There is nothing wrong with the title THEOTOKOS , also the word "our" works just as well without an added "h" .

My issues with the translation and redaction that is the RDL remain, for the most part, as what I consider to be legitimate questions (and questionings) that have not been adequately answered. To revert to or allow or concede or turn the eye or tolerate or...whatever, neglects the issues, the questions. It would be for me a shame to have a liturgy -- e.g. the Recension liturgy text, aka in English the 1965 liturgicon (the Red Book) -- come in only through the back door and not be permitted through the front. As a Church we should be able to do better, letting our "yes" mean yes and our "no" mean no, and doing in the light of day what we would be willing to do in the dark.

...how 'bout a nice English word, "Birth-Giver", as used in the ACROD?

Ung

"Birth-giver of God" is what is used in ACROD...I caution...it is clunky with the music so it takes alot to get used to it..."Birth-giver of God" could create as many "issues" as Theotokos...

Personally...I think Theotokos is the word to use...

I've gotta agree with Job on this one. I mean, do you eliminate Alleluia or Hosanna as well? But, can this thread get back to its original intent?

I attended a Divine Liturgy yesterday at which the Uzhorod
seminarians sang. The congregation was encouraged to use
the "Old Book" to follow along. I was struck by how truncated
the "Old" Liturgy was, even in Slavonic, and even with the
"optional" ektenias sung. I was also struck by the seminarians'
addition of the theotokion (bohorodichen) that had been
excised from the "Red Book" and from the RDL. As some folks say,
"I don't have a dog in this fight" between Red Book and New Book.
But it does appear that there were deficiencies in the text
adopted to replace what came before the Red Book. Perhaps,
with some flexibility, the RDL can be made to work.

The "Old Liturgy" in its original state probably was something special. It might have actually been used in Oompa Loompa Land or possibly Grand Fenwick. Unfortunately, the "Old Liturgy" as practiced in most U.S. Byzantine churches was not special and was, in fact, somewhat chopped up. It was really not superior to the RDL which replaced it. If we are going back to the pre-RDL liturgy, why not fix it and get it right this time? I don't buy the argument that because something has been done wrong for 40 years we should accept it as tradition. That's the same thing the Latins are doing.

One must be careful to discern between the normative version of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (everything in the 1942 Slavonic standard and the 1964 translation), the various shortened versions (such as the "Gray Book", "Green Book", Levkulic Pew Book and other editions), and the "as celebrated" (which was even more abbreviated). The people never begged for the perpetual "Low Mass" they had in their parishes or as we find now in the RDL. The abbreviations occurred for many reasons, with much of the motivation coming from those who wished to distance the Ruthenian Church from anything resembling Orthodoxy. The result is that as a Church we do not know the treasure we have in our Liturgy and are throwing it away to replace it with customs others have tried and found wanting.

Yes, I agree. My 80-year old father says the undoing of our beloved Byzantine Church was the introduction of the "Low Mass." He said that one innovation wrecked our church. People became used to it, and could get "it" at the Roman Catholic Church. "It" replaced the gold standard Red Book.

Much like what is happening now, many Byzantines who saw what was happening left for either OCA or ACROD. We populated their churches and the Roman Churches by not staying true to ourselves. Our past Hierarchs only have themselves to blame for the state of our beloved Byzantine Church. Hopefully, the current Bishops will learn from the sins of others.

It is rather sad.

We ran into the Ruthenian Refugees at St. Paul’s Cathedral tonight. Everyone is talking about the return to the Byzantine (Old) Liturgy. But it all seems to be rumor. There is really no hope of getting our Ruthenian Liturgy back again. Archbishop Schott would rather close all our churches then allow it. St. George and Father Valerian are nice. Maybe it will be our new home. We didn’t want to get used to it there so we only go once in awhile. It’s all such a shame. The RDL is killing what’s left of our church. If they let it go on another year there will be no one left. It’s all such a shame.

The shame is that Ruthenian "Refugees" would sooner go to the Latin Cathedral than seek out a Byzantine parish that still uses the Levkluic books and old music or go to a Ukrainian or Romanian Catholic parish. All three exist within a half-hour drive of the Latin Cathedral. It certainly is a shame.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree with Father Deacon Lance. Pick up the phone and make a few calls to local Ruthenian parishes and ask. You might (horrors!) have to drive 3 or 4 miles. It will be worth it.

Only 3 or 4 miles ??

Some of us have no option but to go for about 40 involving a minumum of 7 hours from leaving the house to getting back

Over the years, I have found that to be quite common. In one NJ parish I am well acquainted with, many people had developed a dislike for the pastor. There were about five Byzantine-Rite Catholic Churches in the immediate driving area. Those who chose to leave went around the block to the large RC church. One can still find them there today. To a former RC like myself, who finds the Novus Ordo to be inferior to the DL of St. John Chrysostom, this is mind-boggling. I guess, to these people, "R.C." stands for "Real Catholic". What you see kicking in here is that Rusyn-American inferiority complex which Fr. Tom Loya has brought up on more than one occasion on this message board.

Dn. Robert