What has been "Restored" that was not already in the 1965 Liturgicon?

The "R" in "RDL" does NOT mean "Restored Divine Liturgy." The "R" could only stand for "Ruined", "Revolting" or "Repulsive" but certainly not Restored. Some think it might even mean "Rubrically-Challenged" but that would be "RCDL" so don't go there.

This is precisely the kind of uncharitable hyperbole to which I was referring a few posts ago.

Correct, calling the RDL the Restored Divine Liturgy is uncharitable to the Ruthenian Recension.

Hilarious.

I've assumed that "RDL" means "Revised Divine Liturgy", which seems a non-pejorative, non-judgemental term, and which is used in this section of the Forum.

Fr. Serge

"RDL" = "Revised Divine Liturgy"

The title of this forum was based upon common usage of the term by the bishops and clergy of the Metropolia, including those who are members of the committee. The other common terms in use are the "Petras Liturgy" and the "Petras-Pataki Liturgy".

In the promulgation letter of January 6, in the forwards to the two liturgicons and in the forward to the new pew book, Metropolitan Basil uses the word "revision" twice and "revised" once (a total of three references in four paragraphs). The Council of Hierarchs did not make any pretense that this was a restoration. They clearly and honestly described it as a "revision". I would hope that those who support the revision will stop pretending that this RDL is somehow more faithful to the official Ruthenian recension then is the 1964/1965 edition (the "Red Book"). Such a claim is clearly and demonstrably not true. It is not a restoration but a revision.

Father David,

Restored??

I am not an expert on liturgical history, but it is a subject which interests me greatly. The newly-published Divine Liturgy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia is not a 'restoration' of the Recensio rutena, which has never, in practice, been the official standard in the Metropolia.

It is not a 'restoration' of the L'viv Sluzhebnik of 1905 - thankfully!

I haven't had a chance to compare it to any 18th or 19th century books. Is it a Liturgy of these centuries which has been restored?

It definitely isn't a restoration of the Divine Liturgy of the period immediately pre/post Unia.

Is it a restoration of an even earlier form of the Divine Liturgy?

Or is the Pittsburgh Divine Liturgy a 'restoration' in the same fashion that the Novus Ordo is seen by some as a 'restoration' of a purer form of the Mass?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Regarding the Creed, doesn't the English translation used by the GOA also read "for us and for our salvation"?

It sure does. I saw it in a Greek Orthodox pew book.

It doesn't matter that other Orthodox Jurisdictions are using the gender massaged translations. It really doesn't matter if other Eastern Rite Churches are using it. Hell It really doesn't matter if the American arm of the RC church uses it.

What is wrong is changing the words of the liturgy because some group has a perceived issue with the language.

Christ did not come so that we could be comfortable with ourselves. He came to save us.

Oddly enough, that is precisely what the revised text of the Creed says...

While there are various translations of the Creed still in use in the Greek Orthodox Church in America the official translation correctly includes the phrase "who for us men and our salvation".

This has been discussed before and I am surprised posters do not remember it (or maybe posters are choosing not to remember it?). It is not surprising at all that there are still some parishes that use an older and incorrect translation.

Anyone who wanted to speak accurately could have looked at their website: http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed.asp

---------------

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
nd suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

The Official Translation of the Confession of Faith adopted by the Holy Eparchial Synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

---------------

At the moment the Creed and the Lord's Prayer (which is identical to what is used by Catholics, including Ruthenian Catholics) are the only official liturgical texts. Many parishes (even most) use the English translations published by Holy Cross Press, Brookline, MA, but these are not official and the Synod of Bishops is currently working to publish more accurate texts.

It was also shown that EP approved the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of Great Britain's translation which uses "for our sake" rather than "for us men". Official or not there are versions in use in the GOA that have at least tacit approval that use "for us". One can argue over the appropriateness of this editing of the Creed without resorting to claiming those who would do it are standard bearers of the secular feminist agenda or card carrying members of NOW.

I am against inclusive language myself, if for no other reason it is cumbersome and unlovely but support for mild horizontal inclusive language, some of which is Vatican approved, is not, in my opinion, worth getting upset over let alone leaving the Metropolia.

Fr. Deacon Lance

So, if the Vatican approves "mild" inclusive language that means it's okay? Especially for the "separate" Eastern Catholic churches? Something like not eating "hot" chicken wings if they bother you, but eating "mild" wings is okay? Sounds like more "cafeteria" Catholicism.