Ah, but that's only in the first person, Father!

Wow! I never meant for all this to get so involved. I was not offended about the "grammar" per se. I was much more upset about being labeled a "nihilist" simply because I asked one question. It doesn't feel good to get "flamed" and that is what the comment Owen made seemed like to me. I had enough of that in the secular world, and now I'm getting it from people who are supposedly Christians, too? Seems I can't win for losing onliine. All I wanted to do I get some information, and instead I got attacked! Ok, fine. I'm beginning to think that maybe it's best that I keep myself in lurk mode (and my search for info re: this church in real time at my own parish) from now on because now whenever I make a comment here I'll probably wind up getting dissected...or I'll end up ridiculed. Please, whomever is in charge, just go ahead an unsubb me.

But even there, one would say, "We, ourself, do consider....." A plural word but a singular meaning, much as "vous" in French may take singular or plural adjective forms as required.

When I became a catechumen, I was told by my priest that, in the event of my death, I would receive a full Orthodox funeral. This is because, as a catechumen, I was a member of the Orthodox Church who simply could not receive the Sacraments yet. Therefore, I would suggest that a person can call himself or herself "Orthodox" as soon as he or she becomes a catechumen.

While true, I have seen claims that it is proper to use "they" as a singular as well as a plural, much like "you" is used in modern (post-"thee/thou") usage. That would make the applicable reflexive "themself", not "themselves". Which I usually avoid, not because of grammatical propriety, but because it just sounds wierd.

Quite true. So, returning to the initial issue:

Let us take a hypothetical Mr. Who. Let's say that in 2006, Who was attending his old (non-Orthodox) church and not even thinking of Orthodoxy. In 2007, he learns about Orthodoxy and begins to study and research, asking questions and occasionally visiting an Orthodox parish, but still primarily attending his non-Orthodox church. In 2008, he stops attending there and begins attending Orthodox services at the local parish. At the start of 2009 he is officially enrolled as a catechumen, and at the start of 2010 he is baptized and chrismated.

Now, from our discussion, it seems we would agree that Who should not call himself Orthodox in 2006 and 2007, but that it would be proper for him to call himself Orthodox in 2009 and 2010. What about 2008? He's not really "Orthodox" in any official sense, but he's not really whatever he was before, either. Any ideas on that?

In Christ,
Michael

"Undecided"?

"Beloved of God"?

"Pursued by God"?

"Christian"?

You are a communing member of the Orthodox Church, when the Church says you are. Technically one is ORTHO DOXA--"rght worshipping", "correct believing", possessing the "true doctrine"--when one's bishop says it is so. The Church rightly defines who its members are and when they become such. Beyond that it is between the believer and God who can see and know our hearts, like with the "good thief" on the cross. God is allowed to step across boundaries that we dare not.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the (hopefully) Orthodox Pooh

With all due respect to those who are grammatical perfectionists here, it seems to me once we heard how all this affected the original poster we might have toned it down a bit. Or at the least dragged it over to another thread. Now we have lost a member to the forum and possibly damaged her outlook on the bigger picture of Orthodoxy. How do love our neighbor as ourselves if we keep sticking a needle in their eye?

Paul