As your undersigned humble servant has noted several times, yes, there is precedent for such a retraction - the most recent one that I am aware of is that incredible Slovak Liturgikon which was eventually retracted after a torrent of protests. And there are other examples.

Fr.Serge,

Oral permission, from an Indian Cardinal who most likely does not speak Slovak? It sounds as if Bishop Jan published that heavily latinizied edition on his own intiative with a wink and a nod from a latinizing prefect without any real recognitio from Rome. If published in 1986 this was before the promulgation of the CCEO and the Instruction and interestingly enough the same year the Insturction was promulgated the 86 Slovak edition was forbidden.

Given the above circumstances I don't think the introduction of the 86 Slovak and the promulagtion of the 06 English can really be compared. The 06 translation was reviewed by the Oriental Congregation by competent liturgists who fluently read and speak English and with much back and forth discussion and input from Rome.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you, Lance, for your observations. There are major differences between the 1986 Slovak Liturgy and the Liturgy recognized by Rome now. To try to paint them with the same brush is a cheap shot.
Interestingly, Fr. Serge in his book cites the promulgation of Bishop Emil in 1970 with favor. (I was a part of that promulgation, by the way.) The real life fact in actual parish practice is that the current Liturgy in real life brings us much closer to standard Byzantine practice than the 1970 promulgation did, yet this is condemned. Why????? It's simple, really, it's all a matter of what is written in the book. From many of the Administrator's comments also, we see that the main issue might actually be: What is written in the official books? It seems to me that what then actually happens in parishes is irrelevant. Bishop Emil's promulgation said, "the priest may," not "the priest must," and that's the whole difference. Of course, Bishop Emil's promulgation was a miserable failure, he didn't push the promulgation after the other bishops leaned on him, and - remember, I was on the scene - the priests almost universally considered his pastoral abbreviations as the norm, not the 1965 Liturgicon. The same thing is true for the Orthodox - pastoral practice on the parish level is quite variable, but again, it's a "book thing." They haven't, up to this point, changed the books - though that will come eventually. So, again, our Liturgy actually in real life in the real world brings us closer to the Orthodox. I would call the approach advocated by some on the Forum a "Gutenberg Fundamentalist" approach, that is, what is printed is what is important. I think what we have done is more honest and better expresses the spirit of the Byzantine Liturgy. At the same time, I would consider the use of some inclusive language a separate issue. If the Liturgy is retracted???? The Metropolia would just revert to the mediocre somewhat-Westernized Liturgy that most parishes celebrate anyhow.
In regard to Elijahmaria's question - five years transpired between the recognitio and the promulgation, most of it due to a change of administration. How many of the "changes decried here" were added after the recognitio? None - zero - nothing - every change made was, in fact, because of the recognitio and in conformity with its recommendations. Nothing was "slipped in" to "water down" the Liturgy.

The same thing is true for the Orthodox - pastoral practice on the parish level is quite variable, but again, it's a "book thing." They haven't, up to this point, changed the books - though that will come eventually.

So, again, our Liturgy actually in real life in the real world brings us closer to the Orthodox.

At the same time, I would consider the use of some inclusive language a separate issue.

I was asked for a specific example of a book being retracted, and I gave one; that is all.