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?
As a Church, we are in desperate need of renewed sense of what the Liturgy really is and what it is for. So many of the heated liturgy debates are being driven without regard to any sort of integral liturgical theology but are often arguments from emotion, preference, and/or (relatively recent) precedent. Even the conclusions are sound, the debates themselves turn the liturgy, leitourgia, public work of the people for the Lord, into just one more political battleground.
To me this is one of the most difficult parts of accepting TC. Benedict XVI has an extremely deep liturgical theology. His collected works on the topic make up several volumes in fact. This theology was the basis for his reforms including Summorum Pontificum. Then with the stroke of a pen Francis completely wiped out everything BXVI had done without much of any theological basis for doing so. It was all disciplinary in nature. Further, Francis has all but completely eliminated anyone at the CDW that came from the BXVI theological school.
Except this liturgical change was itself a compromise. And the ad orientum ‘side’ has accepted the changes, this diocese hasn’t. It appears to me that this difficult relationship with the clergy go waaaay back before the current liturgical battles. Bishops can tolerate a lot of crap from their priests, but this is the line in the sand. The liturgy IS our life and our unity and it is political too but not in the way we’ve been conditioned by our times to understand it. In a liturgy we enact a real body of Christ, not just a mystical one but a political one. If we’re not practicing the same liturgy, we’re not part of the same body. I dunno how else you’d put it, but that’s my bleary-eyed take after being up with a baby since sparrows fart.
I dunno how the pillar would do it, but I’d totally read a ‘Mincione-eque’ inside deep dive on what the hell has been going on over the last 50 years.
"If we’re not practicing the same liturgy, we’re not part of the same body."
This is...well...wrong. The Church has never had a uniform liturgy yet we are part of the same body. This is true within the Western tradition as well as between the Western and Eastern traditions.
This isn't a defense of those refusing to get on board. It's not like liturgy is a free for all, but this idea that liturgy must be the same everywhere for us to have communion just doesn't bear out theologically or historically.
You are correct. I was expressing the point badly. What I guess I was trying to say is that there is unity and uniformity and there is a difference. You can have unity without uniformity, as has been demonstrated. See context of being up half the night with a new baby and the need for a quality deep-dive investigative piece to give context to the dispute. I suspect that this isn’t about the liturgy at all given the long process of consultation and the otherwise widespread adoption of the reformed liturgy. Christians in India are minorities in a high pressure sectarian environment (especially under Modi’s leadership). For a small Church like the Syro -malabars, it might matter a lot more to have a unified AND uniform liturgy in that context. This fight has wider repercussions and it absolutely exposes a very painful wedge point for a hostile majority or government to exploit. That might explain some of the urgency. But I might be completely wrong. My religious politics expertise has not focused on South Asia in anymore than general terms.
The result of forcing the VII changes on the Latin Church resulted in SSPX. I suspect forcing these changes on people who don't want them will have a similar effect.
The practice of ad orientem is pretty ancient, and it was kind of a weird Latinization where foreign concepts crept into the liturgy during the 60s. Since the pontificate of John Paul II, there has been a greater encouragement towards eliminating these Latinzations, and sometimes Rome has pushed a more aggressive stance on this than the local Church ironically.
This seems to be the thought process in Rome when they originally mandated the synod to implement a solution that many of them supported but did not want to fight that battle. This is one of the things that I can completely understand from an academic and theological standpoint, but from a practical standpoint on the ground, we might be seeing why the Synod has acted with caution before Rome intervened. (On its own accord, without appeal from the Synod.)
There are precisely zero liturgical traditions with the custom of facing versus populum to worship, east or west.
Vatican 2 has a decree, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, on allowing and encouraging the Eastern Churches to regain and re-establish their ancient traditions, to recover from the gradual Latinization of those Churches (which is the sort of thing that happens when the leadership in Rome tends toward tyranny, and when the leadership outside of Rome tends toward obsequiousness).
So in order to abide by that, the Syro-Malabar Church was originally told to return to its original tradition of ad orientum worship. The proposed uniform liturgy already is a concession, as most of it is versus populum, with a few parts, including much of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, being ad orientum. Likely the delay was in part due to trying to sort out an acceptable compromise.
Few people react well to their liturgy being changed; I remember reading that the reason the Sarum Rite has practically disappeared is that during the English "Reformation", the only Masses said were said by foreign priests, or priests trained in foreign countries, quickly and quietly, so they were all Low Tridentine/Gregorian Masses. After it became legal, the Sarum Rite was seen as similar to the Anglican service and no one really wanted it.
Unfortunately many priests and laity seem to be rejecting any compromise. Whether that has more to do with poor communication or poor obedience, I certainly couldn't say.
Seems to be both a tactical retreat and preparing for a tougher fight if need be. Yet I still don't see what the end game is here, and my worry is that, at this point, its personal. It's not about doing what's best for souls, egos have been bruised, and satisfaction may be required.
How can I put this in a way that doesn't sound trollish? ...
It's interesting that the Holy Father's recorded address in Italian doesn't seem to include subtitles in any of the official languages of India. Perhaps I just didn't investigate the YouTube options sufficiently, but the Italian subtitles struck me as a bit tone deaf. I understand that Pope Francis is uncomfortable with English, and I presume he's no more comfortable with Urdu, and that's all fine. But shouldn't a translation be provided into a local language?
The Pope likely has no Urdu and his English (despite some time in the Milltown Institute, Dublin learning it) is basic, and English would've been a passable option for India. However, the main Vatican news channel has the message with Urdu subtitle that don't need to be turned on.
Overall the Uniform Liturgy seems a fair compromise and works towards the post V2 idea of removing Latinisations from Eastern Rites, but it is a post V2 Latinisation to which people are attached. Yet the whole dispute seems so virulent. There must be some other aspect that escapes the notice of those who aren't local.
There used to be some Pillar subscriber familiar with the Syro-Malabar Church who would comment about the situation in India. I think he claimed the problems arose out of turf battles and corruption. Right now, there doesn’t seem to be any incentive for the “resistance” to compromise.
Given the blasphemous events disrupting the Holy Qurbana at Christmas time 2022 in the cathedral, this is long in coming.
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?
Agreed.
As a Church, we are in desperate need of renewed sense of what the Liturgy really is and what it is for. So many of the heated liturgy debates are being driven without regard to any sort of integral liturgical theology but are often arguments from emotion, preference, and/or (relatively recent) precedent. Even the conclusions are sound, the debates themselves turn the liturgy, leitourgia, public work of the people for the Lord, into just one more political battleground.
To me this is one of the most difficult parts of accepting TC. Benedict XVI has an extremely deep liturgical theology. His collected works on the topic make up several volumes in fact. This theology was the basis for his reforms including Summorum Pontificum. Then with the stroke of a pen Francis completely wiped out everything BXVI had done without much of any theological basis for doing so. It was all disciplinary in nature. Further, Francis has all but completely eliminated anyone at the CDW that came from the BXVI theological school.
It was a pure power play
I agree with most of this. I am inclined to think Francis did and does have a theological reason for TC, just one not rooted in liturgical theology. Shaun Blanchard's take is helpful here: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/traditionis-custodes-was-never-merely-about-the-liturgy/
Except this liturgical change was itself a compromise. And the ad orientum ‘side’ has accepted the changes, this diocese hasn’t. It appears to me that this difficult relationship with the clergy go waaaay back before the current liturgical battles. Bishops can tolerate a lot of crap from their priests, but this is the line in the sand. The liturgy IS our life and our unity and it is political too but not in the way we’ve been conditioned by our times to understand it. In a liturgy we enact a real body of Christ, not just a mystical one but a political one. If we’re not practicing the same liturgy, we’re not part of the same body. I dunno how else you’d put it, but that’s my bleary-eyed take after being up with a baby since sparrows fart.
I dunno how the pillar would do it, but I’d totally read a ‘Mincione-eque’ inside deep dive on what the hell has been going on over the last 50 years.
"If we’re not practicing the same liturgy, we’re not part of the same body."
This is...well...wrong. The Church has never had a uniform liturgy yet we are part of the same body. This is true within the Western tradition as well as between the Western and Eastern traditions.
This isn't a defense of those refusing to get on board. It's not like liturgy is a free for all, but this idea that liturgy must be the same everywhere for us to have communion just doesn't bear out theologically or historically.
For example, Carthusians
https://chartreux.org/moines/en/liturgy/
You are correct. I was expressing the point badly. What I guess I was trying to say is that there is unity and uniformity and there is a difference. You can have unity without uniformity, as has been demonstrated. See context of being up half the night with a new baby and the need for a quality deep-dive investigative piece to give context to the dispute. I suspect that this isn’t about the liturgy at all given the long process of consultation and the otherwise widespread adoption of the reformed liturgy. Christians in India are minorities in a high pressure sectarian environment (especially under Modi’s leadership). For a small Church like the Syro -malabars, it might matter a lot more to have a unified AND uniform liturgy in that context. This fight has wider repercussions and it absolutely exposes a very painful wedge point for a hostile majority or government to exploit. That might explain some of the urgency. But I might be completely wrong. My religious politics expertise has not focused on South Asia in anymore than general terms.
The result of forcing the VII changes on the Latin Church resulted in SSPX. I suspect forcing these changes on people who don't want them will have a similar effect.
The practice of ad orientem is pretty ancient, and it was kind of a weird Latinization where foreign concepts crept into the liturgy during the 60s. Since the pontificate of John Paul II, there has been a greater encouragement towards eliminating these Latinzations, and sometimes Rome has pushed a more aggressive stance on this than the local Church ironically.
This seems to be the thought process in Rome when they originally mandated the synod to implement a solution that many of them supported but did not want to fight that battle. This is one of the things that I can completely understand from an academic and theological standpoint, but from a practical standpoint on the ground, we might be seeing why the Synod has acted with caution before Rome intervened. (On its own accord, without appeal from the Synod.)
There are precisely zero liturgical traditions with the custom of facing versus populum to worship, east or west.
Vatican 2 has a decree, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, on allowing and encouraging the Eastern Churches to regain and re-establish their ancient traditions, to recover from the gradual Latinization of those Churches (which is the sort of thing that happens when the leadership in Rome tends toward tyranny, and when the leadership outside of Rome tends toward obsequiousness).
So in order to abide by that, the Syro-Malabar Church was originally told to return to its original tradition of ad orientum worship. The proposed uniform liturgy already is a concession, as most of it is versus populum, with a few parts, including much of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, being ad orientum. Likely the delay was in part due to trying to sort out an acceptable compromise.
Few people react well to their liturgy being changed; I remember reading that the reason the Sarum Rite has practically disappeared is that during the English "Reformation", the only Masses said were said by foreign priests, or priests trained in foreign countries, quickly and quietly, so they were all Low Tridentine/Gregorian Masses. After it became legal, the Sarum Rite was seen as similar to the Anglican service and no one really wanted it.
Unfortunately many priests and laity seem to be rejecting any compromise. Whether that has more to do with poor communication or poor obedience, I certainly couldn't say.
Am I the only person that can’t help but read “archeparchy” as “archy-parchy” (rhymes with party)?
Now that you mentioned it, I can’t unsee it now…
Seems to be both a tactical retreat and preparing for a tougher fight if need be. Yet I still don't see what the end game is here, and my worry is that, at this point, its personal. It's not about doing what's best for souls, egos have been bruised, and satisfaction may be required.
How can I put this in a way that doesn't sound trollish? ...
It's interesting that the Holy Father's recorded address in Italian doesn't seem to include subtitles in any of the official languages of India. Perhaps I just didn't investigate the YouTube options sufficiently, but the Italian subtitles struck me as a bit tone deaf. I understand that Pope Francis is uncomfortable with English, and I presume he's no more comfortable with Urdu, and that's all fine. But shouldn't a translation be provided into a local language?
The Pope likely has no Urdu and his English (despite some time in the Milltown Institute, Dublin learning it) is basic, and English would've been a passable option for India. However, the main Vatican news channel has the message with Urdu subtitle that don't need to be turned on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_B7b_susGA
Overall the Uniform Liturgy seems a fair compromise and works towards the post V2 idea of removing Latinisations from Eastern Rites, but it is a post V2 Latinisation to which people are attached. Yet the whole dispute seems so virulent. There must be some other aspect that escapes the notice of those who aren't local.
There used to be some Pillar subscriber familiar with the Syro-Malabar Church who would comment about the situation in India. I think he claimed the problems arose out of turf battles and corruption. Right now, there doesn’t seem to be any incentive for the “resistance” to compromise.
imagine that, leaders resigning.
"accepted the resignations of two senior leaders"