By their fruits shall ye know them.

They treat people like dog droppings. They manufacture a liturgy that chases people out the door. At the very least it certainly means that they do not care about the liturgy or the people.

It's really sad. And scandalous. The bishops hurt us big time. And we are suppose forgive them and be obedient and live with the ongoing hurt?

I thought they were the ones who were supposed to be the icons of Christ?

Yes. Christ said to forgive 7x70 and to take up your cross and follow him.


Your supposed to be an icon of Christ too.

I don't think Christ thought the Apostles were supposed to be a cross to the people. In any case, I can forgive the Their Graces, but I cannot overlook the evil that they did--nor, for that matter, can I remain silent and thus become complicit in that evil. There must be metanoia, the bishops must acknowledge their shortcomings.



I think I want to be the one with the knotted cords, cleansing the Temple.

My favorite quote from some Chancery drone: "The bishop doesn't speak to ordinary people".

And unfortunatelly it is soooooo true!

I've had no problem with Eparchs George, William, nor Gerald; all three of their excellencies said the black, did the red, and were approachable after liturgy... at least when they came to Alaska. They listened, talked, and made it clear the knew the people had a right to approach the bishop on issues.

Stuart: I'd say it's time to present that chancery drone with a copy of the CCEO canon 15

Since his accession to the most eminent throne of Passaic, Bishop William has habitually celebrated in what can best be called an idiosyncratic fashion; pastorally, he has not demonstrated much in the way of leadership, though he has taken some tentative steps to reverse the damage inflicted by his predecessor (who, though, for some reason, he kept on as syncellus, which sent mixed messages at best). His Grace has continued the policy of ignoring ordinary people, as though the Church still consisted of priests, cantors and illiterate peasants.

From all accounts, Bishop George was a most excellent pastor who took his liturgical and pastoral duties seriously; peculiarly for a Ruthenian bishop, he actually understood the importance of a strong monastic witness and supported the establishment and growth of Holy Resurrection Monastery. His successor, Bishop William, was openly hostile to the monks, actually placing them under interdict. Their departure for the Romanian Exarchate was largely his doing, and did immense damage to the Ruthenian Church.

I have not had the opportunity of experiencing Bishop Gerald, but nothing I saw of him as a priest inspired me with optimism.

As someone on the outside of this argument, I am wondering what are the are the supposed benefits for these changes?

Political correctness is the first benefit.

Music no one likes or can sing is the second benefit.

Driving away the faithful if the third benefit.

At least with the old liturgy we knew the words and could actually sing the music.

I truely hope this is not the first step in taking away your customs and traditions. I have seen too much of this in my own church and really hate to see tradition and reverence destroyed in the name of progress. I wonder if perhaps this is the first step in trying to make your rite more Roman. I really hope this is not the case.

There is always hope, and hope is one of the Christian virtues. That said, I suggest a Ukrainian parish, a Romanian parish, a Melkite parish, or a Russian parish (yes, there are a few Russian Greek-Catholic parishes in the USA), all of which are untouched by the RDL.

Fr. Serge

The thing that I find unfortunate is when something is changed for the worse eventually the people that remember the way something used to be die out and then the only thing remembered is the new practice. As an example I am 43 years old and going through life I fell away from the church after highschool through my college years. Upon my return I found a much different Roman Catholic church than I left. I grew up in a parish that would be considered very traditional by todays standards and Im am continually dismayed by what I encounter at mass sometimes. From my perspective it seems like its a process to make religion more user friendly for the people but at what cost?

The Ukrainian Church in my area also uses inclusive language. Hopefully that will be changing, but in the interim there is nowhere else to attend in my area, so I suffer with the RDL. Of course, there are always the Orthodox. The problem there is the breaking of communion with the rest of the family. I have to wonder why union with Rome equates to poor liturgical practices (at least in this area)?

And still, where can be found the complete service books acording to the RDL ? And what was the general impact of RDL? As far as I am concerned I only read Saint John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy in the RDL form and I was... astonished of what one could find there...