...and I'm on board with those who want to stay in and fight for authentic Byzantine Catholicism.

In Christ,
Deacon Robert

... How many of our old people even know what 'inclusive language' means?

I can't speak for the bishops, but it appears the 'troublemakers' are few. Maybe they are banking on the 'sheep factor'?

I am finding that the younger generation is NOT clamoring for "inclusive language" but for Slavonic!!! (Now that's a whole other subject I want to take up with those who wish on this forum because I could use some discernment help pastorally about the Slavonic issue.)Clamoring for Slavonic is something that the 1960's generation could never have imagined. So, we now have pew books with NO Slavonic even though that is what the younger generation IS clamoring for along with other issues as well. If we were really going to be cutting edge we would have listened to our younger people and included some Slavonic in the new books

Ok, not making light of the subject,but just being a little full of humour at the moment.. you could theorectically start a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church outside of Pittsburgh in Exile and use the old books?
-in light of ols's question, what are ye going to do?

Ok, so what do we call it? RBCOP? BCOP, RBCOPIE, ?? Of course, it could be the True and Genuine Unreformed Byzantine Catholic Church Outside of Pittsburgh In Exile - TGUBCCOOPIE. This is all sounding kind of Slavic, you know.

With all due respect, Dcn Robert- will you define 'authentic' BCism ? Isn't this the core problem?

I can't speak for the bishops, but it appears the 'troublemakers' are few. Maybe they are banking on the 'sheep factor'?

Glory to Jesus Christ!


Another insight into the inclusive language agenda: Much of this is a generational thing. Just by the simple fact of age, (people in their 50's-60's)the generation that was formed during the 1960's and 1970's is in a sense "in power." They are, across America, the ones who are bishops, seminary rectors, etc., etc. The things that were happening both good and bad in the 1960's were very formative because they were revolutionary-like in character. Those who were in seminary, convents, etc. during that time carry with them today a sense of having gone through a battle to improve the world, a kind of revolution that has ushered in a "better way" of thinking. They believed that inclusive language, the shedding of monastic habits, the questioning of the Magisterium, rejection of Humanae Vitae, etc.
was the great revolution that was going to save the Church and the world. It was the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II mixed in with secular humanism that profoundly influenced this generation during a very formative time in their development. Because the spirit during this time was so revolutionary it left indelible marks on the perspective of this generation. Today, this generation is essentially "in power" and getting to the age where they too will be stepping down, moving on, retiring, etc. So, what I am seeing is the philosophies from this "revolution" trying to make their last gasp, as it were.

The fact that these were such revolutionary and formative years has left certain blind spots in this generation and they cannot understand why everyone does not think like they do. For instance, the perception that inclusive language was an imperative for our Church and therefore for the new translation is a classic example of a blind spot. There was no imperative on the pastoral level,(the most important level) for inclusive language in the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. Inclusive language was deemed imperative by a few. (I want to again reiterate, lest I be misunderstood, that one reason why I am against inclusive language is because it is actually insulting to women as it ultimately strikes at the intrinsic dignity of womanhood. But to understand this we have to ascribed to the Church's theological anthropology which is actually revealed in our liturgy but which is being left unexplored in favor of secular humanism.)

The fact, is, some of these "causes" are in a sense trite. What was cutting edge during the 1960's and 1970's is now "old fashion" to the younger generation. The younger generation does not share these same 1960's "causes." But this is not because the younger people are more "conservative" or "unenlightened" as the 1960's generation would view them. I am finding that the younger generation is NOT clamoring for "inclusive language" but for Slavonic!!! (Now that's a whole other subject I want to take up with those who wish on this forum because I could use some discernment help pastorally about the Slavonic issue.)Clamoring for Slavonic is something that the 1960's generation could never have imagined. So, we now have pew books with NO Slavonic even though that is what the younger generation IS clamoring for along with other issues as well. If we were really going to be cutting edge we would have listened to our younger people and included some Slavonic in the new books. Do you see, now what I mean about the 1960's "causes" becoming outdated? Rather than being cutting edge, they are actually out of touch--the worst nightmare of the 1960's generation worldview!