www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Use of the word 'orthodox' during Divine Liturgy in the Greek Catholic Church

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Bishop Robert heads a Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy and the split between the Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox was not the same as that between Pittsburgh and Johnstown. Of course the Ukrainians use less English than we do and in Slavonic/Ukrainian they always used pravoslavny.

You are right is was not same. In Ukraine people died during the split. In the US the splits in the 1930s were pretty ugly although not to the level of violence as in Ukraine. The salient point is that at least in terms of using the word 'orthodox' people like Bishop Robert aren't hung up on precluding 'orthodox' from being used.


You should research our history and see which Latinizations were forced down our throats (relativley few) and which were adopted quite freely (many more).

To clarify, when I wrote, 'forced down our throats' I meant by our own clergy. I agree, our own leaders (either here in the US or in Europe before the mass immigration to the US) did it to us and it is ashame.

Fr Deacon Lance wrote:

If this is justification for retaining the "of the true faith," I am saddened. This is the perfect catechetical moment to teach forgiveness rather than holding onto grudges and anger.

djs said:

there are reasons? real reasons? Other than we can't forgive what happened 70 years ago and it still isn't time to move on?

DTB:

The reasons that some may find it distracting are of course real. History did actually happen. But what I said is very different than saying that it would be offensive, let alone my condoning anyone taking offensive. Forgiveness is relatively easy; it's forgetting that's hard.

Now, what are the reasons behind your not evidencing any understanding - even as you seem to expect others to be so understanding? There is a catechetical moment here for all.

So my being "understanding" requires us to hold onto the hurt? Forgiveness is not complete unless one forgets.

Why have most other Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions made peace with the word "orthodox," but we haven't?

No it does not. Where do you get such an idea?

Probably not true, but what's the point, anyway?

If by "made peace with" you mean "have it in the liturgy", then begin to answer thequestion by tracing the history and development of the English liturgy in the various Byzantine Catholic churches. I am sure you will find an answer there.

Not sure what you mean by tracing the history.

The Melkites restored "orthodox" in 1968. Byzantine Daily Worship carries a letter from the then Melkite Patriarch commending Archbishop Raya for restoring the word "orthodox" to a place of honor.

The Ukrainian English translation of 1988 also has "orthodox."

I've been told the Romanian Catholic jurisdiction also uses "orthodox" in its English translation.

As far as I know, our jurisdiction does not allow "orthodox" even as an option.

Dear Friends,

In fact, I've been told by visiting priests and laity from Ukraine that in their parishes, although they use the term "Orthodox Christians" in the liturgy, there are always those in the church who "make a sour face" as if they had swallowed bad-tasting cough syrup . . .

The reason for this, as djs has mentioned, is the connection of "Orthodox" to "Russian Orthodox."

Alex

Alex,

Thanks for sharing this. I didn't realize that they used "orthodox" in the Liturgy in Ukraine. If they can do this and survive doing this despite much fresher memories, surely we could do this and survive since our era of conflict is so long ago.

Dear Dave,

Well, I suppose it all must have a pastoral approach and I must say that both djs and Fr. Deacon Lance have a good pastoral approach to these questions (as do you, to be sure!).

Friends of mine who are really "Orthodox in communion with Rome" UGCC priests must, as I would imagine, have to make a few "sour faces" of their own when they serve parishes that observe Stations of the Cross and a number of other Latin devotions.

(In fact, there are Orthodox parishes in Eastern Europe that have the Stations of the Cross and even promote its use!)

But they must bring the people to their "Eastern senses" in a pastorally sensitive manner (is it just me noticing this, or why is everyone here using a small "o" for "orthodox Christians?" Shouldn't it be a capital "O?").

Our Church up here has approved the use of the Nicene Creed without the Filioque, as you know.

But I"ve spoken to too many of our laity who get emotionally distraught by this to say that I'm not going to talk about it with anyone any longer!

It's up to our clergy to educate their flocks to avoid sheepish grins over this matter . . .

And I've also met Orthodox Christians whose liturgical and private devotional lives are more 'Latinized" than many EC's I know, including the EEC's here ("Elite Eastern Catholics" ).

It's easy for the elites to impose their view on others who may not be ready to accept them - and to do so "for their own good" etc.

I don't think that's a good approach and I'm sure you will want to agree with me . . .

Alex

The Modernists on this board continue with their "impose their view"(see above) or "your opinion" comments. As if celebrating Vespers, opening and closing the royal doors at the correct times, etc. are just an 'opinion' or suggestion that some 'elite radicals' in the church believe in and just recently came up with. That there is no basis in our tradition for them and that it is 'insensitive' to 'force' them on people.

But I can't fault them because this line of thinking derives from a flaw in the Modernist mindset. With their heart wrenching want to called 'sensitive' and 'inclusive' Modernists end up isolating themselves to their own age and become ignorant of their spiritual heritage and roots. They end up behaving and believing as if the church ended in Acts 28 and did not reappear until the 20th Century or so( give or take a few decades depending on which topic they are debating).

One other item that I will post more on in the future is that the Modernists are actually the main impediment to unity in our church. If we can restore and reverse the course that the Modernists have had us on and persuade the Modernists to leave their false ways, then we will find unity. This demands of us traditionalists (or as we were just called in a previous post 'elitists')to stand strong and be uncompromising with a loving and open attitude. This also demands that the Modernists must turn from their errors and admit those errors. For we traditionalists are not the ones who have brought in these innovations and Latinizations and caused the rift that exists today; and anyone who can think for themselves can see this.
You can only pour so much water into grape juice when it reaches a point that it no longer tastes like grape juice and begins to taste more like water. Unfortunately, a lot of dilution has taken place in our church, it is time to bring it back to its original taste. That is not elitist, it is truthful, traditional, and orthodox.

Well said, Michael Cerularius!

What are the problems here speaking of Orthodox..? That is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith...the Orthodox faith. It should not be spoken of as a mix of Latin innovations...whatever they be. If the use of orthodox...well, we have locally an 'orthodox' presbyterian church....ahhhh, their 'orthodoxy' is pure Calvinistic reform theology and in NO WAY are they Orthodox. One could be an orthodox RC, and still be NOT Orthodox. There are Orthodox who consider the new calendarist 'canonical' 'orthodox' as neither, (and with some good reason..!!). BUT, are we the judge and arbiter of this..???? I wish that it was easier than this, but history and life does not yet seem to let that happen. My read is that if you are Orthodox, you are NOT in communion with Rome, but you could be orthodox and be a byzantine catholic. This can be confusing, mik

MC:
You know very well that "on this board" the pertinent views and opinions are not about goals of restoration. I know of no one here, for example, who opposes restoration of Vespers. In my own postings I repeatedly refer to that particular restoration as the highest priority. So please stop posting such obviously false suggestions.

What has been discussed with various viewpoints is the best manner by which to achieve that and our other objectives. And it is clear from the your own posts on the issue of "real leadership" that you recognize, at least in lucid intervals, the actual point.

Such chutzpah. You have not give the least evidence in your posts of a "loving and open attitude". And when attitude adjustment is suggested to you, you don't get it, and instead rant about attitudes not expressed on the thread. If you had this attitude, this thread would have been a page at most. It is the lack of that attitude that was being discussed.

Dear Michael,

Your post above clearly shows just the kind of elitism that goes against the pastoral approach that should always guide those called to serve our Eastern Catholic Churches.

I never called you an elitist, but only an attitude without identifying ANYONE as being in possession of it.

In addition, you have given no definition of what you mean by "Modernist."

One may only conclude that you mean by this the heresy condemned by the Catholic Church.

If so, then you have slandered me and I demand an apology, or else some sort of intervention from the Forum administration.

If by "Modernist" you mean something else, then please define what you mean.

You do not know me nor what I do with respect to the restoration of the traditions in the UGCC.

There is not one view as what these traditions involve in my Church. Perhaps there is elsewhere.

There are those in the UGCC for whom 'traditionalism' is tantamount to a form of a Russified Byzantine tradition that our Martyrs opposed. If this is what is your guiding light, that is fine. But this need not be imposed on those who have another view of traditionalism.

Finally, Sir, I would suggest a close study of the life of St Alexis Toth to understand what a pastoral approach is really all about.

I'm sorry I've had to write this post on the Feast of the Theophany of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, but I had to.

What I've always found to be rather amazing is how there are those who, in the name of Eastern Christian tradition, will sometimes forget the spirit that is behind it.

And, Cathy, I am also disappointed in your "Amen" to Michael's post.

I will pray for all of us and if there is anything in what I've said here that is uncharitable, I ask for forgiveness. But I take nothing back that is said in the spirit of critical honesty and sincere reproof.

Alex