> the bishops also questioned why the ultimatum was issued suddenly before a June 14 online meeting of the Synod of Bishops
It sounds like "good cop / bad cop" to me (but on the other hand that is a higher level of strategic thinking than was probably going on) with the Pope as bad cop.
That assumes a level of intelligence and sophistication that just isn't present in anything Rome does. 3/4d chess isn't real. The Pope demanded an ultimatium be issued and that the synod rubber stamp that ultimatium. They thought otherwise, and by all acounts are negotiating their own deal with zero input from Vasil or Francis.
In this case that's probably wise, because what's worse than priests going into potential schism? 5 Bishops going into potential schism with them. Probably wouldn't happen, but if they are going on record saying they oppose it and they have warm relations with those priests, well, you've got a very thin needle to thread.
That nobody seems to have thought about this beforehand (at least in Rome) is an incredible own goal.
Praise God they seem to be arriving at a mutually tolerable solution. I am perplexed as to who the bishops think is pressuring their Major Archbishop, if I read that correctly.
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 I’m 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.
Great reporting . The compromise sounds reasonable. I also liked that Pope Francis told them they were a sui juris church and their own synod needed to solve this. Excellent - the Eastern Orthodox are watching .
This is in itself a very serious issue and I pray for harmony.
But given the synods on the family and on synodality in Rome, this particular quote is comedy gold: “How is it possible that such a serious decision that would have derived from the synod, was already prepared in advance before the synod?”
The Pope told them one thing and then another happened? Odd..
So a solution that was always obvious from the beginning, if only Francis will say yes?
> the bishops also questioned why the ultimatum was issued suddenly before a June 14 online meeting of the Synod of Bishops
It sounds like "good cop / bad cop" to me (but on the other hand that is a higher level of strategic thinking than was probably going on) with the Pope as bad cop.
That assumes a level of intelligence and sophistication that just isn't present in anything Rome does. 3/4d chess isn't real. The Pope demanded an ultimatium be issued and that the synod rubber stamp that ultimatium. They thought otherwise, and by all acounts are negotiating their own deal with zero input from Vasil or Francis.
In this case that's probably wise, because what's worse than priests going into potential schism? 5 Bishops going into potential schism with them. Probably wouldn't happen, but if they are going on record saying they oppose it and they have warm relations with those priests, well, you've got a very thin needle to thread.
That nobody seems to have thought about this beforehand (at least in Rome) is an incredible own goal.
Praise God they seem to be arriving at a mutually tolerable solution. I am perplexed as to who the bishops think is pressuring their Major Archbishop, if I read that correctly.
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 I’m 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 “solve it yourselves “
Great reporting . The compromise sounds reasonable. I also liked that Pope Francis told them they were a sui juris church and their own synod needed to solve this. Excellent - the Eastern Orthodox are watching .
Thanks for keeping us abreast of this story, Luke; and with clear, concise reporting.
This is in itself a very serious issue and I pray for harmony.
But given the synods on the family and on synodality in Rome, this particular quote is comedy gold: “How is it possible that such a serious decision that would have derived from the synod, was already prepared in advance before the synod?”
James Franco, “first time?” meme.