The whole “Revised Divine Liturgy” and “Revised Presanctified” and “Revised Vespers” and “Revised Matins” are products of people with a Roman Catholic mindset (except for the music, which is of the "English is not our native language and we are proud to show it variety"). Father Larry hits the nail on the head. He is speaking more generally, but it’s the same nail.

The Church did not ask for or want the Revised Liturgy. It still does not want it. They got priests and the laity to accept it and to tolerate it only through mandates and demands of loyalty and obedience. That the only way to get parishes to use it is by demands of loyalty and obedience says clearly that it is not something people would choose willingly. But, of course, we are all stupid in the eyes of the Reformers. And any scholarly questioning of what they have done and are doing is immediately labeled as personal attack and the questioner thwarted and put in his place.

The Revised Divine Liturgy states to the world that we are not Orthodox.

It states that we are not Eastern.

It states that we are Roman Catholics who use the Byzantine Liturgy and will adapt the Byzantine Liturgy to fit an ethnic Roman Catholic identity.

Ya think?

Elkoism with a human face?

However, like adults who try to act "hip" around teenagers, the attempt comes off as false and condescending. Like our "hip" adult, the Ruthenian hierarchy is a couple of fads behind the fashion curve. Loosey-goosey, "Spirit of Vatican II" anything goes liturgy, including colloquial and "gender neutral" language are definitely out of style with our Roman brethren. The avatars of that liturgical renewal are now starting to collect Social Security and think about hip replacements, not being hip. Their run is over; the long march through the institutions is done.

And, as a result, our bishop's attempt to bring us up to date and make us "fit in" will only result in our being "odd man out" once again.

Be of good cheer, people! The RDL will not last. In Van Nuys we remember when Bishop Dolinay mandated some really awful music by some cantor from Pittsburgh. It was tried everywhere and was then ignored. I see the same thing happening now. It's just another bad idea from that seminary. I've never met any priest who went there who has fond memories. I've only met Bishop Dino once but we hope that as the head of the liturgical commission he will lead the effort to rescind the RDL.

Bravo, Herr Doktor Koehl: Another rhetorical triumph!

the full quote:

The article's focus is on the impact of Cum Data Fuerit, it seems to be stretching it to form an argument regarding the RDL reformers mindset specifically.

The RDL is only one issue; there are larger issues still to be dealt with:


"Sui Juris", with strings attached.


Other than being your opinion on this, it is merely hearsay.

Who is this cantor from Pittsburgh?

May I remind folks that finger-pointing, personalized attacks, etc - never attractive - are particularly unfitting during this holy season.

Many years,

Neil

I don't know. That was 20 some years ago. Probably longer. I only know that Bishop Kuzma hated the music, rescinded Bishop Dolinay's mandate and told parishes to go back to whatever they were using before.

I had no intention of finger pointing or personalised attack. I was intrigued by such a claim comming up, given that the cantor in question was likely NOT of the Roman Catholic mindset as the OP and title of the thread posit.

Steve,

My comment was not directed at you. It was intended as a cautionary remark generally, as I've had to edit posts to this thread twice in the past week because of the tone and tenor that was being taken in regard to named individuals.

To my mind, with only 6 posts made in that timeframe, that's way too many edits to have to have been made.

Many years,

Neil

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly is Roman Catholic here ? Inclusive language ?

First, "inclusive language" is not inclusive and is actually potentially exclusive. One example is that "who for us and our salvation" (replacing the correct "who for us men and our salvation") could mean anything, even just the assembled handful or people. This is why the Vatican labeled it "theologically grave". This type of language has its roots in the politics of academia, and is more correctly called "gender neutral language".

Perhaps one might need to be more specific, and state that it is not just a Roman Catholic mindset behind the Revised Divine Liturgy but more correctly the Roman Catholic mindset that sprung up after Vatican II that the Church is now striving to correct with the "Reform of the Reform". Things like "gender neutral language", calling the priest the "celebrant" or the "presider", insisting on the educational aspects of the Liturgy through hearing the prayers rather then on the education that comes from praying the prayers, and etc. are all elements (or visible expressions) of such a mindset. The mindset itself is something less tangible - it is the way one looks at and approaches Liturgy.

But this has been discussed at great length previously, and I recommend browsing or searching other posts that discuss it.

I have moved those posts discussing the differences between development of the EC Churches in the US and Canada to the East-West forum; please continue any discussion of that topic in the new thread there.

Many years,

Neil