OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 10:57:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: U-word question  (Read 2006 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« on: June 18, 2012, 04:27:58 PM »

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"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2012, 04:35:38 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 04:35:49 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,032


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2012, 04:44:05 PM »

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  Grin Grin Grin?  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."  Grin

Okay.....bring on the rocket science  laugh laugh.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2012, 05:15:26 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,101


« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2012, 05:31:30 PM »

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?
Logged

Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2012, 05:35:04 PM »

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.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2012, 06:05:54 PM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2012, 06:12:16 PM »

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.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2012, 06:27:30 PM »

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").  Undecided  Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2012, 06:30:02 PM »

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

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2012, 07:04:32 PM »

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.
 Huh

Quote from: New Catholic Dictionary
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".)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2012, 08:03:58 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 08:05:34 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2012, 08:13:00 PM »

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.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2012, 08:48:37 PM »

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?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2012, 08:50:36 PM »

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.
 Huh

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?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2012, 09:28:53 PM »

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. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,303



« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2012, 09:32:31 PM »

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.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2012, 09:33:51 PM »

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.
 Huh

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.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,303



« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2012, 09:39:42 PM »

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.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2012, 09:49:04 PM »

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.    
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2012, 09:52:51 PM »

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.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2012, 10:08:38 PM »

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.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2012, 10:54:48 PM »

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.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
HouseOfGod
Passionate Orthodox teenager
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 203



« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2012, 11:06:21 PM »

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 Smiley
Logged

Renewal during the first month of the new ecclesiastical calendar! Smiley
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2012, 11:24:11 PM »


How about we say "Non-Orthodox Catholic"?  Works for me....AND is says a lot.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2012, 11:26:48 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2012, 11:27:06 PM »

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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2012, 12:39:42 AM »

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?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2012, 12:40:55 AM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2012, 12:42:40 AM »

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
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2012, 12:49:19 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 12:50:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,891


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2012, 12:55:55 AM »

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.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2012, 12:57:42 AM »

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."
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 01:00:22 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2012, 07:15:02 AM »

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.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,241


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2012, 08:25:37 AM »

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.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2012, 08:39:01 AM »

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. Smiley

- 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.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2012, 09:30:30 AM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2012, 09:41:27 AM »

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.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2012, 10:45:18 AM »

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. 
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 10:47:49 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2012, 10:47:26 AM »

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.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 19, 2012, 10:54:02 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 10:57:17 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,101


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2012, 11:25:13 AM »

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.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2012, 12:05:27 PM »

"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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #43 on: June 19, 2012, 12:30:30 PM »

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".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2012, 12:34:57 PM »

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". Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.167 seconds with 73 queries.