sunday Missal (1974) Daughters of St. Paul, Boston. Translation of the Roman Missal, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. (1969, 1970, 1973)"

Is this one of the reasons why the conservatives or Traditionalists in the Catholic Church are saying that the reforms of the Mass as seen in the Novus Ordo have essentially done away with orthodox or right-teaching and correct-worship in the Divine Worship?

The omission of the word orthodox in that context speaks volumes.

I don't know about the experience of others, but I can say that I've been called "orthodox" and "dangerous" in the same breath. I wear it as a badge of honor and hope the Good Lord thinks the same thing when I go to give Him an account of my life and the use of His talents, grace, and blessings.

BOB

Which is probably why Rome has insisted on overseeing the newest translation a bit more tightly than that of 1974.

But let's get back to the use of the word "orthodox."

BOB

Okay, I am confused.

Is Rome mandating the word 'orthodox' or is she insisting on its total removal in the Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy as was done in the Novus Ordo Liturgy?

I gathered from reading the thread that some Byzantine Catholic bishops are opposing the word 'Orthodox' in opposition to Rome's mandate or is Rome just recommending a return to the more ancient usage and then allowing this diversity in practice by bishops?

Is Rome allowing the Byzantine Catholics to use the word "orthodox" in their Divine Liturgies?

Dear Elizabeth Maria,



Just to clarify about the Latin Rite Novus Ordo--
thanks to Pope Paul VI Rome never removed anything from the Roman Canon (EP I), though some tried, so the term appears today in the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms of the Latin Rite, same as they always have.

It was the ICEL English translation that removed the word "orthodox" in their (poor) translation.

Best regards,
Michael

Rome "allows" Byzantine Catholics to utilize "the O Word"...if it was an issue with Rome the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and I believe Melkites would not use it...unfortunately, the Byzantine Catholic Church (Metropolia of Pittsburgh) is its own worst enemy...they are the ones afraid of "the O word" not Rome...

I have a question.

Do any Roman Catholic churches use the word "Orthodox" in their liturgies?

This is really getting old.

Answer to Etnick's question: yes. Check the Latin text of the extraordinary form; you'll find the word "orthodox" in the first prayer of the Canon. If you prefer, check the Latin text of the ordinary form; you'll find the same word in the first prayer of Canon I.

Fr. Serge

The English and Ukrainian texts of the Divine Liturgy as approved by the Synod of the UGCC use orthodox/pravoslavniy and yes, this was approved by the Eastern Congregation prior to its printing in the late 1980s.

Rome has never interfered with the term "pravoslavny" in the Church-Slavonic texts, nor with the term "Orthodox" in the Greek texts. Rome certainly approved the term "orthodox" in the English text of the Divine Liturgy published by the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the USA (Christ With Us) in the 1950s.

Fr. Serge

I still say that along with "anaphora, Theotokos, amen, alleluia, and hosanna" the creators of the RDL should have left the hard to understand and translate term "true faith" in either Greek or Slavonic so that we could understand it.

Here it is in the extraordinary form, 1962 missal and in Paul VI's missa: