The article leaves a lot unclear. Was the Archbishop whose resignation was accepted at 72 a proponent of full ad orientem worship during the HQ?

It sounds like an expert lawyer was sent in to justify and solidify the liturgical change to the so-called 50:50 arrangement.

The ancient practice didn't vary as evidenced by the Oriental Orthodox not in communion.

The good guys in this case (as in all cases) are the ones who want ad orientem, and the ones who don't are basically liberals who have gotten too much of a taste of the West, desiring to be exactly like their (neo-) colonial masters. This didn't come out as strongly in the Pillar article, but it has in other articles. It doesn't mean that everyone who prefers ad orientem is necessarily a believer in only good ideas, but liturgical liberalism comes from too much contact with the wrong ones, that is for sure.

We're now a year out since the relevant synod that decreed a transition from this past Advent to this past Easter:

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022-04/pope-francis-bishops-syro-malabar-ernakulam-angamaly-qurbana.html

All the talk about mercy in this pontificate rings hollow.

As does all the talk of synodality, accompaniment, decentralization, openness, etc. It's come to the point where you can put money on the likelihood that whatever he says, he will do the opposite.

The situation - as always - is far more complicated that it appears, and trying to unravel it is a headache in itself. There are multiple overlapping reasons for which - as usual - the liturgy is only a front.

Issues include:

(a) the question of the Latinization of the Syro-Malabar Church, a process which was almost completed until Rome in the early 20th century reversed course and began trying to push the Church to rediscover its own heritage. Unsurprisingly, the de-Latinizing process met with resistance, which has waned over time, but is strongest in those areas where the Latin church is predominant. One unspoken fear is that people defect to the Latin Church.

This interesting book, produced at the time of the Council, illustrates (p. 264 ff.) how Latinized the rite already was.
https://archive.org/details/eucharisticlitur0000lies/page/264/mode/2up

(b) The question of inculturation and the 'Indianization' of the church (a controversial topic also in the Latin church). Its proponents see it as a legitimate development, reflecting the Indian reality of the church rather than a Syrian heritage that few remember. Opponents see it as thinly-veiled Latinization aimed at stamping out the remnants of the Syriac heritage of the Church. One of the influential members of the Syro-Malabar heirarchy at the time of the Council - Cardinal Joseph Parecattil - was also a strong proponent of inculturation and "Indianized" rites; and often refused to accept the 'orientalizing' decisions of Rome.

The liturgical wars have played out on many fronts: crucifix or cross? coloured vestments or plainer? rosary or Vespers? ad populum or ad apsidem? single altar or East Syriac bemas? Etc Etc.

And this is further complicated by:

(c) a historical rivalry which (simplistically) can be reduced to two big historic power-centers in the Church: Ernakulam (in the northern part of Kerala) and Changanassery (in the southern part). The former became the proponent of the Latinization-inculturation models; the latter (surrounded by the Orthodox Jacobites and other Syriac churches) a bastion of Orientalization.

(d) ethnic differences between different Christian groups in Kerala. In the modern day, this is also becoming complicated by the intrusion of the Church into political life.

(e) The Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar church is ipso facto the Archbishop of Ernakulam. George Alencherry, the present Major Archbishop, originated from Changanassery. Unsurprisingly, this kicked off a storm.

(f) administrative conflicts of two types: clash of personality (an ever-present feature in ecclesial life); and long-standing administrative changes. It is worth noting that the Syro-Malabar church has its own system of church governance and ownership which perhaps is more akin to the medieval system and not the ultramontane strictly-hierarchical system of the Latin Church.


All of this resulted in a big row in Ernakulam around Alencherry, who was accused of administrative mismanagement. Opponents claim corruption while supporters allege that it is merely a ruse to eject him from the archdiocese.

The upshot was that a few years ago, the very extraordinary step was taken from stripping Alencherry - a sitting Major Archbishop of a *sui iuris Ritual Church *- from administrative control of his own archdiocese and giving it to another bishop. That eventually was Anthony Kayaril, who is at the center of the present controversy. This created a highly anomalous situation and in some matters, like the liturgy, the demarcation of authority was not exactly clear.

Of course, Alencherry remained at the HQ of the Syro-Malabar and attempted to impose the Synodal liturgical decisions on his erstwhile archdiocese last year. Obviously, this created a storm since the opposing faction was not about to concede a victory to their rivals. Thus for the better part of a year, the archdiocese was treated to rival proclamations from Kayaril and Alencherry, each claiming a perogative over liturgical matters and asserting the backing of Rome (and its various organs) for either imposing or exempting from the Synodal liturgical decision.

Americans aren't the only ones who care about the proper way to worship God; we know mostly about the American scene because there's a kind of information semi-permeable membrane.

You mean you're generally monoglot?

I am too - and while I'm not exactly ashamed of it, I appreciate that it limits my view of the world both in terms of how human understanding works, and also understanding world (or church) events.