The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
elijahyasi, BarsanuphiusFan, connorjack, Hookly, fslobodzian
6,171 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Fr. Al), 381 guests, and 115 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,614
Members6,171
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
H
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
H Offline
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
Actually, the Slovak parishes in Canada were under the jurisdiction of the local Ukrainian Catholic Bishop until the establishment of the Slovak Eparchy 20 or 25 years ago. For about 20 years Bishop Michael was simply the Apostolic Visitor...
I'm no prophet, and I could easily be wrong in this matter. But the community is simply not large enough either to warrant or to maintain a diocese.

Fr. Serge
Hello Father Serge,
I think I can agree with you about this. It seems to me that the Slovaks in Canada could be returned to the UGCC, or possible attached to the BCC Pittsburgh Metropolia as a deanery to one of the other eparchies. The small numbers do not need a bishop of their own.

It may be time to regroup. The Ruthenians in North America are shrinking. They could expand tremendously if they had the resources and the verve, but I don't see it.

In Orthodoxy it is much the same, there are some parishes that will grow, and some on maintenance. Some should consolidate with neighboring parishes and pool their talents. It only makes sense to look at it this way.

I am reversing myself from a longstanding position by stating this, but I really think that the best thing for the Pittsburgh Metropolia to do right now is work closely with the UGCC under some new model of ecclesiology. Possibly consolidating some parishes with them (so that everyone is properly cared for) and get serious about evangelization.

And by evangelization I don't mean "attract more RC". I mean find out what they stand for and believe, then pitch that to the general public aggressively. Actually convert people!

Now if this recent liturgical adjustment is demoralizing the BCC, they are in no condition hit the bricks evangelizing, they would be setting themselves up to fail.

So, what is the backup plan?? What will the Ruthenians of the Slovak Eparchy do, what will the Pittsburgh Metropolia do?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
M
Junior Member
Junior Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by Etnick
Yes there is more. It's called "Feminized" inclusive language. Tampering with the Creed. "Who for us MEN" in the creed, is now "Who for US" without "MEN" included.

That change alone is causing an uproar. It will be an interesting situation once this is implemented in the next few months.

I'm glad I attend a church where the Creed is said in it's original form.



Why didn't they just translate the Greek as: "for us men and women"?


Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Matthew Dunn
Originally Posted by Etnick
Yes there is more. It's called "Feminized" inclusive language. Tampering with the Creed. "Who for us MEN" in the creed, is now "Who for US" without "MEN" included.

That change alone is causing an uproar. It will be an interesting situation once this is implemented in the next few months.

I'm glad I attend a church where the Creed is said in it's original form.



Why didn't they just translate the Greek as: "for us men and women"?

Why tamper with the Creed in the first place?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!! I slept fine with the original translation, (minus the filioque of course)!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Junior Member
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 28
Whilst I would not leave the Church (if I were Ruthenian) due to these changes, I certainly would prefer the older use to be maintained.

Do you suppose a Roman Rite letter would do any good?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

-Uspenije

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
F
Member
Member
F Offline
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Likes: 1
Do I suppose that a well-written letter from someone who normally follows, or was raised in, or is canonically attached to the Roman Rite would do any good?

Yes, I do - provided that the letter is well written, courteous and reasonably concise. The point can be made that there is no need to replicate the damage that was done in the Western Church in consequence of a hasty liturgical reform.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
M
Junior Member
Junior Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by Etnick
Originally Posted by Matthew Dunn
Why didn't they just translate the Greek as: "for us men and women"?

Why tamper with the Creed in the first place?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!! I slept fine with the original translation, (minus the filioque of course)!


Of course, ANTHROPOS does not mean "man, men" -- but, "humanity." (Yes, I know I'm not telling you something you don't already know.) But, I also know that "man" has traditionally had the connotation of all humanity in English usage.

Seems to me the safest course of action was to just add "and women" to the translation.

As to tampering with the Creed, I'm not sure I would call what they did "tampering."

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Matthew Dunn
Originally Posted by Etnick
Originally Posted by Matthew Dunn
Why didn't they just translate the Greek as: "for us men and women"?

Why tamper with the Creed in the first place?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!! I slept fine with the original translation, (minus the filioque of course)!


Of course, ANTHROPOS does not mean "man, men" -- but, "humanity." (Yes, I know I'm not telling you something you don't already know.) But, I also know that "man" has traditionally had the connotation of all humanity in English usage.

Seems to me the safest course of action was to just add "and women" to the translation.

As to tampering with the Creed, I'm not sure I would call what they did "tampering."

Well, I attended Sunday of Orthodoxy vespers at a Romanian Orthodox church yesterday. The first thing I did when entering the pew was pick up the pew book. Right there in front of my eyes was the same wording the Ruthenians are implementing. "Who for us", WITHOUT "MEN", in the creed.

I guess some Orthodox obviously translate it this way also. Maybe just a Romanian thing? My OCA parish and all others I've been to include Men in the creed.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0