www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Vote: "Christians of the true faith" or "orthodox"?

The Ruthenian Metropolia continues to use the translation "Christians of the true faith" or "right-believing" in liturgical texts instead of the way the Melchites and Ukrainian Catholic translate the phrase: "orthodox."

Besides voting, please consider posting your thoughts on this matter.

Vote: "Christians of the true faith" or "orthodox"? single choice

Retain "Christians of the true faith." The word "orthodox" should not be used. (17%, 7 Votes)

Liturgical translations should follow the Melchite & Ukrainian Greek Catholics in using "orthodox." (83%, 34 Votes)

Total Votes: 41 Voting on this poll ends: 06/11/05 02:38 AM

I see on another thread that this is discussed as a Latinization - poor Latins get blamed for everything. :rolleyes:

I would not be surprised if this usage stemmed from the court cases - discussed for example in the "Clash of Titans" - where those who wished to dox wanted to take the Church property with them. They used this turn of liturgical language to support the claim that they had always thought they were Orthodox. (This usage is the converse, I guess, of Orthodox incoporating as "Greek Catholics".) But I don't think that property is at any risk anymore.

I am not sure if there are an old-timers whose early experiences would make them react negatively to this change. I know my dad wouldn't - and in his childhood there was a police detail at the liturgy to guard against further acts of desecration and violence by those who, in another row, wanted to leave the Church and keep the property. That was a long time ago, and I think that bitterness has long since given way to longing for reconciliation. But if there is some lingering resistance, then I would like to suggest that you consider cutting the old-timers a little slack.

The term "Orthodox" is to the Liturgy what a(n optional) married priesthood is to pastoral ministry and traditions.

Some still do. But only because the term isn't explained to them in a pastorally sensitive way. I caught two families from leaving the parish over the matter in the past, but convinced them to stay after discussing the issues in fuller detail and with sensitivity. It doesn't take much effort to explain. Haughtiness need not be.

Joe

Good work, Joe. I agree that if done with real sensitivity - rarely exhibited in comments on this subject in this forum - then problems can be avoided.

I think catechesis is the key. It wouldn't take much to explain the restoration of the word in our liturgical texts.

Forums are where we bleed our messy minds and rip others to shreds convincing them of absolutely nothing because their minds are already made up and does anyone really give a squat, but do it anyway because they make lousy competition on X-box shoot-em-up games and this is where we have fun in the sun on the run from the gun with the bums. And I just know, dangit, that if we all got together at some drinking hole, we'd all get loud and louder (becuase like all Geek Catholics/Orthodox no one really listens), then we'd all get busted and thrown out on our duffs. Then outside we'd all sing our favorite chant melodies and dance. The night will end with hugs, and kisses, and tears, and thoughts about doing it all again, but not until we empty our flamethrowers by torching our fellow Christian brothers and sisters with verbosity and nonsense B. S. the next time we get our grubby little hands on our keyboard.

Joe

Catechesis? No I don't think you quite get the historical tension. If there is resistance it would be coming form people who understand the point on an intellectual level; what would require sensitivity are things going one at the visceral level. It would require forgiveness where there has been little if any sign of repentence. That's where the senstivity is required.

djs,

I think I do understand what you're saying and you're correct. Still there are people who don't realize that the connection between "Christians of the true faith" and "orthodox." That's where the catechesis needs to be addressed...patiently and lovingly. I imagine there were problems encountered in the other jurisdictions that use the word "orthodox," but they seem to have survived.

Joe,
Your post reminds me that I have to get back to work on plans for a little family gathering with my sibs - which inevitably will occur exactly as you described.

I am not concerned about the survival part. But I think that your imagination here is faulty. Or maybe it's just my not knowing of the systematic missionary efforts directed against the Melkites here in the US, the desecration and violence done in their churches, the legal maneuvering to seize their property, and so forth. The big, big mistake to avoid here is to minimize what other people suffered through.

djs,

If I gave the appearance of minimizing people's suffering, I apologize. I probably chose the wrong words. I do think catechesis would be beneficial.

You are right of course that catechesis will also be required. And I don't think you've said anything terribly untoward, so I'm sorry if I sounded too harsh. In some parishes the primary issue might well be catechesis, in others it will be history. The latter will need to be recognized and understood to give the gentle handling that it requires.

Dear Friends,

We in the UGCC have a problem with "Orthodox Christians" too, in Ukrainian or English.

I am told by many visitors from Ukraine that the term "Orthodox Christians" is often, in Western Ukraine, a term of opprobrium.

One Presbytera told me that she sees people actually squint as if they are in pain when they hear "Orthodox Christians" sung during the Liturgy!

They would much prefer it removed since, for them, "Orthodox Christians" means "Russki Orthodox" and the imperial religion of Russia, whether Tsarist or Soviet (the close links between the ROC and the Soviet government were such that many referred to the ROC as the "Soviet Orthodox Church").

No amount of catechesis will change that view any time soon. This is also why Latin devotions that we "enlightened Byzantines" over here have long since dismissed as "vulgar Latinizations" are not only popular in Eastern Europe but are deepening in their influence - even in some parts of the Orthodox Church itself there.

So the poll conducted here is a reflection of the particular religious culture of North America and has really little relation to what our EC Churches in Eastern Europe are currently experiencing.

Alex

So they're using "orthodox" despite the more recent clashes than what we've had here? Interesting. Thanks for posting that Alex.

Speaking of catechesis...are there any articles on the net that deal with this subject from an Eastern Catholic POV?

DJS,

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking whether the Melkites had the same problems as their brethren of the Slavic Tradition with regard to battles over Church ownership, etc. The answer is, generally, no.

While there may have been an isolated instance here or there, there is no history of wholesale departures from our churches or disputes as to ownership of churches, etc. In fact, there are probably more recorded examples of the various Antiochean churches providing worship space to their brethren of other Churches while they were building their own temples and of providing pastoral care to the faithful of sister Churches who were without clergy. (I recently saw an old anniversary program from a Melkite parish in the mid-West that alone served all Arab Christians in its city for several years. Included in it were congratulatory ads from two nearby Orthodox parishes, describing the Melkite parish as the "mother" to their own churches.)

Many years,

Neil

So far we're at about 80 per cent for using "orthodox." Have we heard from any of those who voted "no," for their views?

I think it is essential when discussing this with the faithful to differentiate using the word "orthodox" from those who consider themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Not to say the latter is inappropriate. Some here may hold to that vision. Some do not. Whichever is the case, "orthodox" does not refer exclusively to the Byzantine tradition or any other liturgical tradition. The meaning of the word is much deeper than just a denominational indicator. And, it's a term we should restore to honor in our liturgical services.

Nec

The views of those who voted "no" should certainly be interesting. But even more interesting would be the views of those who have not (yet) voted in the poll. My strong suspicion is that those who have not expressed their opinion do not have any particularly strong opinion - which, if correct, would destroy the argument of those who admit that the word "orthodox" is entirely accurate but claim that "the people" can't accept it.

Incognitus

Good point, Father Incognitus. I believe the people here in the USA can accept this just as the Ukrainians and Melchites here have done so.

As was requested, I've done some searching for an online presentation on this subject and haven't found much as of yet. Would anyone on this Forum care to put together and post here a few points that could be used in explaining to the faithful the restoration of "orthodox" in Eastern Catholic liturgical services?

Nec

I did not vote, owing to personal indifference on the subject and the peculiar push-poll phrasing. Don't mind retaining "Christians of the true faith", but do not think that "orthodox" "should not be used". And I don't mind the use of "orthodox" but do not think that decision should be made so as to "follow" anyone; we should make our own informed judgement.

As to the destruction of arguments: with perhaps a percent of the faithful registered here, and no sampling scheme at all, this poll has no utility in probing the argument.

Thanks for the feedback DJS. I think there are many who share your viewpoint: they don't mind the use of either "orthodox" or "Christians of the true faith."

It's been said in the past that one reason for not reintroducing "orthodox" into the liturgical translation was because it was a burning issue with many people. It may have been so many years ago but I don't see that being the case today.

Nec

Yes, Nec, it is not a burning issue with me, and I will readily accept whatever is done. I don't know how others, especially the old-timers, feel. But if it were my decision I would make a serious effort to find out, and treat with solicitude and respect the elders who have spent their lives building up our churches.

Good points DJS. Thanks for sharing that.

Nec

Dear Nec Aliter,
Hmmm. No one has ever called me "Father Incognitus" before . . . must think about that. In the rare moments when I have nothing better to do, I sometimes amuse myself by thinking of bizarre ecclesiastical titles. Perhaps I should raise my ambitions and seek to become Metropolitan of Terra Incognita.

Incognitus

No offense meant! I wasn't sure if perhaps it was Kyr Incognitus? Thank you for your contributions to this Forum!

Nec