It has been suggested on another thread that I study a list of the changes to the Divine Liturgy.

Is there simply a list somewhere that shows the changes, other than the reduction of the antiphons, which I know about, and the lamentable change to the Creed?

If so, this would be a big help to me.

Brother Ed

Here is your best source:

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgy_Study/Keleher-Studies_I.pdf

Based on the actual books:

Changes to text and rubrics (from the MCI website)

Jeff

Greetings Brother Ed:

It would be beneficial for you to read Fr Serge's excellent book and to review the information provided on the MCI website. You will notice that Fr Serge provides many references and points of view. And you will see that the MCI explains some things, but not all--such as the inclusive language. I will briefly post a quote from Fr Serge's book by His Holiness Maximos IV and then another quote from MCI website. Keep these in mind as you read the material. Blessing to you Brother Ed.

From His Holiness Maximos IV:

The Liturgy has an impersonal character and also has universality in space and time. It is, as it were timeless and thus enables us to see the divine aspect of eternity...It is good to feel oneself thus linked with all ages of mankind. We pray not only with our contemporaries but with men who have lived in all centuries.

From the MCI website:

The Council of Hierarchs, in the particular law for the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh (1999), also called for the new translation to be "adapted to modern times."

(emphasis mine)

Dear Recluse,

The reason I did not mention much inclusive language is that there IS very little in the people's parts for the Divine Liturgy and the eight tones (e.g. hardly any in the Divine Liturgy itself, and only one of the sixteen troparia and kontakia from the Sunday Octoechos). The page I pointed to dealt primarily with changes to the people's parts of the Divine Liturgy - as stated in the second paragraph. But it did mention both "inclusive language" issues - the translation of "celovikolubce", and "for us and for our salvation".

I posted such explanations as had found in print, or were given to us directly at Metropolitan Cantor Institute during the 18 months in which the new text and music were taught. Sadly, there is no printed explanation for the textual changes that corresponds to Fr. Serge's book.

Jeff

Do not be offended. Inclusive language (in my opinion) is merely one of multitudes of errors found in the Pittsburgh recension. I merely asked Brother Ed to read both sources and decide for himself. I thought it was important to show that one perspective had an agenda to reform the Liturgy according to "modern times".

Peace,
R