So he has no opinion to state on the RDL, but did comment with disapproval about a critic of the RDL?

Father Deacon John,

I agree that Father Robert Taft, SJ, seems to stay away from the bishops and their “pastoral decisions”. Yet I think what he actually wrote in a book under his name is what counts:


I strongly agree with Father Taft on this point. The Ruthenian bishops have harmed the liturgical unity of the Byzantine Church. They have violated the Liturgical Instruction. They have violated Liturgical Authenticam. They need to correct their mistakes by repealing the Revised Divine Liturgy and by promulgating the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, in a translation that is complete and accurate, conforming fully to the Vatican directives.

John

Has Metropolitan Nicholas expressed any opinion as to the text of the RDL Liturgicon (i.e. the inclusive language, and the memorialization of a truncated celebration) ? Just curious.

Dn. Robert

You make a good point. I have copies of those Uniontown Basilian translations of the Divine Office. The "feminist" language I find to be quite offensive, and a good example of dragging down the sacred with "P.C.".

Dn. Robert

Aren't they just awful, though? We used their translation of Great Compline every year at the March for Life service at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. I basically said, "There is no way I am going to sing 'O God of our ancestors'--and I did not. There were several other places where the inanity went beyond tolerable levels.

Yes, the language is there in the Sister's books. I am thankful for those books, for the sisters initiative; I am not thankful for that language. Consider, however, that those books were "Compiled from approved sources by THE LITURGICAL COMMISSION of THE SISTERS OF THE ORDER OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT" and the books also note they are "For Private Use."

An interim liturgicon, like Passaic's, did not have the "inclusivity" issue although it had its own innovations, abridgment, and some aspects of the RDL's outlook on the liturgy. But its promulgation states: "This text is approved for provisional use in churches of the Eparchy of Passaic"; and "The text of the Divine Liturgy is the official text of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia sui iuris of Pittsburgh published in 1965 and approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Prot. No. 380/62, on December 10, 1964." (The latter statement is not correct since the text was changed somewhat.)

Finally the RDL: So why all the stink now? Official; "At the direction of the Council of Hierarchs"; Metropolitan Liturgical Commission; for the Metropolia; making it a statement about our Church; and even accompanied by a video (catechetical DVD) that misinforms us about the justification based on the original language in order to convince us the "inclusivity" is desired and linguistically correct.

'"softened" the language' -- Not really, but it did make it official.

Fr. Deacon,

See for yourself:
http://www.acrod.org/prayercorner/textsresources/divineliturgy

No inclusive language but the Liturgy itself is what has been the standard in the ACROD and the Byzantine Metropolia for sometime: 1 verse Antiphons, no Little Litanies, no Litanies of the Catechumens and the Faithful, no Litany of Supplication after the Great Entrance, i.e. the memorialized truncated celebration

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Paul,

I sympathize with your concern, but of the 5 Uniontown Basilian Office books 4 were published in the 80s which would mean Metropolitan Stephen approved those. The Triodion alone was published in 1995 under Metropolitan Judson.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There really isn't that much inclusive language in the Uniontown books and it is easily corrected. All I can find is "Blessed is the One" rather than "Blessed is the Man" for Psalm 1 in the Vesper book and "God of our ancestors" rather than "God of our Fathers" in the Great and Lesser Doxologies and "loves humankind" rather than "loves mankind" for the dismissal in the Matins book.

The RDL uses "God of our Fathers" in the Great Doxology. Would that they had used "loves humankind" (if they had to inclusivise it) rather than "loves us all".

Fr. Deacon Lance

So, my daughters and wife ask, what is wrong with the word "mankind"?

I agree, what is wrong with mankind? Every time I get into a discussion with a RDL supporter, they pipe up "it's not a big deal, it's just one word." And I say "exactly, if it doesn't have meaning why change it at all?" The conversation, of course, ends there.

Yes--if you watch the DL broadcast from Christ the Savior Cathedral, it's very much like a DL in a Pittsburgh Metropolia parish. Very similar to the DL in my former parish.

It is true that Johnstown gladly received copies of the "Teal Terror" (as it is now called). They hoped they might use some of it. Then they reviewed the books and saw the music and translations. The idea was quietly dropped. Thompson tried to set up his own little musical kingdom. But everyone disliked his work but Bishop Pataki. Pataki won.

FYI...
The official liturgy "blue" book...does have additional verses (w/music) that are available to be taken with the antiphons...

Although I routinely hear it on the TV, in popular movies, and in commercials that are surely trying to sell to both sexes, and of course, in classic English literature -- in church it is banned, and we must become enlightened that MANkind is "noninclusive" but huMANkind is not. And so we would have (following this movement):

God made Human in God's image
In the image of God, God created...Human(?)... shehim(?)
Female and male God created them.

Some translators have forgotten what should be one of their commandments: Thou shalt not commit adulteration.

But in fairness, that is not as bad as "God made Us-All in ..."