2 members (Hutsul, 1 invisible),
352
guests, and
90
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
The use of "orthodox" has rich meaning in the English language. I am thinking of Chesterton's book, "Orthodoxy." Since we live in an English speaking world, he may have some insights for us. Chesterton writes in the first chapter: But nearly all people I have ever met in this western society in which I live would agree to the general proposition that we need this life of practical romance; the combination of something that is strange with something that is secure. We need so to view the world as to combine an idea of wonder and an idea of welcome. We need to be happy in this wonderland without once being merely comfortable. It is THIS achievement of my creed that I shall chiefly pursue in these pages.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Here is another gem of "orthodoxy:" The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Here is another quote from Chesterton which adds some interesting insights on whether we ought to use the term "Orthodox." It is from a work called, "Heretics" which admittedly, other than this portion, I have not read. XX. Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy
Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there has been in the past, or will be in the future, such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself, there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut. Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded. By all means let us use the term orthodox without fear. But let our words reflect the reality of that which we are or should be.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Many, many thanks!
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Avery Cardinal Dulles has a wonderful article in this month's issue of "First Things," entitled, "The Orthodox Imperative." It is not available on-line yet but it should be in the near future at: http://www.firstthings.com/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Originally posted by Serge Keleher: Many, many thanks!
Fr. Serge Maisie Ward's biography of Chesterton just appeared at Gutenberg. Cick here. [ gutenberg.org]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
I noticed some more inconsistencies this past Saturday at Vespers. The prayers of the priest in Vespers (in the MCI edition) use the phrase "who loves mankind." The tropars and stichera use some variation of "who loves us all."
Now, if the motive for the latter is, to some degree, to reduce the offense given by the word "mankind," what will happen when those who may be offended hear the priest prayers?
If "mankind" can't be uttered, it seems it shouldn't be uttered anywhere. If it is permitted sometimes, it should be permitted all the time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends,
In our English translation of the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy, the word for "Orthodox" is given with a small "o."
I think that is nonsense.
But what do you think?
What difference does the capitalization make?
Alex (Orthodox Druid)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Orthodox=a religion
orthodox="right teaching" or more generally "of the true faith"
Catholic=a religion
catholic="throughout the whole" or more generally "universal"
It is my understanding that the word orthodox when used in the liturgy is referring to the second definition and would therefore use a lower case letter, just as the word catholic is referring to its second definition and therefore uses a lower case letter.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
I believe they are referring to their roots in the Orthodox religion (and its entailing theology, praxis, spirituality, etc), which would be using the first definition and therefore the capital letter. They can correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Wondering,
Well, that's just it.
What religion does "Orthodox" refer to?
If the Administrator is serious, and he really is, then by saying "Orthodox in communion with Rome" - he is affirming that the Orthodox religion was and, for him, myself and other Oblate novices etc., is all about communion with Rome.
In that sense, "Orthodox" refers to more than one "religion" insofar as there are "Orthodox" who are in communion with Rome, others who are out of it, and then the Oriental Orthodox who are out of communion with the first two.
We always have these disagreements at our parish.
And we have a genius who STILL has a mission to cross out even "orthodox" from the liturgical pamphlets . . .
Alex
|
|
|
|
|