I will agree with Father Deacon Paul that the 30% number quoted by John Damascene is probably too high. I have no accurate count, but my conversations with clergy would probably put the number at about 10-15% in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy. ISTM that the number of parishes that would switch back to the 1964 if permitted is probably close to 95%.

As to the zeon, the RDL did not restore it. It was in the 1964 English Edition and the 1942 Normative Slavonic Edition. To claim the 2007 Revision is responsible for restoring it is to state something that is demonstrably false. One must always correctly delineate between a Litrugicon and a liturgical directive. The 1964 Liturgicon contained the rubric for zeon (page 43) but it was the liturgical directives of that era that told the priests not to use zeon. A new liturgical directive could have removed that restriction and restored its use. There was absolutely no need to revise the Divine Liturgy to restore zeon.

My own estimate is that some (maybe 25%) of clergy have restored zeon (one must look at what they do when the bishop or other notables are not present). Most priests appear to be taking all those prayers out loud in imitation of the Roman Catholics, but keep the rest of the rubrics pretty much the same as they always did. Things like the correct use of prosphora (i.e., no pre-cut) and zeon can be ignored just as easily in the Revised Liturgicon as they were with the Ruthenian Liturgcion.

When compared to the full celebration of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy according to the normative Ruthenian Liturgicon the 2007 Revised Divine Liturgy is a “Low Mass”. The details are just different than the “Low Masses” of the 70’s and 80’s.