Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Thursday, 12 November 2009

The "U" Word

As Mother Church prepares to welcome (at least a few) poping Anglicans, the parallels with Byzantine Rite Catholicism, and the situation our Eastern Brethren once faced has been noted by more than once commentator.

At one time I lurked for a bit on a newsgroup or board about equally divided between Roman and Byzanine Catholic. (Well, actually the latter made up only about a third of the denizens, but a single Ruthenian seemed responsible for half of the posts all on his lonesome....)

I read more than one flame war begun by arguments over the word "uniate."

Some used the word without affect, of themselves, while others, of both rites, acted as if "uniate" was the ecclesialogical equivalent of... nope, I can't bring myself to type it, or rather, can't steal myself for the reactions using the word "n*****" might earn me.

But let me just say that some were rabid.

Anyway, "uniate" has been used in some of the discussion I've read, certainly in blogs, and even in the MSM, IIRC.
It appeared on description cards for works in an exhibit at one of the top five museums in the nation, that I attended.

So am I correct that the war of that word has been fought and an armistice achieved?

That the word "uniate" is right and proper? (It seems such an excellent and precise descriptor.)

Kind of like the quondam insult "methodist" proudly taken up by those who were the word's intended target?

Or did it go the other way, like "whore," where the corruption of a euphemism acquired the power of the word it use sought to avoid?

Or is it only objectionable applied to members of the Eastern Churches, and just hunky-dory for former Anglicans?

Or is it like "scotch" permissible when applied to a thing but not a person?

In any case, ut unum sint.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, is "poping" a rude word? even when used by such an unabashed papist, not to say papolater, as myself?

No comments: