children are highly adaptable, smart and can change.

The young adults aren't asking for this, the youth aren't demanding this, and the children should be protected from this.

Yes, they can adapt. They can adapt to drugs, and gangs, and who knows what! That is why we have to guide them and direct them, and when they are very young, be careful about what dangers we expose them to.

This revision is a mistake, and inclusive language is just wrong. The bishops should have thought of them, before they took our Church down this road to ruin.

Sometimes I think my Church has a death wish!

Don't you notice how the evangelism threads have gone silent! Don't you see how all those who were enthusiastic about spreading the good news of our Church, and celebrating our tradition have been frustrated? The very people, who were enthusiastic about restoring our tradition, have been so disillusioned by this fight from yesterday. This kind of agenda, pushed in this new Liturgy, is so 1960's it is laughable.

So, it is about the young people! The young adults aren't asking for this, the youth aren't demanding this, and the children should be protected from this.

It is the arrogance of a lost generation, that have done nothing for our Church. They had the 60s and the 70s and the 80s to wreck our Church. Did their theories fill the Churches, how many missions did they build, how many schools did they open, how many vocations did they inspire? Their verdict has already been given.

Yet, this Revised, exclusive, hopelessly written Liturgy comes out of the '60s like the last gasp of a dying dragon! How sad, what a shame!

Look at what we have spent. Look at the burden we have placed on our next generation! It betrays the failed theories, and poor vision of a lost generation.

It is such a burden on the young, that I am not sure they will rise past it. It may bury them.

Where are the young who will study our tradition, and restore the Ruthenian recension, when we have deprived them of it, just when they needed it? How can they grow to love, what they will never see? What a catastrophe.

Orthodox Pyrohy, you show the same arrogance we've heard from the committee for the Revision. Shut up, it is better, and you'll see. Shut up, obey, we know best, what is good for you.

Don't you see what is most distressing?

If the conservative lovers of the Ruthenian tradition had been appointed to the committee, and had tried to impose the whole recension with the kind of draconian and authoritarianism shown by the committee and Bishop Schott, you would have been the first to cry out in outrage, and demand peoples 'rights' to dissent. Liberals (such as those behind the feminist language, and 'improved' liturgy) and you would have been the first to point out how cruel and heartless it is, and how unfeeling we were to impose our vision of the Church on others!

But, now you have won the day, and Bishop Schott has promulgated the revision of the Liturgy, and taken our Church out of the Ruthenian recension. Please, don't gloat, and tell me I'm better off. It just isn't true.

Nick

One of the little kids said, it's salesperson, she's a woman. I said no, no, it is salesman, that is proper English.

Don't you notice how the evangelism threads have gone silent!

Do you need to get your way with the liturgy before you can think about evangelizing again?

Unfortunately the Touchstone account of that Symposium is not reliable. The papers have been published Logos and so is a cassette - recording of Father Taft's keynote address.

Fr. Serge

I have no problem being counted as part of mankind. However, if I were still selling Fuller Brush door-to-door as I did back in high school, I would definitely have a problem being called a "salesman." And what about all the Avon Ladies and those who sell MaryKay -- are they "salesmen," too? Get real!


When was the last time YOU posted on any of the Evangelism threads? Do you need to get your way with the liturgy before you can think about evangelizing again?

The author of the article in question I believe is a member of the UGCC of which Fr. Taft is a mitred Archpriest IIRC. If the article is indeed incorrect, I don't think it was written with malicious intent.