I am interested in how the revisions will be introduced and maintained in the parish community. Do any of you have ideas, hopes, or advice you wish to share with others?

Wondering,

At this point, I'm waiting to see what is planned on an eparchial level in Passaic, and have a talk with my pastor and our other cantors. I know one of our choir has been waiting to see the textual changes so she can adapt the choir's existing harmonized music. (And apropos what Jim said - if parishes have music they have been using for years, I for one see no need to drop it (albeit texts may be adjusted, etc.); but cantors should also learn any settings that are new to them, and consider introducing them over time.)

Preparation and repetition in the introduction of new music is key, I think.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Wondering,

Eparchial level plans have not yet been revealed here either, so we wait. The music not on the MCI website that I alluded to elsewhere is for "Bless the Lord, O My Soul" and the "Beatitudes"- the Typica, in other words. We use a Russian Tone, the one used at the climax of the 1812 Overture I hope Jeff is correct about just adapting the music to suit the words. My life will be a lot easier if we get to do that. But for now, we wait.

FYI, a thread on implementation was also started within Kliros.

Am I allowed to post in the Kliros?

I find it strange that the liturgy was rolled out without any plans on how to address it. Are you sure there will be eparchial directives forthcoming or are you assuming it?

I know of one priest who did not know the New Liturgy was Promulgated until I told him. Interesting, their appears to be a lack of leadership on this issue.

Wondering,

There is no directive at this point, just the promulgation. Have you asked your pastor? Direction is apt to differ depending on book availability, etc. where you are.

Lack of leadership? In the Byzantine Catholic Church?

If there had been leadership, none of this fiasco would have happened. It is all because no one had the guts to tell the commission that their work wasn't good enough, the bishops didn't want to hurt their feelings. "They've worked so hard on this." "They've spent so much time, and so much money on this." "Having asked them to do it, now we have to promulgate it." "We don't have a choice."

The Bishops have mandated a new Liturgy, new rubrics, new musical settings. It is more than a Revision, it is a Revolution in the Liturgy. Where is the support to help our parishes through the ordeal? Where are the Bishops when they need to answer people's questions and anxieties.

Do they expect the priests to do this? Do they expect the priests to help their people to accept the revision of the Liturgy?

How can the bishops expect the priests to listen to the complaints, and help the people through this Revision, when most of the priests are against the Revision, don't want the change in rubrics, and oppose secular feminism and the inclusive language nonsense?

Lack of leadership?

Nick

Amen! This whole thing is so surreal. I feel like I am in the twilight zone (or should I say the revision zone). I still can't believe that the creed was feminized! I am very sad indeed.

May I suggest that those who have problems with the deletion of the word "men" from the Creed stop claiming that the Creed has been "feminized."? While very good objections are being made, I think the claim that it amounts to a "feminization" of the Creed is not fair. If the change were "for us women and our salvation", rather than simply to "for us and for our salvation" then you would be correct in saying the Creed has been feminized. I think the best argument against changing the Creed from "for us men and for our salvation" to "for us and for our salvation" is simply that such authority belongs solely to an ecumenical council. To exaggerate and claim that a feminization has taken place in the Creed when no grammatically feminine word has been added, does not help your argument and inclines people who are suspicious of male chauvinism to be even more so. I would also add that those who are suspicious of male chauvinism and bias against women within the Church often have good reasons for their suspicions-even if their arguments in favor of so-called "inclusive language" are highly problematic.
Ryan

Will Pittsburgh offer a webcast to communicate the logic behind the new Divine Liturgy and what we hope to accomplish? Perhaps a DVD with the hierarchs is in the works. Since this is such a radical change for our church I would expect a major communications campaign.

It has been said by one of the translators that terms like "men" and "mankind" are labeled as "sexist". Therefore, it does not appear to be unfair to state that the removal of "men" from the Creed is a "feminization" (in the wrong sense of that term) of the Creed. You are of course right to say that the best argument is that such a change belongs to an Ecumencal Council.

With respect to the change in the Creed, I would rephrase Thomas More's comment to Richie Rich..."but for the feminists?"

Yes. I agree with this. The Ecumenical council argument is the most legitimate. However, I still believe that the creed has been feminized by deletion.

If I may add--I have never met a Catholic or Orthodox female who was offended by the usage of the word man, mankind, or brethren to depict both male and female. This includes my wife, family members and friends. I do however, know those females (including my wife) who are offended by it's deletion (by reasoning of secular inclusive language).

To my knowledge, only the radical feminist minority is offended by such language and it seems that the commission has appeased this minority. For that, I am scandalized!!!

Dear Recluse:
Let me expound a bit on my concerns. It has been my experience that there are those I would not at all consider "radical feminists" who feel marginalized by what they consider to be gender-exlusive language. Historically, masculine terms such as "man" and "men" can be used grammatically either in an exclusive manner, or they can be used to refer both to men and to women. For someone to argue that words like "men" or "mankind" have not functioned for several centuries as gender-inclusive terms are simply ignoring history. What I think lies behind the drive in some quarters for the use of "inclusive language" is the belief that the use of masculine terms such as "man", "mankind", and "men" is the creation of a world in which the masculine was/is considered normative for all humanity-in other word, the product of a chauvinistic mindset. Of course you are free to disagree with such a perspective, which may ultimately be wrong. I personally think a good case can be made for this claim, but I'm by no means certain that it is correct. However, I do think that we are called to be charitable towards those who hold this position-even if they are wrong. By saying that we should be charitable, I'm by no means trying to silence anyone, but I also think that the rhetoric being used by some on this Forum with respect to this question demonstrates a troubling lack of charity. I'm also concerned that it is a serious mistake to trivialize or minimize the injustices that many women have experienced over the centuries simply because they are women and I think that anyone who denies that such injustices have occurred is as guilty of ignoring history as are those who would deny that "man", "men", and "mankind" have historically served as gender-inclusive terms.
Sincerely,
Ryan