Author unknown

1. In today’s press release (25 September 2024), it is claimed that an “accord” has been reached regarding the ordination of deacons in the Archdiocese of Ernakulam. This so-called accord is even more simplistic than the “fake consensus” previously presented by the rebels. All it requires is for the deacons to sign a letter stating that they are willing to celebrate the unified Mass. It doesn’t even obligate them to actually celebrate it! Who will enforce disciplinary action if the Mass isn’t celebrated? Just look at the priests in this archdiocese who openly refuse to celebrate the unified Mass, yet no action has been taken against them.
2. Would the faithful have ever known about this so-called agreement, supposedly made by the bishops and representatives of the Synod, had the rebels not published the false “consensus”?
3. Don’t bother asking who the Synod representatives are—this critical detail is conveniently missing from the press release. Bishop Bosco, as the administrator, is fully in charge of Ernakulam but cannot be considered a representative of the Synod. According to the rebels’ document, the only remaining Synod representative was Archbishop Pamplany. So, who exactly are these “Synod representatives” referred to in the plural?
4. The press release also claims that the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches has issued “precise instructions” regarding the ordination of deacons in Ernakulam. But what are these instructions? All we know is that the deacons are required to sign a letter. What happened to the other instructions? Moreover, this requirement isn’t even attributed to the Synod—it’s supposedly from the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches. What, then, is the role of the Synod?
5. Another deeply troubling point for those who truly love the Church is that the press release mentions discussions with “lay representatives on both sides” and claims that “the other side put forward different proposals.” Do you know who they’re talking about? Those who are passionately fighting for the implementation of the Synod’s decisions, risking their health and livelihoods to do so, have now been labeled as “the opposite group” by the Media Commission. It’s disheartening that those standing up for the synodal decision and the Church’s rule of law are being tied, as if on one side of a yoke, with the rebels on the other side. When did defending the Church become just another “side” for the bishops?