Those who follow Eastern Catholicism and international affairs in the Church may recall the years-long stand-off between the Church’s hierarchy and the members of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly in the Southern Indian state of Kerala.

Amidst a flurry of activity in the Church this summer, however, some may have missed the news that this so-called “liturgy war” in India has finally ended. On July 7, the Vatican announced the removal of Archbishop Kyr Cyril Vasil, SJ, from his role as pontifical delegate “in re liturgica” for the archeparchy and thanked him for his work. Archbishop Vasil had been given an explicit mandate from Pope Francis to carry out the implementation of a standardized set of liturgical rubrics, but was met with resistance from local clergy and laity.

The solution reached under Pope Leo XIV suggests that although he and Pope Francis are certainly aligned on matters of ecclesiology and synodality, Leo may have a different approach to conflict resolution than his predecessor.

Four months into his papacy, Pope Leo has not made many major decisions, and thus far he has kept any major plans for reform close to the vest. There are few clues currently available about the ultimate trajectory or style of his papacy, and therefore the compromise agreement that was reached in Kerala this summer is noteworthy.

As one of the first ecclesiastical conflicts addressed in Pope Leo’s pontificate, the Syro-Malabar controversy may offer a glimpse of Pope Leo XIV’s approach to decision-making. His handling of the situation may indicate a difference in style from Pope Francis.

The History and the Dispute

The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is one of 23 Eastern Churches in full communion with the Pope. With over five million members, it is the second-largest Eastern Catholic Church (after the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church). The Syro-Malabar Church was officially established in 1925 by Pope Pius XI, but its hierarchy traces its roots to St. Thomas the Apostle. It follows the East Syriac liturgical tradition, which is descended from the Persian Chaldean Rite.

Over the centuries, the Syro-Malabar Church’s relationship with the Western (Latin) Church has been marked by tension and transformation, including periods of Latinization imposed by Portuguese missionaries, episodes of schism and resistance, and post-1925 efforts by the Vatican and Syro-Malabar Church leaders to recover its heritage and de-Latinize its liturgical and ecclesial practices.

In 2021, the Syro-Malabar Synod of Bishops approved a  “uniform mode” of celebrating the Holy Qurbana (Eucharistic liturgy). The intention was to harmonize the liturgical practices of the Syro-Malabar Church, which had taken on a variety of expressions in different regions since the mid-20^th century. The uniform mode required priests to celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist facing East, away from the people (“ad orientem”), while continuing to face the congregation (“versus populum”) during the Liturgy of the Word and after the distribution of Communion.

As the largest eparchy and the seat of the Major Archbishop, Ernakulam-Angamaly became the epicenter of opposition to the liturgical reform, with at least 450 priests and thousands of lay Catholics openly resisting the requirement to face East during the liturgy. They wanted to maintain their tradition of priests celebrating the entire liturgy facing the people, which they had practiced for over five decades. Forms of protest included street demonstrations, burning effigies of Cardinals, and locking St. Mary’s Cathedral Basilica. Striking images of concelebrating priests “facing off” on opposite sides of the altar during the Mass were circulated, as were photos of dozens of priests celebrating the liturgy facing the people.

Media reports suggested that opposition to the uniform mode was nearly universal in the eparchy. In October 2022, UCA News reported that a spokesman for the Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency, which supports the resistance, claimed that 99% of Catholics in the archeparchy opposed the uniform mode, and that “no priests in the archdiocese will celebrate” it.

Seeking to confirm the leaders of the Syro-Malabar Church in their decision, Pope Francis attempted to intervene. In August 2023, he appointed the Jesuit Archbishop Cyril Vasil to resolve the liturgical dispute. When Vasil arrived, he ordered all parishes to adopt the uniform Mass, even threatening excommunication for non-compliance. But Archbishop Vasil’s demands went unheeded. Dissidents rejected his directives, accused him of bias, and argued that the Vatican had been misinformed about their grievances.

One irony of this recent “liturgy war” is that both sides in the dispute claimed fidelity to tradition. From the perspective of Church authorities, celebrating ad orientem indicated a return to the Church’s ancient custom and reverses a “Latinization” that was introduced to their liturgy decades ago. But for clergy and laity in Ernakulam-Angamaly who have prayed facing the people for more than half a century, Rome’s attempts to impose ad orientem felt like yet another Latinization — a violation of a liturgical tradition that they have made their own. Protesters insisted that the priest facing the people was the liturgical tradition of their people and they did not want it taken away.

After the Vatican intervention was rejected, schism looked like a real possibility. But then a compromise was reached in June 2025, effective from July 3, 2025, which allowed priests to continue celebrating Mass versus populum — with the stipulation that at least one uniform mode liturgy must be celebrated at each parish every Sunday and major feast day. Every other Eucharistic liturgy (including additional Masses on Sundays and holy days), may be celebrated facing the people.

Standoff ends with concessions

The liturgy war in Kerala was not the only time Pope Francis was faced with a years-long standoff with the clergy of an entire diocese. He faced a somewhat similar situation in Nigeria. In December 2012, Pope Benedict appointed Peter Ebere Okpaleke as bishop of the Diocese of Ahiara. Upon his appointment, the priests and people refused to let him enter the diocese and take possession of the cathedral because they objected to the appointment of a bishop from a different part of the country who belonged to a different tribe. After six long years, Pope Francis finally accepted Bishop Okpaleke’s resignation from Ahiara. In 2020,  was installed as the bishop of the new Nigerian Diocese of Ekwulobia. In a surprise move, Francis — perhaps in recognition of the grace with which Bishop Okpaleke handled the situation — made him a cardinal in 2022.

The resignation of Bishop Okpaleke didn’t settle the dispute in Ahiara, however. Francis later said that at one point he even considered suppressing the diocese altogether. He decided against it, recalling, “the church is a mother and cannot abandon her many children.” It wasn’t until 2024 when a new bishop was finally named for the diocese, ending a 14-year period without a sitting bishop.

Like the situation in Ahiara, the dispute in Ernakulam-Angamaly seemed to have no end in sight. Deadlines passed, threats were made, and the path to resolving the situation remained unclear.

Obviously, many of the details of how the compromise was reached remain confidential. The situation remains tense in Ernakulam-Angamaly, with an outspoken priest resigning from his parish assignment just a few days ago. Fr. Augustine Vattoli published a 14-page letter on September 14, stating, “I cannot participate in this betrayal of the Gospel.” Framing his objections to the uniform mode in the context of wider criticisms of Church leadership and the leadership of the current Indian government, the priest continued, “Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus arguing about whether to face the people or face the altar. … His concern was always the people — their lives, their tears, their liberation.”

Given such factors, it remains to be seen whether the liturgical compromise will take hold in the diocese.

Hardened hearts and ecclesiastical stalemates

Even though it may be years before the situation in Kerala completely settles down, the July compromise represents a step towards peace in the diocese. Arguably, any progress is preferable to a stalemate or never-ending standoff.

Might this compromise be indicative of Pope Leo’s style in the future? More to the point: could it foreshadow an eventual decision regarding the Tridentine liturgy (the so-called Traditional Latin Mass)?

Traditionis Custodes, the letter issued by Pope Francis in July 2021 to restrict the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, offered a general set of guidelines to be implemented at the diocesan level. Each bishop was tasked with carrying out the pope’s directives, and the results were decidedly mixed. Some bishops — particularly in the US — attempted to circumvent the initiative altogether by invoking canon law. Others, like the former Texas bishop Joseph Strickland, simply ignored it. In other dioceses, the Tridentine Mass was phased out completely within a year or two.

In some dioceses such as Detroit and Charlotte, Latin Mass-friendly bishops retired and were replaced with bishops who were motivated to carry out Traditionis Custodes. Pope Francis’s ultimate goal was clear: to return the Roman Rite to one unique expression, the post-Vatican II liturgy. But not unlike the faithful of the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, Catholics devoted to the Tridentine Mass are determined not to go down without a fight, and a peaceful resolution appears to be a long way off.

Many ardent traditionalists refuse to participate in the reformed liturgy for ideological reasons. They see the post–Vatican II Missal as a rupture with the Church’s liturgical tradition, and they dissent from the Church’s position that the reforms were a legitimate development. For such ideologically focused Catholics, any participation in the reformed rites would amount to betraying their mission of restoring the pre-conciliar rites in their entirety.

Such an attitude, of course, betrays the vision of Pope Benedict XVI when he opened up access to the preconciliar liturgy. As he wrote to the bishops of the world in 2007, “In order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.” Benedict foresaw the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass as an accommodation for a group of Catholics “who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops.”

Fourteen years later, Pope Francis lamented that Benedict’s vision did not come to pass, writing that Benedict’s generous permission “was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” And rather than becoming open to celebrating the reformed liturgy, many traditionalist priests refused to participate in it at all. Many of them were not even willing to concelebrate the Chrism Mass once a year with their local bishop and brother priests. In at least two dioceses in France, traditionalist priests have been expelled for their refusal to concelebrate.

Will Leo be a seeker of compromise?

Still, in some dioceses, liturgical compromises have been made. One situation that might serve as a model for Pope Leo is that in Chicago, the archdiocese of his birth.

In January 2022, Cardinal Blase Cupich implemented Traditionis Custodes in Chicago with a diocesan policy that permitted continued use of the 1962 Missal, but only with permission and under specific conditions. Cupich made it clear that clergy seeking faculties had to request them in writing and explicitly affirm the “validity and legitimacy” of the post-conciliar reform and “the value of concelebration, particularly at the Chrism Mass.”

Where permissions were granted, Cupich required the exclusive use of the post-Vatican II liturgy on the first Sunday of each month and on Christmas, the Easter Triduum and Easter Sunday, as well as Pentecost.

Faced with that framework, two Chicago communities that have long celebrated the antecedent rite took different paths. The Canons Regular of St. John Cantius accepted the compromise and adjusted their schedule: they will continue to celebrate the Tridentine Mass on Sundays at 7:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., except on first Sundays, when they will celebrate the reformed liturgy in Latin. In this way, the Canons Regular will continue to preserve and regularly celebrate the preconciliar Mass, while giving public adherence to the archdiocesan norms and to the Magisterium of the Church.

By contrast, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) declined to sign onto the required assurances and norms; in the summer of 2022 their public Masses and sacraments at the Shrine of Christ the King were suspended. It was reported that this was due to their refusal to accept the conditions offered by the archdiocese. Practically, the outcome was that St. John Cantius kept operating under the new policy, while the ICKSP’s Chicago apostolate ceased public liturgies.

The Canons Regular of St John Cantius expressed sadness at the restrictions but committed themselves to unity with the cardinal and the pope while celebrating both forms of the Roman Rite. They also stated their prayerful hope “to be a bridge for unity in the life of the Church.”

Although it is likely that many of the priests and people of the St. John Cantius community suffered as a result of the compromise, their acceptance of the Cardinal’s conditions allows them to continue celebrating the older liturgy into the future. They can be seen as models of obedience to the Church they have committed their lives to serve.

Conclusion

The conflicts in Kerala and Chicago suggest that liturgical battles are often quelled when the focus is on Church unity and legitimate authority more than rituals. In Kerala, Pope Leo XIV ended a long standoff by permitting most Masses to continue versus populum, while requiring each parish to celebrate at least one uniform ad orientem liturgy. In Chicago, Cardinal Cupich allowed continued use of the old rite for priests who affirm the legitimacy of the post–Vatican II liturgy. There, the Canons of St. John Cantius accepted that principle, while the Institute of Christ the King refused and lost their public ministry.

It is certain that Pope Leo will uphold the primacy of the reformed liturgy, but perhaps he, like Cardinal Cupich, is willing to grant concessions to avoid greater division in the Church. I believe that communities that manifest obedience and strive for unity should have the opportunity to preserve their heritage, especially if they are willing to sacrifice some of their demands. Pope Leo’s handling of the Syro-Malabar crisis hints that his pontificate may lean toward practical compromise, even as he holds the line on the direction of liturgical reform.

---

Image: Vatican Media