Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joe A's avatar

I've been following this story on the Pillar as someone with basically no familiarity to the Syro-Malabar Rite, but there's one part that seems important to me that I've never seen discussed. What is the principled reason for why the Church leadership insisted on a uniform liturgy in the first place? I get that at this point, the people of this diocese ought to accept the uniform liturgy as the decision their Bishops made, and the fact that they haven't is arguably gravely sinfully disobedient. I also get that the Syro-Malabar Bishops don't want to give in and reward the bad behavior by accepting the liturgical preferences of this diocese as a legitimate variant now. But presumably there was a point (probably years ago by now) when the discussions about adopting the uniform liturgy were still much less heated when somebody brought up the fact that this diocese was going to be really reluctant to accept the proposed uniform liturgy where the Bishops could have made that concession without it being seen as caving to the mob, yet they didn't.

As a Catholic, I accept that "you need to do this because we said so" is sometimes a legitimate expression of ecclesiastical authority, but there was a point before they "said so" in this case when they were still deliberating whether or not to say so. And presumably they did have a reason why they decided to say so, so why did they decide to put their foot down on this issue?

Expand full comment
Patrick Fasano's avatar

Am I the only person that can’t help but read “archeparchy” as “archy-parchy” (rhymes with party)?

Expand full comment
17 more comments...
Latest

No posts