Perhaps it had to do with the attitude with which they approached the task?

This is a reasonable breakdown that focuses on several of the issues.


It's one thing to note, even recommend abbreviations; why mandate them as in the RDL? Why make a form of "low Mass" relative to the Recension/1965 Liturgicon the sole norm in English? The issue of following a liturgicon properly is not one of mandating an abbreviated liturgy via a newfangled RDL but one of obedience (of priests) to liturgical norms and received texts, and a modicum of liturgical sense. If one already has it all in the 1965 liturgicon, why then the need to settle for a mandated and manipulated less?

Why outright suppress antiphons and litanies? Would not optional be more pastoral and eastern? The rubrics were not just changed, for which one may ask why, but they were in some instances arbitrarily changed, or changed to follow the Greek rather than Slavonic/Ordo. Several why's there.


Called to task, it is not unreasonable for those making changes and invoking authority to also give factual answers to legitimate questions and needed explanations. In the inclusive language example, no one claims to be the originator or offers the data necessitating the need for this change.




One senses a standard in the Prostopinije (which is itself but one witness to the chant heritage) but then, even there arbitrary changes? As I've mentioned, a Tone 1 Alleluia rephrased and missing some 5 notes or so. A reset Hymn of the Incarnation to match its Galician prototype, but why the need to forbid the familiar, reworked Carpathian-English form? And why is an English version of a Cherubic hymn to a standard hymn melody, not in the book, not permitted though one can sing it in Slavonic?

Possible answer: Arbitrary, un- or poorly informed authoritarianism.

Fr. Deacon Anthony,

I do not have the answer to your questions. All I can say is some changes I agree with, some I don't, and some I am neutral on. I support the right of anyone to petition for the right to return to the 65 Liturgicon and old music. I cannot support the exaggerations made by some and the disrespect shown to the hierarchs by some.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Exactly where is the "inclusive language" "included?" You get my point I'm sure. The term itself betrays an ideology which has no place in the liturgy. The real emotion [i.e. a lack of reason - logos] seems to have been all on the side of those who dropped words from the liturgy and Creed.

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your forthright response. As happens in the structure of the forum, one responds to someone's post, but the nature of the response and questions raised are not intended as directed to that person alone or in particular, but to all on the forum. So I did not mean to put you on the spot for answers. I did want to indicate, using your breakdown, some details of the underlying issues and difficulties.

I concur that hyperbole alone does not properly represent the facts and must be tempered by objectivity. And I agree that disrespect for our bishops in particular, no matter how much one may disagree with them, has no place in the vocabulary of this debate.

Deacon Anthony

I would consider "brothers and sisters" replacing brethren an example, perhaps the only one, of an acceptable use of inclusive language and Rome concurs. I do not think "men" should have been dropped from the Creed although I disagree it is heresy. "Loves us all" is clumsy and unlovely.

Fr. Deacon Lance

If only the powers that be had thought the same.

One must remember that in some petitions "brethren" is used to refer to those in orders. Replacing it with "brothers and sisters" changes the meaning of those petitions. And note that in the new translation of the Order of the Mass in places like the Penitential Rite "Brethren" is preferred and "brothers and sisters" is in parenthesis. I continue to argue that the change was unnecessary and, in certain contexts, incorrect.

Regarding the dropping of the term "men" I do not think anyone has used the term "heresy". I myself have mostly used the term "theologically grave", which is right from the letter of Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired). If the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship says there are doctrinal problems with dropping the term "men" from the Creed then there are. "Loves us all" does not say or mean the same thing as "loves mankind". But neither qualifies as "inclusive language" as the Vatican has labeled this type of language as "potentially exclusive".

The larger point here is that the Standard has been ignored in favor of what some people wanted based upon personal taste. Unity with other Byzantines and the good of the Church have been sacrificed. And - most importantly - people have been hurt. But it can all be fixed by returning to the Standard, and letting people pray what they know and love.

I think Rome tolerates "brothers and sisters" rather than concurs.

I didn't say that it was heresy, although tinkering with the Creed is pretty serious.

If it were heresy it would be contrary to revealed truth. It is perhaps more contrary to reason than revealed truth. First because it is a failure to translate accurately what is there; second because the reason for the failure to translate is based upon a rejection of the natural order, not a rejection of supernatural revealed truth.

In any event since you also see the unreasonableness of the suppression of certain words, we seem to agree who has acted emotionally--a small but important point.

As my wife and daughters have no problem with "brethren", or with "man" and "mankind"--and in fact think "inclusive language" the last refuge of the lame, the insecure and the clueless, who am I--or any other man--to contradict them? Aside from being grammatically and syntactically awkward, such inclusive language is meant to feed an ideological egalitarianism which is not consistent with the Christian kerygma. That so many clergy and academics allow themselves to be browbeaten and shamed into accepting it (for the sake of acceptability among their secular peers?) says more about their own intellectual insecurities than it does about the relationship of women and the Church.

Amen, Brother.

We address mixed groups as "boys and girls" or "ladies and gentlemen". If one is translating into contemporary English I find "brothers and sisters" reasonable and acceptable. I would concur with John that if it is clear from the context that brethren refers to those in holy orders, brethren or brothers should be used.

" If one is translating into contemporary English I find "brothers and sisters" reasonable and acceptable."

I don't. The translator who does that is imposing his own interpretation on the work. And, furthermore, brethren is what the original says, and brethren is what the translation should say. That is an essential rule of good translation.

Note that only men seem to support inclusive language. The women here--and almost everyone I meet in church--are deadly opposed to it. My daughter left the first time she heard that Jesus was "good and loves us all". "That's so gay", she said, and off she went to the OCA Romanian parish down the block (she's now singing in the choir of a ROCOR parish when she's at school, and attends our new Melkite parish when she is at home ("It's legit"--high praise from her).

Perhaps women see inclusive language as the condescending gimmick that it is?

Rome approves of this usage, that is good enough for me. I think some people are so worried about appearing to have given into feminism that a standard English usage like brothers and sisters becomes a debate.

"Rome approves of this usage, that is good enough for me."

There's no Nuremberg Defense in the Kingdom of God.

"I think some people are so worried about appearing to have given into feminism that a standard English usage like brothers and sisters becomes a debate."

What you have never understood is that words have meaning, that language is a tool, and every tool is a potential weapon. And weapons can be used for good--or for evil.