Its easy. Francis. Francis demanded the archbishop issue the ultimatium, and that he get the synod to ratify it. The synod said (at least so far) "not so fast."
Its easy. Francis. Francis demanded the archbishop issue the ultimatium, and that he get the synod to ratify it. The synod said (at least so far) "not so fast."
I guess IтАЩm confused because the quotes in the article seem deferential to the Holy Father and gave me the impression the bishops were pointing a finger at someone else.
There are a lot of officials in the Vatican making decisions besides the Pope, and putting pressure on various people to do various things, and probably also claiming that the Pope is backing them to the hilt, when he may not be fully aware of what they're doing.
Then again, it is a VERY old custom in the Church to blame the Pope's nebulous and unnamed advisors and officials for things that you are quite sure that he ordered. It takes the pressure off him reversing himself, since he doesn't have to own that he was wrong.
Your guess is as good as mine. Possibly the Syro-Malabar bishops don't know which it is either, and are hedging their bets.
Its the oldest game of monarchial politics. The sovereign can never be criticized. But his ministers? Oh, they fair game. When a Bishop of sui iurus church asks for communion with the Holy Father, its an important act, and is always done with the understanding that local churches have a certain autonomy on certain internal matters, even if its not spelled out explicitly everywhere
So it's not so much a personal arrangement with Francis as it is the very nature of communion between Rome and the local bishop in these churches that is frayed when the Holy Father takes unto himself the rights of all discipline, and then demands the local bishop do something with zero debate or discussion. Is that theoretically within the Pope's power for supreme and immediate jurisdiction? Yes. Are we now learning the practical limits of a theoretical claim? Also yes.
Its easy. Francis. Francis demanded the archbishop issue the ultimatium, and that he get the synod to ratify it. The synod said (at least so far) "not so fast."
I guess IтАЩm confused because the quotes in the article seem deferential to the Holy Father and gave me the impression the bishops were pointing a finger at someone else.
There are a lot of officials in the Vatican making decisions besides the Pope, and putting pressure on various people to do various things, and probably also claiming that the Pope is backing them to the hilt, when he may not be fully aware of what they're doing.
Then again, it is a VERY old custom in the Church to blame the Pope's nebulous and unnamed advisors and officials for things that you are quite sure that he ordered. It takes the pressure off him reversing himself, since he doesn't have to own that he was wrong.
Your guess is as good as mine. Possibly the Syro-Malabar bishops don't know which it is either, and are hedging their bets.
Its the oldest game of monarchial politics. The sovereign can never be criticized. But his ministers? Oh, they fair game. When a Bishop of sui iurus church asks for communion with the Holy Father, its an important act, and is always done with the understanding that local churches have a certain autonomy on certain internal matters, even if its not spelled out explicitly everywhere
So it's not so much a personal arrangement with Francis as it is the very nature of communion between Rome and the local bishop in these churches that is frayed when the Holy Father takes unto himself the rights of all discipline, and then demands the local bishop do something with zero debate or discussion. Is that theoretically within the Pope's power for supreme and immediate jurisdiction? Yes. Are we now learning the practical limits of a theoretical claim? Also yes.
If so, sounds like he backtracked and said тАЬsolve it yourselves тАЬ