There is a certain tension that cannot long last, and is screaming for a way to save face.
The Pope wants to grantn them more autonomy over their flocks, but the absolutist line in the current liturgical dispute is coming almost entirely from Rome. What if they use that autonomy to pursue a more concilliatory line, which is a very serious possibility with Francis successor?
The truth is, just as with the re-litigating of the liturgy wars in the West, the Pope very much wants to have arguments about the Eucharist, arguments he wants to win in search of a legacy. He already mostly lost on that account.
Let the hierarchy there decide what they want, and how to accomplish it.
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that it is the church's own synod that introduced the new liturgy and wants it implemented, and that the pope is merely backing them up and adding to their authority with his.
> “Showing a grave lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament — the Sacrament of charity and unity — by arguing about the details of how to celebrate the Eucharist, the pinnacle of his presence among us, is incompatible with the Christian faith,” the pope said.
I think arguing over the details of something shows that you care and how important it is; and for the celebration of the Eucharist it is natural to want it to be right even in the details. This is of course difficult if you disagree in what "right" means. But this has a long, even patristic, tradition; looking e.g. at the Easter controversy of the second century in which Saint Polycarp disagreed with the Pope. In fact, we could maybe try to learn something from this controversy.
This is how Eusebius puts it: "[Pope] Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."
While Sozomen writes: "They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs."
Liturgy shouldn't be a source of division but unless it's done in lockstep it's wrong? And yet there are 10 canons in the Latin rite without anyone going ballistic. Some Masses are in Latin and some in English. Some are ad orientem and some are ad populum. We are still a unified rite with unity in diversity. If we can do it so can they.
Or is this about wanting the laity to pay, pray, and obey while the clergy do everything else, otherwise known as clericalism?
There is a certain tension that cannot long last, and is screaming for a way to save face.
The Pope wants to grantn them more autonomy over their flocks, but the absolutist line in the current liturgical dispute is coming almost entirely from Rome. What if they use that autonomy to pursue a more concilliatory line, which is a very serious possibility with Francis successor?
The truth is, just as with the re-litigating of the liturgy wars in the West, the Pope very much wants to have arguments about the Eucharist, arguments he wants to win in search of a legacy. He already mostly lost on that account.
Let the hierarchy there decide what they want, and how to accomplish it.
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that it is the church's own synod that introduced the new liturgy and wants it implemented, and that the pope is merely backing them up and adding to their authority with his.
The Synod did indeed rule on doing so... long ago. And carefully implemented it taking 95% of a loaf.
Everything started anew when Rome demanded they finish implementing it. Given the slow walking and putting all discipline to Rome is a tell.
The hierarchy of the Euro Malabar Church has already decided regarding "what they want, and how to accomplish it" through their Holy Synod.
The decision has been made regarding the Qurbano (Mass), clergy and people have rejected this decision and Rome has backed the Synod of the bishops.
This "50/50" Liturgy did not come from Rome.
I never said it did.
It didn't come through synodality either.
> “Showing a grave lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament — the Sacrament of charity and unity — by arguing about the details of how to celebrate the Eucharist, the pinnacle of his presence among us, is incompatible with the Christian faith,” the pope said.
I think arguing over the details of something shows that you care and how important it is; and for the celebration of the Eucharist it is natural to want it to be right even in the details. This is of course difficult if you disagree in what "right" means. But this has a long, even patristic, tradition; looking e.g. at the Easter controversy of the second century in which Saint Polycarp disagreed with the Pope. In fact, we could maybe try to learn something from this controversy.
This is how Eusebius puts it: "[Pope] Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."
While Sozomen writes: "They faithfully and justly assumed, that those who accorded in the essentials of worship ought not to separate from one another on account of customs."
Liturgy shouldn't be a source of division but unless it's done in lockstep it's wrong? And yet there are 10 canons in the Latin rite without anyone going ballistic. Some Masses are in Latin and some in English. Some are ad orientem and some are ad populum. We are still a unified rite with unity in diversity. If we can do it so can they.
Or is this about wanting the laity to pay, pray, and obey while the clergy do everything else, otherwise known as clericalism?