EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN
TERMINOLOGY & CUSTOMS 
VS.  
CONFUSIONS WITH WESTERN TERMS, ETC.
&

NOTES ON PRAYER BOOK TRANSLATIONS 

©  2004-2006 by Orchid Land Publications

[frequently updated; updated 20060724, most recently 20071010

{Note:  When this page was published, Orlapubs solicited, and has received,
additional suggestions from others not mentioned by named here; 
cf. R191, as well as R124 on Greek psychological terminology]

     Why is it important to select one's terms from the right tradition?  Words create a phrónēma ("mentality, mindset, outlook," or thought world; the result of phrónēsis "thinking") and evoke an atmosphere—see examples below—both of which influence how a reader interprets the Bible or any writing on religion.  (St. Athanasios the Great complained about the way the Arian heretics has "stolen away" the true sense of Scripture.) 

 Since technical terms generally have a long history in one tradition or another, they evoke the semantic framework of the tradition they belong to, create an outlook or atmosphere radically different from the one the writer may wish to evoke.  It is deplorable when encyclopedias and interfaith documents fall into the egregious error of pretending that terms discussed below match beliefs of differing traditions or belief systems.  The axioms, premises, assumptions, or prepositions that constitute one's paradigm (cf. R265 and R99) of thinking affect how one understands this and that.  One cannot emphasize too much that when different paradigms conflict, they—or more specifically their axioms—impose different meanings on crucial terms.  The cleavage between Eastern and Western Christian thought worlds has been damagingly obscured by writers and translators’ futile attempts to express Orthodox ideas with the inappropriate vocabulary of Western Christianity. 
     Why is this a problem in English even more than in Russian or Greek?  When the first Orthodox theologians came to the English-speaking countries, they were not native-speakers of English and simply adopted whatever Latin or Protestant term was at hand—regardless of whether the term's connotations were compatible with Orthodoxy or not.  An example is "Lent," which lasts from Ash Wednesday till Easter, whereas the Orthodox Great Fast begins on Forgiveness Lordsday Vespers and lasts through the Friday preceding Lazaros Sabbath and Christ's Entry into Jerusalem (Palm Lordsday).  Great Week (or Holy Great Week) is not Holy Week; and it is not part of the Great Fast but a separate Fast.  There are also three other major fasting seasons that cannot be compared with "Lent."  

     Orthodoxy should not ape the West, not only because of doctrinal considerations but also for the simple practical reason that if people of other persuasions or of no religious persuasion are to come to us, it will be because we are "different."   This is the best argument for the Old Calendar, seeing that the New Calendar is just one more act of assimilation to the West, one more step to becoming Vatican Lite.    (Note that a calendar cannot be "heretical," as some contend; further, it would be difficult to prove that a calendar is based on a correct or heretical teaching.)  Aside from practical considerations, consider that encyclopedia articles and descriptions of Orthodox Christianity by some of its own exponents could induce an uninformed reader to infer that what is most important or interesting about holy Orthodoxy is its organizational structure.  Sometimes there is a quick and superficial glance at the history of the “seven” Synods (the eighth and ninth Orthodox Ecumenical Synods being left out) . . . or even just a list of Western beliefs that Orthodoxy does not exhibit.  This lamentable portrayal is wide­spread; it is self-defeating.  Note that we prefer Greek synod to Latin council, at least for the ecumenical ones.

      CLICK HERE for tables showing how East-West paradigm differences cause crucial Christian terms to be understood in conflicting ways: Eastern Christians treat the terms ontically (including energetically); Western Christians treat them 
deontically-juridically-morally.   Once these semantic differences are understood, things should be clearer for seekers, critics, would-be ecumenists, etc. 

      The incompatible axioms of the cognitive paradigms of East and West rule out compatible senses with respect to many points of doctrine.  The juridically slanted terms of Western theology in no way mesh with the energy-ontological terminology of the East, as discussed elsewhere on this website:
--R75, where it is observed that energy is usually expressed in the Old Testament as fire (we still speak of someone's not having enough fire in the belly) but in the New Testament, where enéryeia and the corresponding verb are not rare, light is often used to indicate the manifestation of energy.
--R228.   

    The important history of how the West went astray is not found in most writings that one could cite (or even known to various authors).  It is certainly not based on a few differences like the Filioque (an illegitimate and doctrinally wrong Latin addition to the Symbol of Belief) and a few practices like the use of leavened bread by the Orthodox in the Eucharist.  It is far more important to know the differences in Eastern and Western ways of thinking about the Trinity than it is to talk about the Filioque.   Still more important is to know why and how these differences have come about.  The real historical cause of Latin theology's diverging from the original Greek thinking was the influence of "the Muslim Aristotle" on the form of Western thinking that ended seven centuries of illiterate and barbaric Dark Ages in Western Europe.  Failing to mention the cognitive structures of the different forms of Christianity takes the wind out of the Orthodox sails; conversely, dealing with those structures takes the wind out of the Western sails.    
      If a person does not know about the need to step outside of one’s cognitive box or axiomatic paradigm to understand the coherence and interdependence of the details in one or another list of beliefs, it is easy to conclude that one is as good as another, . . . and holy Orthodoxy comes across as Papalism Lite.  But it is not the job of an Orthodox person or ecumenist to come across as Papalism Lite.  The assimilation strategy is very damaging.  Two steps are necessary to obviate this sad development:  Knowing the relevant history and using proper terminology—the focus of what follows.

     The combination canon law is redundant, since ecclesiastical laws are canons and canons are ecclesiastical laws—not, in English, civil laws.  If a distinction with civil laws is needed, there is no problem in speaking of "the canons and civil law."

STYLE

THEOLOGY

     Orthodox writers are disposed to speak of the economy (the arena of what is created) in contrast with the uncreated God.  The word began referring to managing a household and is now (along with economic) taken to refer to the created cosmos.

BASIC:  Eastern:  energy (makes a paired dynamis ["potential, capacity"]      
                        actual; energy terms occur 26 times in St. Paul's Epistles).
                        Translations like "work" or "operation" are misleading, 
                        though sometimes "function" is all right.  This term has 
                        contrary  meanings in engineering and other meanings in 
                        other sciences.    See more on energy below.                     
             Western:  juridical decisions and laws
                         Latins:  natural law*  :  Reformers:  positive law**

              *Based on promoting human and other natures.
            **Based on the will of a law-giver.

Note that the Orthodox term for the Persons of the all-holy Trinity is not consubstantial; it is co-essential!  We speak of God's one Essence; the West speaks of His one Substance.

NAMES AND TITLES OF GOD

Jesus Christ is YHWH, the Creator, the Most High, the Almighty, the "Reason" or LÓGOS of God.  See R75.  LÓGOS (whose three basic senses of "discussion, calculation, reason" had many peripheral senses of the first and last meaning) is a term that was used by the Middle Platonist Jewish philosopher Philo (whose life overlapped that of our Savior) as well as by St. John at the beginning of his Gospel.  St. Paul called the Creator the SOPHÍA "Wisdom" of God"; wisdom is practical reason.  (Calling the Creator of the cosmos a "word" is like speaking of the Epistles as the wives of the Apostles.  For "a word," Greek used léxis, rhêma, glôssa, épos, mŷthos, and at least that many more lexical items for more specialized senses of "word"—phoné, etc.)  
     Incidentally, lógos "reason" stands between noûs ("transcendent apperception"; it was not located in the brain but in the "heart") and diánoia ("discursive reason") or sophia "wisdom, practical reason").  St. Paul in 1 Cor. 1:24 called Christ SOPHÍA.
     The all-holy Spirit is not a Ghost in current English, at least for the Orthodox.  Note the titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the well-known prayers:                   

                    All-holy Trinity, + have mercy on us;
                    Lord [Father], be gracious toward our sins.
                    Master [Son], pardon our transgressions.
                    All-holy [Spirit], heed and heal our frailties, for your name's sake.   

The term Glory (dóxa) is often used for the manifestation of the uncreated Energies of the divine Being.  (Cf. the Shekhinah in Hebrew religion.)  It was present at the delivery of the Ten Commandments, in the fiery furnace at the Martyrdom of the Three Youths, to the Shepherds at Christ's Birth, in visions by various Old Testament Prophets, and the Apocalypse in the New Testament.

     ECCLESIASTICAL SEASONS, DAYS, AND OBSERVANCES

The Ecclesiastical year begins on Sep. 1, the Day of the Indiction; ecclesiastical dates currently fall 13 days later than the like-named date of the civil calendar.  The first day of the week is Lordsday (Greek) or Resurrectionday (Slavic); the immediately preceding day, mostly also fast-free except when preceding Glorious Pascha, is Sabbath.
Great Fast:  not Lent (see above for the reason why)    
requiem:  This has no relation to Latin commemorations of reposed Christians

THE ULTIMATE ABSURDITY is to render Sýmvolon Pisteos as "Symbol of faith" (the correct meaning is "Standard of belief"); how can a creed be the "symbol" of a Faith? 
     The first day of the week is Lordsday (Greek) or Resurrectionday (Slavic); the day preceding it is Sabbath.  
     Important festivals begin with a Vigil on the preceding evening that includes the Artoklasía, Great Vespers, Great Compline, and the Midnight Office.  (Rachmaninoff composed a Virgil, not a Vespers.)
     Note that various major festivals are followed a day later by the Synaxis of someone closely associated—St. John the Forerunner after the Theophany, the Angel Gabriel after the Annunciation, the all-holy Spirit after Trinity Lordsday (Pentecost Lordsday), and so on.  The greatest festivals are mostly preceded by a varying number of prefestival days and a varying number of postfestival days.  

      ENERGY TERMINOLOGY—NOUNS DERIVED 

        FROM CAUSATIVE VERBS IN GREEK

     Enérgeia is not "activity" as such; it is causal activity, activity that activates some dýnamis or potential to become actual—a result that be a state or a (caused, not causal) activity.

     Nouns derived from energy verbs (feminines ending in -sis and masculines ending in -smós) contain a causative-energizing element that is absent in a noun denoting an activity that is not causative like sleep(ing).  The energizing nouns are (in the left-hand column of the table below) equivalent to English -ization, -ification, or better:  -izing, -fying (but see on theosis below).  Most are paired with a neuter word (see the right column in the table below) derived from the same causative verb and ending in -ma; it  expresses the result of the energization in question.  Cf. thésis (the energizing—"a setting down" or "situating") with théma and thesmós (what is laid down—respectively "topic of discussion"  and "regulation")—results.  (On psychological terms, cf. R124.)  The Greek accent falls on the antepenult syllable of feminine nouns ending in -sis and the neuters ending in -ma in the following table, unless the word has only two syllables, in which case the accent falls on the penult.  (In all of the following, an "e" preceding -sis or -ma is eta, and "o" is omega.)

    *The plural means "sins."
  **It should be further noted that (masculine) energy terms ending in -ismós and -asmós are also paired with neuters in -ma expressing the result of the energization; cf. logismos "calculating, pondering,  with logisma "reckoning," i.e. the product of a calculation.  Some feminine forms compounded with -noia (unaccented, pronounced "-nya")*** are paired with a form ending in -sis.  
***-noia means "mind"; in early Greek it was now-ia, where digamma ([w]) later dropped out between vowels; it shows up as "u" in noûs but drops out in noëtikón; -ma was original -mat (the zero-grade form of ment- "mind"; automatic is "self-minded"), but Greek lost a word-final [t].

     East-West semantic differences among crucial terms are shown in tables viewable by clicking HERE.

     Once the terminology is clear, one can then choose whatever paradigm one prefers in a knowing manner, not in the ignorance often displayed in such choosing.

     The Orthodox do not "(con)celebrate" a Liturgy, though the only translations of Greek sylleitourgeîn (verb) and sylleitoûrgon (noun for the activity) and sylleitourgós (noun for a doer; the adjective is similar but the accent is on eí) that the writer can think of on the spot are co-serve(r).  Sylleitoûrgon could be rendered by co-servitorian service (coservatorial has a  meaning of its own that is different) or the not very elegant co-servitic service.   (Using conservation as a model to create co-servation has as little appeal as co-servative and co-servility [!] do, not to speak of the mouth-filling coservitudinarian and the pejorative connotations of servitude)  The basic problem is that serve itself is a Latin word with many derivatives  that are equally Latinate.  Synergetic service is not too far off course.  I prefer co-served Liturgy, having rejected pseudo-Greek sylliturgized service.

     Grace     Eastern uncreated Energy 
                               vs.
         Latin "supernatural" and ontological but neither energetic nor 
                uncreated—the habitual form of a believer's soul" 
            Reformers "divinely imputed virtual righteousness to a real sinner"

     Union with God:   Eastern:  ontological unity with uncreated Energies of God
          Eastern:  Ontological Divinization with God's Energies 
          Western:  Virtual Deification with God's Essence:  
                     Latins:  intentional/conceptual
                     Reformers:  will-based/covenantal

Don't confuse SECT with a CULT, which is a kind of sect that reveres a pagan demigod, a Christian Saint, or a purely human founder or current leader.  While cult comes from a Latin term for "revere" or "worship," secta "faction" is derived in Latin from one of the verbs meaning "cut off, divide" (cf. section, sector) as well as "follow."  The idea is that of following a leader into a group cut off from a (usually larger) original.  Sects and cults are usually typified by a few slogans or mantras.  Secta is indirectly related to the word secular.  (Sectacula meant "lineage," while sectarius meant "gelded.")  A cult may revere not only a favorite Saint; it may revere the an icon or the Cross as well as a relic.   

HOLY PEOPLE (Latin "Saints"):  Greek has two words for "Saint"—'áyios [older 'agios] and (for a monastic holy person) 'osios (sometimes mistranslated as "Blessed," a term used among the Latins for a person who is recognized as having the potential of being recognized as a Saint).  We speak of "Holy Gregory" or "Holy Great Athansios."   As "St. Vasil the Great" is not likely to disappear, so it will have to be tolerated.  Christ's full title is "Lord, God, and Savior."  The person called "John the Baptist" in the West is the Orthodox St. John the Forerunner, or more fully, "St. John, the holy glorious Prophet, Forerunner (Pródromos),  and Baptizer."  The author of the fourth Gospel is St. John the Theologian ["Divine" in the West] or in some calendars fully, St. John the Apostle and Evangelist" (the last word referring to the authorship of one of the fourth Gospel).  There are three other Saints with the title "Theologian," viz. St. Gregory (of Nazianzós) the Theologian, St. Symeon the New Theologian, and St. Gregory (Palamãs) the Theologian.  The names Matthew, Isaiah, and Elijah end in -ias in Greek:  Matthias, Esaias, and Ilias. Cf. Zacharias (Zachary in the West).  

Note that the Orthodox "glorify" a person as a holy person; the West juridically canonizes a person as a Saint.

The Orthodox normally speak of monasteries for women as well as for men—not "convents."  The head of a monastery is 'igoúmenos (male; "i" is Greek eta) or (female) 'igouméni "leader" (functionally equivalent to Western superior) or abbot/abbess.  A male head may be an archimandrite—an unmarried protopresvyter; he is equivalent to a married protopresvyter.  The title is Very Reverend.  A protodeacon has the same title; a person of this rank often serves on the staff of a hierarch.  The titles vary, especially if an abbot/abbess or is also a schema monk.  Monastics of the great or Angelic schema, even if not an abbot or abbess, are Right Revd.  

We speak of a reposed (not departed) person, or one who has fallen asleep (in Christ).

THE BIBLE—The last book is called Apocalypse.  The Orthodox Bible differs from Latin and Protestant Bibles in its contents.  The Psalms are divided differently; some verses are very different from those in Protestant Bibles; and there is a 151st Psalm.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION:   
Eastern synod : Western council
    Note that a náos "temple" (or churchhouse) is not an ekklēsía [where "e" is eta] or "Church"!  There are few or no windows; light comes in from the windows of a lantern tower or dome (CLICK HERE.)  A cathedral is a temple housing a hierarch's throne; it doesn't mean a "big temple"!  The narthex is the vestibule.  Other parts of the temple need not be listed here, and that information is not hard to obtain.  Note that worshipers stand; chairs are provided for the infirm.  The typical style of an Orthodox temple in Alaska or Japan has a round tower, topped by an onion roof with a three-bar Cross on top of it, over the part where the people stand.  There is also a square bell tower in front (over the narthex) with an onion roof and Cross.
     A diocese is part of an archdiocese or eparchy or metropolia.  A METOCHION is a subsidiary institution of a larger one—usually a monastery.  The subsidiary is called STAVROPEGIAL if it is directly under the ‘omophorion (jurisdiction) of a patriarchate.

CLERGY TITLES:  protopresvyter (not archpriest), protodeacon (not archdeacon);  archimandrite, (h)ēgoúmen ("abbot")/(h)ēgouménē ("abbess").   
     The proper English title for a pastor is pastor.  [Rector is a British legal term for the wealthy patron, a person or institution, that "owns" the living (usually real estate) that provides income for the parish, including the salary of the pastor (called a vicar in this situation).]
     Through a historical accident, the Greek Orthodox turned the relation between metropolitans and archbishops upside down.  Normally, a metropolitan is over an archbishop, but it is the converse with the Greek Orthodox.  An exarch is an special representative of a Patriarch in charge of a national or regional Orthodox body.  He can be a Metropolitan or, with the Greeks, an Archbishop.  An eparchy is an archbishopric.  (Most Greek-derived words pronounce "ch" like English "k"; but arch- is an exception.)  
     Note that monastics (including all hierarchs) do not use their family names; the family name may be added in parenthesis to distinguish a person from another having the same Christian name.   Note that the Christian name, the name one receives at Baptism (the Orthodox celebrate a name day more than a birthday) is not the secular forename one may have received before becoming Orthodox.  
     In writing another Orthodox, we often begin with a sentiment of the season such as Christ has been born/has risen.  In writing a Priest, the letter should then begin with Bless Father!  If written to a hierarch, it should begin with Bless Vladýka/Déspota/Sayyidna or Bless, Your Grace/Eminence/Holiness!  At the end, we request the prayers of a priest or hierarch.  In the case of the hierarch, one can place before one's signature, Who kisses your hand.  Clergy often place a + before their signature; some hierarchs put the + after their signature.  In the Slavic tradition, when you meet a hierarch, you cup your hands.  The Hierarch then places his hand in your cupped hands, which you then kiss.  
     A Deacon is addressed as Father Deacon.  Like a Priest, he is The Reverend, though never directly address as "Reverend."  A dean may be Venerable, but that seems to be uncommon, at least for seminary deans.  A Protopresvyter or Protodeacon is Very Reverend.  A monastic of the Angelic Schema is Right Reverend.  A Bishop is Most Reverend and is addressed as Your Grace; an Archbishop or Metropolitan is Your Eminence; the Primate of a self-governing metropolia is Your Beatitude except that the primate of Greece has a patriarch's title); and a Patriarch is Your Holiness (except that the Patriarch of Constantinople is Your All-Holiness).

MYSTERIES : SACRAMENTS

valid (bébaion), a dýnamis, VS.  authentic  [téleion “complete”]   
or [authentikón “actual”]—the energized reality

Mysteries correspond (except in their number, which is not specified in Orthodoxy) to both sacraments and sacramentals in the Latin West.  

     If a baptized worshiper lapses from Orthodox belief and practice and subsequently returns, the of that worshiper’s Baptism or Ordination is considered to have lost its energization and hence to be no longer energized (actual).  The Canons mention some groups that have in effect valid baptisms whose dýnamis can be energized by bringing them into the Orthodox Church.  (Repeating a dýnamis is not necessary and has little point, but there is no harm in doing so.)
    Speaking of "precious gifts" (a Latinasm) sounds too "precious" for what is intended; native-speakers often use precious as a put down. Greek tímia dôra can be rendered "honored/worthy Gifts."  Another expression in use is:  the divine holy Gifts/Mysteries.
     When one receives Communion, the traditional word in good English is communicate (this is a causative verb), not commune (which is not normally transitive, let alone being causative; it refers to medi- tating).  The Oxford English Dictionary gives examples of "com- municating Christ's Body and Blood."

     Women wear a scarf or other head-covering when receiving the holy Mysteries, as well as (in many) parishes whenever they are in a temple.  Some parishes provide scarves in the narthex for  women who arrive without any headdress.

VARIOUS LITURGICAL EXPRESSIONS

     The Orthodox speak of serving a service or Mystery, not of officiating at a service or of administering a Mystery.  The Orthodox do not have a "Mass" or requiems.  We have a divine Liturgy and (unlike the Mass), the Holy Spirit is the One Who consecrates the holy Gifts (not "species") or Offerings!  During the Great Fast, the holy Gifts on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays are normally preconsecrated (the Latinate term presanctified merely mystifies).  
     The Orthodox think that if something is worth saying, it may be worth repeating up to the third, ninth, or fortieth time!!
     The days are past when the (now defunct) subjunctive mode was current in English, except in a few frozen expressions like "Be that as it may."  I have seen no recent translation's attempt to use the subjunctive that is correct; consider this one, which avoids the tense sequencing originally formulated for the subjunctive:  "Would that it be so" (for Would that it were so, or better (since this use of would is unknown to many current speakers of English ), I wish it were so or How wonderful it would be if it were so!  (See the orlapubs online grammar for the temporal throwback—the shifting of the verb's time from present to past.) 
      Voluntary and inadvertent sins, since there is no "involuntary" sins
     The reading of the Apostle should not be Westernized as Epistle, since the Book of Acts is not an Epistle.  (Neither is the Apocalypse, but it is not read in Orthodox services, having been included in the canonical Bible too late.) 
     "Be doing/watching" should not ordinarily be used as an imperative unless it is coördinated with a clause like "while something else is happening."  Unlike Greek and Latin, the English past can be durative or aoristic.  We would not normally say that "no one was helping him" unless it happened to be coördinated with another clause like "while the other thing was taking place."  Contrary to every other language this writer has been acquainted with, English does not use a present or exochronous verb for expressions like "it has been taking place for ten years"; similarly, the past is not used in "it had been taking place for ten years."
     Note that the English liturgical tradition is sing on a separate note the -ed at the end of verb forms.  This is not just an archaism but is done for musical reasons.  It is probably not worth adopting in a modern English translation.
     In English, we lift up our voices; but we do not "send up" praise; we address or direct our praise.    
    Vocative O is not part of good English and is not normal in the KJV version of the Bible.  It is as certain as such things can be that Jesus did not go around adressing people--or God--as O . . . 
     One can linguistically justify Ameen and Aleeluïa; I prefer Aleeloueea.  At the moment of writing this, I am listening to some beautifyl Russian Church music marred by many al-lay-loo-. . . mispronunciations of Greek, Russian, and English!  One has got to work hard at it to be that wrong!
     Using unto to translate any old preposition in Greek.  This meaningless use should be avoided.
     The unintelligible "both now and ever, unto the ages of ages.  Amen" should be rendered "both now and ever throughout the ages. Ameen."
     What does "At the prayers of our holy Fathers" mean in real English?   Even Because of" and similar expressions are a bit odd, in that those prayers do not effect what happens, though they may be thought of as remote causes.  The best rendering seems to be "At the instance of the prayers of our holy Fathers."  
       If the Lord's Prayer contains "daily bread," the fast rules are wrong in forbidding bread made with milk or animal shortening on Wednesday and Fridays (not coïnciding with an important festival)!  Note that in English Heaven is singular; heavens refers to the sky.  Let's try this translation: 

In the Trisagion and other prayers, omit the un-KJV "O" before names and 
read:  

Clergy should avoid the uneducated-sounding ajuuhhz.  The pronunciation of ages is ajiz!!!   

A semantically more correct rendering of the Patir imas would be "staff of life" instead of "sustaining bread"—at least in countries where bread is not the staple—but grits or fish is.  Note that the Aramaic word for "debts" in the Patir imas also means "sins" in that language, or so I've read.

TEMPLES' ORIENTATION TOWARD THE EAST

      A temple faces East, i.e. the Altar is on the eastern side.  (This is true even of those round Coptic temples; the West observes the same orientation of its temples.)  Moreover, a Christian is buried with his feet toward the East so that when one rises at the Resurrection, one will face East.  (Eastern Christians do not make the Western Christian distinction between clergy and laity in this regard.)  
     Concerning the temple, dogs are not allowed but cats are permitted—no doubt to keep rodents at bay.

DON'T CONFUSE

     eternal, which has no beginning : everlasting, which has a beginning; both have no end
     'amartía,  a sin-prone condition : 'amártema, a willed sin
rite (what is said; directions for what is done) : ceremony (what is acted out)
     expiation and propitiation; see R298.
     Different words in Hebrew/Greek  translated as "hell"—She'ol/Hades and Gehenna/Tartaros
     religion : religiosity
     sect : cult (see above)
     pastor : priest : preacher
     symbol (for sýmvolon "standard") of belief (not "faith")
    energetic phases with static stages
     mysteric (both equivalent to “sacramental”) with mystical  and    mysterious.  The Body of Christ is not mystical but mysteric or sacramental, i.e. a material vehicle of uncreated Zōé—Grace.
     being empowered and being [en]able[d] are not the same!

MISTRANSLATIONS OF GREEK KAI

     Since the ancient languages lacked many items of modern punctuation, they often used the word for "and" where we would have a comma or nothing.  Holy Great Week has no and in good English; cf. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—with a single and.

DISPOSING OF OLD ICONS

is done by burying them.

ARCHAISMS NOT INTELLIGIBLE TO TODAY'S 
GENERATION OR OTHERWISE UNSUITABLE
AND FURTHER SOLECISMS 

     Thumbing through a couple of prayer books, I find, aside from gibberish like changing went or wentest to (non-emphatic) didst go, unto the ages of ages, examples of obsolete English like the following:  meet "right, proper, correct," wherefore (heard today only in "whys and wherefores"), verily, herein, therein, savour, etc.
wroth, hail!, vouchsafe, in no wise, bright (for radiant), and the use of unto for "well-nigh" every conceivable Greek preposition.     (Encompass for surround, hapless, and lest are marginally acceptable, but vanquish and stablish can easily be avoided.)  Man-loving or man-befriending is not adequate for "who loves the human race."  Why is ever-memorable used for "unforgettable"?  It is a minor issue from the semantic point of view, and even sounds more "liturgical."  But what is wrong with unforgettable?  Sadly, vocative O is everywhere, contrary to Jacobean usage.  

   I have found redundant all-purest (like the older Most Highest?) and of course various instances of most for all-.  (Departing from English common usage with all- compounds seems justified to me, since these literal renderings of Greek convey both the right sense and the right phrónēma.)  Unnecessary innovations like majestical exist, alongside of the truly wretched co-unoriginate, co-beginningless, and infelicitous analogues of mind-enhancing.   Immaculate is used for unblemished or—better—all-pure; the really awful unspotted is mostly absent nowadays.  Bowels of Hades strikes me as infelicitous, but is better than the archaic reins (referring to one's inner organs, supposedly the seat of emotions) that once prevailed.  Note the "small" or "little" Vespers/Compline is unliturgical.  They contrast with "great" Vespers/Compline; and the contast with "Great" is Lesser.

     The texts are so wretched that this is but a sample of items that I happened to see in rapidly thumbing through the two books.  And I didn't even peruse one prayer book in modern English that on the whole is fairly good but frequently falls into outlandish would-be English compounds or novel word formations that don't click.  Surely, prayers deserve better!  Anyhow, what's the point of translating unintelligibly?  One might as well keep the Greek, Slavonic, or Arabic!

     Note that the orthodox use the term reposed instead of deceased or departed.

PHRONEMATIC

seeing : hearing
worshipers : believers
reflecting (mirroring) God : imitating God 

NO-NO's 

     Terms to be avoided that are hardly worth mentioning are mass, matins, and the like.  The obvious reason is that they create an alien phrónema.  Epíklesis or Invocation are equivalent, but the former is Greek, while the latter is Latin.  Unlike the terms Epiphany—which resembles the Orthodox Theophany only in occurring on Jan. 6—Christmas, and Assumption, there is no problem that I can see with Latin terms like Annunciation, Transfiguration (a rather beautiful term in English, which is hardly true of its Greek equivalent), etc.  Incidentally, the British pronounce Chrysóstom correctly.

     The Greek words that came into Latin as justicia/justitia, justificare, and justificatio do not mean "justice," "justify," and "justification" in today's normal English!! They mean "righteousness," "make righteous," and the fact of "have [been] caused to become righteous."  The last words blends two Greek words of different import: dikaíōsis and dikaíōma.  The first refers to the doing, "making right[eous] (or "acquitting," but in some instances  "rendering punishment"); the second, to the result, "rightness" and "acquittal," even a "plea" in court).  In his Lexicon, G. Abbot-Smith, referring to special studies by others, finds three places where  dikaíwsis refers to acting legally, where the word means "rendering justice."   The more abstract dikaiosýnH ranges from  "propriety, fairness, honesty" all the way up to legal "justice."   
    The word for heaven is plural in some languages but not in English; heavens refers to the sky. We don't pluralize Heaven.
     Circumscriptible is good Latinate English; circumscribable, an 
     invention.    The same is true of undescribable.  The proper word is
     incircumscriptible. 
    Retribution should be avoided. 
   phthorá is not (moral) corruption but physical dissolution or
   decay.  Mis­translations of ánthrōpos “human being, humanity, the  
    human race” as “man” (anér in Greek, anír in Mod. Gk.) have
    not been helpful and are incorrect at all costs.  The singular can
    be translated as "person"; the plural, as "people."The all-holy Spirit is the      
    Paraclete or Advocate.  Just because he comforts us 
    does not mean that his title is "Comforter" . . . any more than we 
    would call an M.D. a "comforter" because s/he comforts us.
While the Theotókos is the Mother of God (Theomētōr/-ēr), the 
    import of the terms is different.  God's bearer (not Theophóros, 
    "one who 'carries' God") is God's  Mother of course, but the 
    terms are not.  Jesus's Mother is affectionately called Panayía  
    ("all-holy").  One should not say without spot or spotless; the proper
    liturgical term is without taint [of sin] or untainted [by sin].
spirituality is too vague to have much value; the same is true of 
   some common uses of spiritual; spirituality has two prevailing 
   un-Orthodox connotations:  
      (1) non-religious interests or involvement in ideas of ethics 
           and/or rising above cotidian earthly interests and 
           concerns—sometimes to a mystical outlook; 
     (2) a Gnostic view of religion in which materiality (Mysteries or 
          sacraments) and time (tradition) play no significant role.  Both 
          versions of the terms are general non-historical.  This view can 
          be held by people who are or are not religious in        
          the sense of being adherents of an established religion.
Like  spirtuality, values is so indefinite--or else syncretistic--as to have little commendable value for Orthodox usage.

SEE ALSO R62 and R306!