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)".

The Church is (or at least was) attempting to democratize, and I think the removal of archaic references to men in orders is one step in that direction. Jesus himself rejected the titles that some of his followers attempted to laud upon him. Christ did not come to be a King or a noble, and our Church is, at least I like to believe, transitioning from an absolute monarchy to at least a constitutional monarchy.

I agree that in this era where the dignity of the priest is so very compromised by endless scandal, and lack of fidelity, that we Catholics should defend the priesthood, though not at the expense of our (ie: laity) emerging equality.

I personally do not like titles, I have always called my parents by their first names, and I believe egalitarianism is integral in Christ's message. Since it is a rule of this (to quote Rev. Mr. Lance) forum to use titles then I shall, though under protest.

I believe clerical titles implictly disempower the laity, and reinforce an authoritarianism that has no place in the 21st century. I reverence the office that clerics hold, but that does not (for me) extend to confusing the office with the man.

When I chose the name "Predanije" (transliterated from the Slavonic) I did so in the spirit of Acts 4:32, not Mt 16:18.

Abuna is appropriate for Ethiopian and Coptic hierarchs; among the Maronites and Melkites, it is used to address a priest. Mor is used by the Syriacs and those of the Indian Churches to address their hierarchs.

The Maronites and Melkites (and, not uncommonly the Syriacs as well) ordinarily address a bishop as Sayedna.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks, Neil. I didn't know that.

Sayedna will do.

In a Hierarchical Maronite Liturgy the Bishop is referred to as Sayedna when he is asked to give the blessings (by the reader before the Epistle, by priests for the Bishop to finish one of the prayers, etc...).

I have a question, would Metropolitan Basil be referred to as "Your Beatitude" or "Your Emminence"? I have only heard him referred to as the latter, but that does not make it proper.

"Eminence" is the usual honorific for a Metropolitan, while "Beatitude" is generally reserved for the Patriarch.

In Catholic usage Eminence is reserved for Cardinals (although it is applied to Metropolitan Basil), Beatitude for Patriarchs, Excellency for all other bishops. Among the Orthodox Eminence is used for Archbishops (except those of Cyprus and Athens who addressed as Beatitude) and Metropolitans.
http://www.goarch.org/resources/etiquette

In my opinion we should adopt more Eastern styles of address for our bishops but also translate the Greek/Slavonic correctly. Eminence is title of Western European origin and is not a good translation of Sevasmiotatos/Ego Vysoko Preosviashchenstvo, which would be Most Reverend, which is how it is translated in our Liturigcal books. I think Archbishops and Metropolitans who are primates should be Beatitude/Most Blessed.

This was along the lines of my logic.

"I think Archbishops and Metropolitans who are primates should be Beatitude/Most Blessed."

They are most definitely to be numbered among the higher primates.

What was the question, again?????

Beatitude is also the title for the curious position of Major Archbishop which Rome created for our Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Standard usage according to the GOA reckoning leaves one with "Eminence" for a Metropolitan, and "Beatitude" or "Holiness" for Patriarchs. I think it is a good thing to be consistent with terminology of the parallel Orthodox churches when possible. One exception does stand out - "Holiness" in Catholic usage is reserved for the Pope, and hence that term would seem to be reserved at all levels and all particular Churches.

The general schema at least in the UGCC for English renderings as long as I can remember (namely "Your Grace" for bishops, "Your Eminence" for Metropolitans, and "Your Beatitude" for Patriarchs) parallels the GOA usage. The only difference is that we do not make a distinction between "titular Metropolitan" and "Metropolitan" and use "Eminence" for all Metropolitans.

These terms seem to work well enough in English for both Greek and Slavic translations, while they may not be as literally translated from the Greek or Slavonic they are sometimes actually more clear, for example since "Most Reverend" is often used for addressing certain ranks of presbyters both in Catholic and Orthodox usage using something like this for a Metropolitan would likely not work.

I would actually prefer the GOA schema, which is a fairly common one in Orthodox usage, be used liturgically as well in English. Some of our priests and deacons in the UGCC do interject "His Eminence our most reverend" when commemorating the Metropolitan and "His Beatitude our most blessed Patriarch" when commemorating +Lubomyr.

Regarding "Beatitude" for +Basil, I have never heard any clergy refer to Metropolitan Basil as "Beatitude", and when asking another BCCA bishop for his opinion in this regard about four years ago, he adamantly indicated NOT to refer to +Basil as such, but rather by "Eminence". I don't have an opinion either way but will leave it to the BCCA Council of Hierarchs to determine how they want to be addressed. Currently the Metropolitan is "Eminence" as referred to by both the other BCCA bishops http://www.parma.org/Eparchy_Parma.asp as well as the ACROD. Although I haven't read BCW for a while, as I recall the editorial acknowledgement also refers to +Basil as "Eminence".