This is from another thread: link .



Various aspects of this have already been discussed at length, but I'm still left wondering about the source and motivation and resultant language in the RDL to achieve the stated need for "inclusivity." This issue and the implementation of "inclusivity" as in the RDL is one of its more, if not most, questionable linguistic, dogmatic, stylistic and pastoral features. What is the supporting data for the need and for 'women's feeling of "exclusion"'? Who introduced it into the IELC's deliberations; who sponsored and championed it there; did a majority in the IELC back it? Who defends it in its present form? Was it introduced for consideration, as stated, by our former archbishop -- +Judson?

Sadly, the answers to these questions may never be known at length.

Archbishop Judson had no strong opinion on gender neutral language. After “Liturgiam Authenticam” was promulgated he most definitely would have voluntarily adhered to it. He was an open critic of the first attempts of the new music at the cantor school. It is certain that the RDL would NOT have been promulgated while he was archbishop. All he really wanted was a reprint of the 1964 Liturgicon with corrections and music people could actually sing. Since his death people placed the RDL on his shoulders - wrongly so.

Always remember that the only bishop who supported the RDL was Bishop Andrew Pataki. Metropolitan Basil sat on it from the day he was enthroned in July 2002 until Bishop Andrew Pataki “convinced” him and the other bishops to sign off on it in 2006. If you speak to Archbishop Basil it will be immediately evident that he rues that day he agreed to the RDL.

Unfortunately the bishops think the RDL cannot be undone. We need to let them know that it can be undone and that we are willing to champion that cause.

If the bishops would just call a spade a spade and blame the whole fiasco of the RDL on Bishop Pataki, then rescind the RDL and return to the 1964, they would be celebrated as heros. It would end the spiritual depression our Church is in.

JD,

I had not heard of people laying the RDL on Metropolitan Judson's shoulders. Facts are facts, however, and Metropolitan Judson did celebrate Liturgy with the rubrics that would become standardized in the RDL. He also used: "for he is good and loves us all," before the RDL was promulgated. Would he have promulgated the RDL as we have it now? I don't think so. But I don't think it is fair to say all he wanted was a reprint of 64 Liturgicon with typos corrected.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Quite true--I have the tape of the 75th anniversary Liturgy at the Convention Center in Pittsburgh and it bears a striking resemblence to the RDL. In some cases worse...remember the catchy "____ our bishop, who God loves?" Practically fell off the couch in laughter when I heard that one. Met. Judson was certainly the celebrant there and was using the RDL texts we now use. Only difference was that some things were taken in Slavonic (or Slovanic if you prefer), so we didn't get the full dose of the RDL at that Liturgy.

The RDL seems to me a creation of the troika: Pataki, Petras, and some St. Basil feminist nuns in Ohio.