As it concerns the Syro-Malabar Eastern Rite Church in India, their cabal of progressive clergy and laity can be seen as an icon of “What Went Wrong With Vatican II” and Pope Francis would be the author of this book! Yes, you read that correctly!
Mark Thomas, who comments here frequently, has opined that Pope Francis’ TC was needed to cancel Pope Benedict’s gracious allowance of the older Mass and its ancillary Liturgies because far right clergy and laity were rejecting Vatican II and the authority of this pope.
However, I have not heard Mark’s take on the Syro-Malabar debacle, where Pope Francis desires that this rite celebrate their Liturgy in a universal way, which means rejecting Vatican II and its liturgical reforms in terms of the Liturgy being celebrated facing the people rather than the Liturgy of the Eucharist uniformly being celebrated facing ad orientem.
It’s a head scratcher, I know.
Thus is it the liberal/progressive cabal in the Syro-Malabar Church who are breaking communion with Pope Francis over Vatican II—I kid you not.
And like the cabal of liberal progressives in the Latin Rite, the Eastern Rite cabal use the same techniques to defy the pope and break communion with him, which is the classic definition of schism.
Priests who have objected to the new system indicated they intended to continue to press the fight.
“It is unfortunate to say that bishops think that at gun point they can make the priests obey whatever is commanded,” said Father Joyce Kaithakottil. “As far as I understand, except a handful of priests, no one would obey under the threat of punishment.” (This is how the liberal cabal in the Church has acted until TC when they wanted to suppress any rebellion against TC by conservative/traditional cabals.)
Kaithakottil rejected claims that the priests pushing back are “rebels” or “dissidents,” noting that of the 12 priests who negotiated the agreement with the bishops, six teach in major seminaries of the Syro-Malabar Church, one is a former major seminary rector, and two are former diocesan chancellors. (Progressives alway gaslight the hierarchy and others by claims of orthodoxy in the face of heterodoxy).
“We are ready to accept in principle the decision of the synod on the mode of celebration, even though they took the decision violating the procedural steps,” Kaithakottil said. “They have to show magnanimity to accept a change in the rubric of celebration which is not an essential part of liturgy.”
“The solution is possible only when synod understands the ground realities of the people and the pastoral situation of the archdiocese,” he said. (They will obey the pope only on their terms and that’s it, which conjures up the liberal cabal that opposed Pope Paul the VI over women priests and Humanae Vitae! Progressives are quite the cabal aren’t they and a bigger threat to true schism than even Archbishop Lebvre and the FSSXP!)
Meanwhile, a lay organization which has been leading resistance to the uniform method of the Mass has signaled its own rejection of the proposed agreement.
Almaya Munnettam, the lay group, expressed its view in a Sept. 7 meeting with the same bishops who had earlier met with the priests. The group insisted that before Mass in the uniform mode can be celebrated in churches, approval must be obtained from parish councils and a general assembly of parishioners. (Yes, in the Latin Rite’s cabal of liberal schismatics, they always use lay consultation and approval of their heterodoxy or rebellion until it doesn’t serve them well anymore).
The group also informed the nine-member bishops’ commission that until a solution is found, it will continue to oppose Masses in the uniform style in churches and religious houses throughout the archeparchy.