Topic: U-word question

[Peter J]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

[Schultz]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

The best way of "dealing with it" on here is to use Greek Catholic, Greek-Rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic or the catch-all "Eastern Catholic".  If you must, "Eastern Christian in submission to the Vatican".

It's really not rocket science or even calculus.

[J Michael]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

The best way of "dealing with it" on here is to use Greek Catholic, Greek-Rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic or the catch-all "Eastern Catholic".  If you must, "Eastern Christian in submission to the Vatican".

It's really not rocket science or even calculus.

Hey, now...don't you go maligning my math skills, okay  ?  Just because I never even made it to calculus.....

Besides, I like either "Eastern Catholic" or if you must, "Eastern Christian in communion with Rome." 

Okay.....bring on the rocket science  .

[Shanghaiski]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

I've never understood why it's offensive. I had an advisor who was Ukrainian Eastern Catholic and self-identified, quite proudly, as a U****e.

[dzheremi]

I use it, and likewise do not really understand why it is considered offensive. As it has been explained to me it is bad because it implies that the Eastern Catholic Churches are something less than full churches in their own right, but, well...I fail to see how the ecclesiology of the Roman communion doesn't make it so. I mean, it's nicer to say "uniate" than "token", right?

[Basil 320]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

I've never understood why it's offensive. I had an advisor who was Ukrainian Eastern Catholic and self-identified, quite proudly, as a U****e.

I've never understood why it is offensive, the Latin word for union, unbelievable; political correctness of Christianity.

[ialmisry]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

the official title of the Romanian eastern community is "Biserica unita cu Roma" "Church united with Rome.

[Shanghaiski]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

the official title of the Romanian eastern community is "Biserica unita cu Roma" "Church united with Rome.

Which is an interesting eccleiological statement of its own.

[Peter J]

The best way of "dealing with it" on here is to use Greek Catholic, Greek-Rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic or the catch-all "Eastern Catholic".  If you must, "Eastern Christian in submission to the Vatican".

It's really not rocket science or even calculus.

I've never understood why it's offensive. I had an advisor who was Ukrainian Eastern Catholic and self-identified, quite proudly, as a U****e.

I use it, and likewise do not really understand why it is considered offensive. As it has been explained to me it is bad because it implies that the Eastern Catholic Churches are something less than full churches in their own right, but, well...I fail to see how the ecclesiology of the Roman communion doesn't make it so. I mean, it's nicer to say "uniate" than "token", right?

I've never understood why it is offensive, the Latin word for union, unbelievable; political correctness of Christianity.

Alright, I'm not hearing much support for the idea of translating it (I assume you all know what I mean by "it").   

[Shanghaiski]

"They who must not be named for what they really are" might be offensive.

[Peter J]

At the risk of over-loading this thread, I've also been wondering why the heck the Orthodox ever started using the U-word in the first place. I can understand Catholics (see the example at the bottom of this post) classifying churches as "*niat" if they are united to Rome, and "Non-*niat" otherwise, but I can't really imagine why Orthodox adopted the same terminology.
 

Eastern Churches

    All ancient churches which were originally under the jurisdiction of one of the four great Eastern patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. They comprise numerous bodies in eastern Europe and Asia and a few divisions, the result of immigration, in America, Africa, and other parts of the world. They are divided into *niats of which there are nine groups, all united to Rome, and non-*niats consisting of eight groups of churches which have long been separated from Rome as a result of the Eastern schisms and heresies.

(From the 1910 New Catholic Dictionary. Emphasis added. Asterisks inserted in place of the letter "U".)

[Deacon Lance]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

[podkarpatska]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

Our Greek and Russian friends need not fear, the Rusyn, Ukrainian and Romanian Eastern Catholics had their own set of nasty words for us Orthodox back in the day. At least most of us can laugh about them over a beer here in the States these days.

[ialmisry]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

Oh? Why do the Russians and Greeks not have a dog in this fight?

[Peter J]

At the risk of over-loading this thread, I've also been wondering why the heck the Orthodox ever started using the U-word in the first place. I can understand Catholics (see the example at the bottom of this post) classifying churches as "*niat" if they are united to Rome, and "Non-*niat" otherwise, but I can't really imagine why Orthodox adopted the same terminology.
 

The word itself is neutral.

I don't see that. To call those Eastern Churches in communion with Rome "united" or "*niate", and all other Eastern Churches "disunited" or "Non-*niate", reflects our view that the former are Catholic and the latter aren't, does it not?

[Deacon Lance]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

Our Greek and Russian friends need not fear, the Rusyn, Ukrainian and Romanian Eastern Catholics had their own set of nasty words for us Orthodox back in the day. At least most of us can laugh about them over a beer here in the States these days.

Indeed, that is what I was getting at.  Katsap (goatee) is another such word.  Those groups were involved in the unias and subsequent fights in America.  They felt the division first hand the Russians and Greeks were spectators. 

[Punch]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

The best way of "dealing with it" on here is to use Greek Catholic, Greek-Rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic or the catch-all "Eastern Catholic".  If you must, "Eastern Christian in submission to the Vatican".

It's really not rocket science or even calculus.

No, it is plain stupid political correctness.

[Deacon Lance]

At the risk of over-loading this thread, I've also been wondering why the heck the Orthodox ever started using the U-word in the first place. I can understand Catholics (see the example at the bottom of this post) classifying churches as "*niat" if they are united to Rome, and "Non-*niat" otherwise, but I can't really imagine why Orthodox adopted the same terminology.
 

The word itself is neutral.

I don't see that. To call those Eastern Churches in communion with Rome "united" or "*niate", and all other Eastern Churches "disunited" or "Non-*niate", reflects our view that the former are Catholic and the latter aren't, does it not?

No, in simplest terms it means one is in communion with the Pope of Rome but as I said it now has too much baggage.

[Punch]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

[Deacon Lance]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

The best way of "dealing with it" on here is to use Greek Catholic, Greek-Rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic or the catch-all "Eastern Catholic".  If you must, "Eastern Christian in submission to the Vatican".

It's really not rocket science or even calculus.

No, it is plain stupid political correctness.

Nothing politically correct about calling a Church by its actual name nor does doing so imply one agrees with its beliefs.    

[Deacon Lance]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

No there really is and those of us directly affected know that, but I would not expect Protestant converts to Orthodoxy to understand it.

[Peter J]

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject. 

Alright, then just consider if someone didn't like my last post and commented "I can't believe you said just that! That's the most Serbian thing I've ever heard!" (Not that anyone is likely to say that, I just use "Serbian" as an example b/c it's in your profile.)

[witega]

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject. 

Alright, then just consider if someone didn't like my last post and commented "I can't believe you said just that! That's the most Serbian thing I've ever heard!" (Not that anyone is likely to say that, I just use "Serbian" as an example b/c it's in your profile.)

? I think that actually goes to Punch's meaning. If you use 'Serbian' in the sense of 'a bad thing', then eventually it becomes a bad word even if it started off as a simple objective descriptor. 'Retarded' was originally the polite replacement for things like 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded'. But since most people consider the thing being described to be a negative thing (in the sense that very few people would voluntarily choose to be that way and would go to considerable trouble to avoid becoming that way), the negative of the 'meaning' came to be associated to the word. And so we switch to new polite words--which will inevitably become tainted by the meaning and become derogatory and need replacement themselves.

[HouseOfGod]

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject. 

Alright, then just consider if someone didn't like my last post and commented "I can't believe you said just that! That's the most Serbian thing I've ever heard!" (Not that anyone is likely to say that, I just use "Serbian" as an example b/c it's in your profile.)

? I think that actually goes to Punch's meaning. If you use 'Serbian' in the sense of 'a bad thing', then eventually it becomes a bad word even if it started off as a simple objective descriptor. 'Retarded' was originally the polite replacement for things like 'idiot' and 'feeble-minded'. But since most people consider the thing being described to be a negative thing (in the sense that very few people would voluntarily choose to be that way and would go to considerable trouble to avoid becoming that way), the negative of the 'meaning' came to be associated to the word. And so we switch to new polite words--which will inevitably become tainted by the meaning and become derogatory and need replacement themselves.

Now that is a fabulous description

[JoeS2]

How about we say "Non-Orthodox Catholic"?  Works for me....AND is says a lot.

[Peter J]

How about we say "Non-Orthodox Catholic"?  Works for me....AND is says a lot.

Interesting, but I'll hold off commenting till I hear your reasoning.

[Peter J]

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject. 

Alright, then just consider if someone didn't like my last post and commented "I can't believe you said just that! That's the most Serbian thing I've ever heard!" (Not that anyone is likely to say that, I just use "Serbian" as an example b/c it's in your profile.)

?

It was kind of a weak analogy.

[ialmisry]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

No there really is and those of us directly affected know that, but I would not expect Protestant converts to Orthodoxy to understand it.

Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.  Is that like Protestant converts to the Vatican's eastern rites?  The Vatican's Latins who are transferred to its eastern rites?

[ialmisry]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

The best way of "dealing with it" on here is to use Greek Catholic, Greek-Rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Melkite Catholic or the catch-all "Eastern Catholic".  If you must, "Eastern Christian in submission to the Vatican".

It's really not rocket science or even calculus.

No, it is plain stupid political correctness.

Nothing politically correct about calling a Church by its actual name nor does doing so imply one agrees with its beliefs.    

It does if you deny your Church's beliefs in giving its name to another.

[Deacon Lance]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

the official title of the Romanian eastern community is "Biserica unita cu Roma" "Church united with Rome.

Close:

Biserica Română Unită cu Roma, Greco-Catolică

[ialmisry]

Hi all. What I'm wondering is, would the best way of dealing with the U-word (which is considered offensive) be to simply translate it? And if so, how should it be translated? Perhaps "united"?

the official title of the Romanian eastern community is "Biserica unita cu Roma" "Church united with Rome.

Close:

Biserica Română Unită cu Roma, Greco-Catolică

"Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic."  At least it gets the "united with Rome" part right.  Close or geographically at least.

[Deacon Lance]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

No there really is and those of us directly affected know that, but I would not expect Protestant converts to Orthodoxy to understand it.

Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.  Is that like Protestant converts to the Vatican's eastern rites?  The Vatican's Latins who are transferred to its eastern rites?

No.  I've never met any with the need to make up convoluted names for other Churches, especially when their hierarchs are quite comfortable using the names the Churches use of themselves.

[ialmisry]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

No there really is and those of us directly affected know that, but I would not expect Protestant converts to Orthodoxy to understand it.

Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.  Is that like Protestant converts to the Vatican's eastern rites?  The Vatican's Latins who are transferred to its eastern rites?

No.  I've never met any with the need to make up convoluted names for other Churches, especially when their hierarchs are quite comfortable using the names the Churches use of themselves.

As Florence shows, hierarchs can get too comfortable with a lot of things.

Calling a spade a spade is quite the opposite of "convoluted."

[Peter J]

Nothing politically correct about calling a Church by its actual name nor does doing so imply one agrees with its beliefs.    

It does if you deny your Church's beliefs in giving its name to another.

That doesn't explain why your Orthodox forebears started using the term "*niat" in the first place.

The argument that the usage of "*niat/Non-*niat" was originally neutral doesn't work, b/c the usage was not originally neutral. Defining "*niat" to mean those Eastern Churches who are united to Rome, and "Non-*niat" to mean the Nestorians, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox, clearly expresses our p.o.v. not yours. (Conversely, if "*niat" had been defined to mean the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and if "Non-*niat" had been defined to mean the Nestorians, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Catholics, then that would express your p.o.v. not ours.)

[podkarpatska]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

No there really is and those of us directly affected know that, but I would not expect Protestant converts to Orthodoxy to understand it.

Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.  Is that like Protestant converts to the Vatican's eastern rites?  The Vatican's Latins who are transferred to its eastern rites?

No.  I've never met any with the need to make up convoluted names for other Churches, especially when their hierarchs are quite comfortable using the names the Churches use of themselves.

I have to say that those Catholics and Orthodox who don't, or didn't, have a 'proverbial horse' in this race in that their parish, in that their families and their faith were not really directly impacted by the unions, seem to be far more 'worked up' over this issue and the terminology than those of us, like myself on the Orthodox side and the good Deacon on the Eastern Catholic side are. Our peoples and communities have reconciled to the reality that our fore-bearers chose different paths and today we acknowledge and respect each other - not in a true 'union' of faith of course - but as people with a shared history and many common shared beliefs. My advice to others - try to emulate our behavior - it hasn't been a quick or an easy path, but like Robert Frost observed, when you choose the path less taken it makes all the difference.

[Peter J]

The word itself is neutral.  It is the way it was/is used that made/makes it derogatory.  When you take a neutral word and make it code for scumbag those so referred tend not to like it.  Russians and Greeks who don't have a dog in this fight don't get it, Rusyns, Ukrainians, and Romanians do.

There really is no code.  It becomes like the word "retarded".  No matter what euphemism you use, you are still discussing the retarded.  Only the euphemism makes the user seem as or more retarded than the subject.  As for the U-word, I do not consider them scumbags.  I do not harbor the same benevolence for the truth denying so called "Orthodox" who make a big deal of calling a spade a spade.

No there really is and those of us directly affected know that, but I would not expect Protestant converts to Orthodoxy to understand it.

Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.  Is that like Protestant converts to the Vatican's eastern rites?  The Vatican's Latins who are transferred to its eastern rites?

No.  I've never met any with the need to make up convoluted names for other Churches, especially when their hierarchs are quite comfortable using the names the Churches use of themselves.

I have to say that those Catholics and Orthodox who don't, or didn't, have a 'proverbial horse' in this race in that their parish, in that their families and their faith were not really directly impacted by the unions, seem to be far more 'worked up' over this issue and the terminology than those of us, like myself on the Orthodox side and the good Deacon on the Eastern Catholic side are. Our peoples and communities have reconciled to the reality that our fore-bearers chose different paths and today we acknowledge and respect each other - not in a true 'union' of faith of course - but as people with a shared history and many common shared beliefs. My advice to others - try to emulate our behavior

Thank you, I believe I will.

- it hasn't been a quick or an easy path, but like Robert Frost observed, when you choose the path less taken it makes all the difference.

That's a great poem.

[ialmisry]

Nothing politically correct about calling a Church by its actual name nor does doing so imply one agrees with its beliefs.    

It does if you deny your Church's beliefs in giving its name to another.

That doesn't explain why your Orthodox forebears started using the term "*niat" in the first place.

The argument that the usage of "*niat/Non-*niat" was originally neutral doesn't work, b/c the usage was not originally neutral. Defining "*niat" to mean those Eastern Churches who are united to Rome, and "Non-*niat" to mean the Nestorians, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox, clearly expresses our p.o.v. not yours. (Conversely, if "*niat" had been defined to mean the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and if "Non-*niat" had been defined to mean the Nestorians, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Catholics, then that would express your p.o.v. not ours.)

It wasn't originally neutral.  Your side used the term "Holy Union" ("Uniya") for its pact with hell and covenant with death, and tried to pass those who submitted to the Vatican off as "united" in "Catholic unity."  Such terminology infuses the hagiography of Josaphat the Malevolent.  We just used what they called themselves.  The bad connotations came from reality, the enemy of all euphemisms.

Btw, in my neck of the woods, they were called "maghluub," "conquered," "subdued."

"schismatic," "heterodox," "heretics"... clearly express our p.o.v.  We don't have a lot of need for other terms.

[witega]

Nothing politically correct about calling a Church by its actual name nor does doing so imply one agrees with its beliefs.    

It does if you deny your Church's beliefs in giving its name to another.

That doesn't explain why your Orthodox forebears started using the term "*niat" in the first place.

The argument that the usage of "*niat/Non-*niat" was originally neutral doesn't work, b/c the usage was not originally neutral. Defining "*niat" to mean those Eastern Churches who are united to Rome, and "Non-*niat" to mean the Nestorians, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox, clearly expresses our p.o.v. not yours. (Conversely, if "*niat" had been defined to mean the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and if "Non-*niat" had been defined to mean the Nestorians, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Catholics, then that would express your p.o.v. not ours.)

I see two points of confusion in the above. First, while it's true that both RC's and Orthodox used the term 'Uniate', only RC's used the term 'non-Uniate' (and, not, I think that commonly. Your quote may be the only time I've ever seen the term). Orthodox continued to self-refer as Orthodox (or Catholic or Orthodox Catholic) and only needed a new term to refer to those who were no longer part of us but were now part of the Roman Communion (while retaining our outward forms).

Secondly, you see 'Uniate" as 'positive' because you see union with Rome as positive. For Orthodox who see/saw union with contemporary Rome as a negative, it was and is a negative term. And for an objective 3rd party (say a secular historian) it would have been a simple neutral descriptor of someone subject to the historical 'Unia of Brest' or later unions following a similar pattern.

[Peter J]

Secondly, you see 'Uniate" as 'positive' because you see union with Rome as positive.

Yes and no. Literally, "*niat" just means "united". The convention that developed was that it meant, specifically, "united to Rome". Much as "Catholic" literally means "universal" (or "according to the whole") but by convention means us and not you.

So I concur with this portion of ialmisry's post:

We just used what they called themselves. 

[JoeS2]

How about we say "Non-Orthodox Catholic"?  Works for me....AND is says a lot.

Interesting, but I'll hold off commenting till I hear your reasoning.

Well, IMHO, (which may not be worth too much) A Non-Orthodox Catholic is one who is not a member of Holy Orthodoxy. (Examples: Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Protestants, Nestorians, Arians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.)  This is some way, at least to me, minimizes the stigma of the term Unia to some degree and lessens the need for this tag.  Instead of saying he's a *niat we would say that he or she is not an Orthodox Catholic.   But what do I know.

[mike]

The reason that such a rule was introduced was that the U-word is improper regarding to most of the Eastern Catholics because most of them are cradle Eastern Catholics, some of them are converts and none of them are actual Uniates - people from other Christian communities that were received by the Vatican via the union way. That makes the U-word erroneous.

The only people that could be called with the U-word in accordance with the rules are those in the Ordinariates for the former Anglicans.

I really do not see what interesting is in discussing that.

[JoeS2]

How about we say "Non-Orthodox Catholic"?  Works for me....AND is says a lot.

Interesting, but I'll hold off commenting till I hear your reasoning.

Well, IMHO, (which may not be worth too much) A Non-Orthodox Catholic is one who is not a member of Holy Orthodoxy. (Examples: Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Greek Catholics, Protestants, Nestorians, Arians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.)  This is some way, at least to me, minimizes the stigma of the term Unia to some degree and lessens the need for this tag.  Instead of saying he's a *niat we would say that he or she is not an Orthodox Catholic.   But what do I know.

Some what apophatic.

[ialmisry]

"Catholic" literally means "universal" (or "according to the whole") but by convention means us and not you.

Whose convention?

Btw, "uniate" not only was what they used of themselves, it was also correct.

[Peter J]

The only people that could be called with the U-word in accordance with the rules are those in the Ordinariates for the former Anglicans.

FWIW, Cardinal Kaspar made a specific point of telling the Orthodox (I don't recall which Orthodox specifically he was speaking to) that the creation of Anglican Ordinariates isn't uniatism. I'm not saying you should agree with him, I just wanted to set the record straight.

Even if they are, I have to wonder if it isn't better to use a substitute for the U-word, such as "United".

[Peter J]

How about we say "Non-Orthodox Catholic"?  Works for me....AND is says a lot.

Interesting, but I'll hold off commenting till I hear your reasoning.

Well, IMHO, (which may not be worth too much) A Non-Orthodox Catholic is one who is not a member of Holy Orthodoxy.

Oh, okay. When you said "Non-Orthodox Catholic", it wasn't clear whether you meant that in the sense of "Non-Orthodox, Non-Catholic", or "Catholic Non-Orthodox".