I am a Ruthenian Catholic and when the Parma Bishop came to our Church he seemed to give his half-hearted opposition to the RDL, but his actions seem little more than a paper tiger. I imagine Pataki is still pulling the strings behind the scenes. The Byzatine Church in this country is already disintergrating badly enough, and then the RDL is forced upon us. I love how there is no "option" with the RDL. The green books are an abomination to our Lord. Sadly I don't think our bishops care much about saving the Ruthenian Church in this country, and the RDL will certainly assist in hstening our Church's immolation scene. Does anyone other than David Petras like this liturgy?

You will address Bishop Andrew Pataki and Fr. David Petras as such. You don't have to agree with them, but you will render all clergy the respect their order is due as is the policy of this forum.

Fr. Deacon Lance, moderator

It is always better to write courteously. One can express the most adamant disagreement and the most serious criticism without being rude (Patriarch Joseph was remarkably good at it).

Fr. Serge

It is responses like that which make me realize why people are Protestants! Has not our Church been attempting, however poorly, to bring greater democracy to the laity and it only seems that titles (if only to the office and not the man) reinforce the clericalist and monarchic mode of thinking which has disenfranchised the laity for far too long. While I do believe the priest stands in the place of Chirst, it is the community in the temple that give Christ his divine mission: to bring us salvation. Thus, besides critiqing my lack of old world charm, does anyone actually want to comment on what I said? Church democacy is another topic...I am not attempting to be rude simply by not referring to an individual by his title, I personally find the concept of titles to be antithetical to the Christian message, and while I admire both the office which His Reverance Petras and His Excellency Pataki hold I do not find that my adressing them informally as fellow men in any way disrespects their office. If anything the informal address removes the temptation to lord it over others that titles can often lead to.

-Mr. Predanije

Mr. Predanije,

Calling those ordained to Holy Orders by name without the customary form of address is forbidden on this forum. Children should address their parents as father/mother. Spiritual children should address their spiritual fathers as bishop/father/deacon.

Such men do not simply hold an office and aquire a title, like a government official. They are forever changed by the grace of the Holy Spirit through the Mystery of Holy Orders. They are given spiritual fatherhood, forever. That is the Catholic/Orthodox faith.

To call them by name without recognizing their fatherhood is indeed very Protestant, as they do not recognize the Mystery of Holy Orders or the spiritual fatherhood aquired by the Mystery. The Church is a hierarchy not a democracy, neither is this forum. You will abide by the forum rules or lose your posting privileges.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Since "Predanije" means "tradition", and is presumably chosen by the gentleman posting under that name, it would behoove him to write accordingly.

Fr. Serge

It does no harm for anyone to use the terms "bishop, father," etc. as a way of respecting the office. These are quite acceptable as a means of address without using the titles of nobility, which are out of place in America - and even forbidden for government office holders. Granted, some ecclesiastical officers are a bit full of themselves, but that is always going to be true as long as humans hold those offices. One can respect the offices, while at the same time holding that particular individuals who hold those offices may not be worthy of them. Occasionally, some may be fortunate enough to encounter a saint hidden among the undeserving.

"It does no harm for anyone to use the terms "bishop, father," etc. as a way of respecting the office. "

Indeed, one of the shortcomings of the internet is one cannot endow the words "Your Grace" and "Excellency" with the dripping contempt one can when uttering them in person. The conflation of the honorable title with the unworthy holder of it is more than sufficient to point out how far the reality falls from the ideal.

My point is that bishops are no longer members of the nobility as they frequently were in Europe. Consequently, they really are not entitled to be addressed as such. I haven't met one yet that objected to being called "bishop." If I do, I will make sure I never have to to address him again. Bad bishops have existed since the beginning of the church, and will continue to do so. However, that makes me all the more grateful for the good ones.

byzanTN goes a bit overboard on this. Before bishops were "members of the nobility", they were still addressed as "Your Grace" and "Your Holiness", not to mention Vladyka, Sayedna, and Master--these latter being the traditional modes of address for a beloved teacher. I draw the line, though, at "Your Excellency" (a remnant of the Hapsburg Empire) and "M'Lord", a carryover from the Anglican Church, where bishops sit in the House of Lords.

My advice to the ever-egalitarian byzanTN: the Church is not a dictatorship, but neither is it a democracy, either; it is a communion in the Holy Spirit, wherein all defer to all in accordance with their gifts and status. I would advise you address priests as Father, and Bishops as Master, if anything more exalted sticks in your craw.

We so seldom see eastern bishops in this part of the country, it's not an issue. The Latin bishop likes to be called "bishop."

Call him Vladyka, and see what he thinks of it.

He might understand it, he might not. The Latin bishop here has dual faculties as a Maronite priest. He would more likely understand a Maronite title, whatever that may be.

"The Latin bishop here has dual faculties as a Maronite priest. He would more likely understand a Maronite title, whatever that may be"

Call him "Abuna", or try "Mor (First Name Here)".