www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Syro-Malabar Catholic Church calls for fewer restrictions on its jurisdiction

"The Vatican made the Syro-Malabar Church self-governing in 1992 but retained the right to decide on administrative matters for Syro-Malabar dioceses outside Kerala.

Until the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Oriental-rite churches were confined to Kerala. After the council they spread to other areas, but the Latin-rite hierarchy is seen as reluctant to have Syro-Malabar dioceses in its territories. The Syro-Malabar Church leaders view this reluctance as a major challenge to their right to provide pastoral care to their people.

"Lack of adequate pastoral care" for Syro-Malabar Catholics inside and outside India has been "highly detrimental to their faith, resulting in their falling away and getting into various Pentecostal groups," participants at the Kochi meeting observed in their formal statement.

The restriction "imposed on our church is totally unjust, illogical and absurd," said Father Antony Kollannur, who read out the statement at the concluding session."

The above quote draws many similarities to the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I hope it is not as difficult a battle.

Thank you so much for drawing this to ur attention and please keep us informed of the progress.
I am sure many of us on this board will be praying for your Church. We are all part of the Body of Christ.

Yes, the UGCC and the SMCC are the two biggest Eastern Catholic Churches. I think many of the challenges we face (e.g., relationship with the Latins, Latinisation (though the SMCC is in far worse shape on this one), etc.) are similar.

Peace,
Alex NvV

Prayers, brother Alex.

Maybe the Vatican is hoping the Syro-Malabar Bishops will act without consulting the Curia - which doesn't seem to be necessary. Why not just go ahead and create Syro-Malabar diocese where they are needed, send Syro-Malabar priests with the authority of the Syro-Malabar ordinary, and ignore those who would prevent the Church from doing what is rightfully her duty to do.

There is something else to consider - namely, the history of the Eparchy of Kalyan. A significant number of Syro-Malabar Catholics in the "internal migration" to other parts of India did not (and in some cases still do not) want parishes and dioceses of their own tradition - because it is more "convenient" for them to be Latins.

In turn, one reason for this is the merciless Romanization of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy, which many of the Syro-Malabar bishops continue to insist upon.

Fr. Serge

Michael,

Unfortunately, the ability of the Church to erect dioceses is not entirely clear-cut.

The problem is two-fold, as I see it. One is whether the provisions of Canon 177 are among those "understood to be applicable to Major Archepiscopal Churches" or not. Offhand, absent other provision within the CCEO, I am inclined to believe that they are. However (even granting that the situation was of the Church's own making), the control that Rome exercised over Syro-Malabarese liturgical matters, for a full 6 years after the Church's elevation from Metropolitan to Major-Archepiscopal status, does not speak well for the autonomy of Major Archepiscopates.

That said, the second point at issue is the clause in Canon 177 which limits the erection, modification, and suppression of eparchies to those "within the territorial boundaries". The territorial boundaries of the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabarese Church sui iuris are not India, as one might expect; rather, as I recollect, they are coterminus with the State of Kerala.

This means that the primatial hierarch of the second-largest Eastern/Oriental Catholic Church (3.75 mil. faithful, with a 10.5% growth rate over the past 6 years) does not exercise complete authority over 13* of his Church's 26 canonical jurisdictions - despite the fact that all but one (Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle in Chicago of the Syro-Malabarese) of the Church's jurisdictions are geographically in India. If you are a Syro-Malabarese Catholic, to reside outside of Kerala State is to be in the diaspora.

*14 if one considers that the Syro-Malabarese Archeparchy of Kottayam of the Knanaites, although geographically situated in Kerala, is dependent directly on the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, rather than the Major Archbishop.

Another unfortunate example of the limits inherent to the "sui iuris" status of our Churches.

Prayers for our brothers of the Syro-Malabarese Church (and the Syro-Malankara Church, as well, who face the identical problem, albeit on a smaller scale), that they be afforded their own hierarchs, jurisdictions, and pastoral care throughout their nation.

Many years,

Neil

Not so long ago the UGCC was kept at bay in the far west of the country and today there are diocese all over the country. It does seem that both Rites based in the south should have all of india at least within their respective Major Archdiocese then they would just set up what they need. Then the heavily Romanised Malabar Church can start unloading all their prescious Latinisms and stop being so Portugese colonial. If I was Indian I think I would call them disloyal hanging onto colonialism so long after independence so they can have status with the Europeans. An aunt born north of Delhi is as close as I can go there. I thing you are right Michael_Thoma the bishops have got to learn to do things for themsleves. What was the point of creating the Major Archdiocese, if all they are going to do is the same old, same old. The UGCC should be consulted, as to how they did what they did and maybe get them to help set up what is required outside of India, even if those Diocese/Exarchates technically are directly under the Pope. Wishing them every success and blessings in abundance.

Some time back - may even have been last year - I'm not sure - there was a move for the Syro Malabars to be served by their own priests over here.

One of the local RC Churches in the Motherwell Diocese did have a 'Mass' celebrated for them by a Syro Malabar Priest and it was stated in the Scottish Catholic newspaper that the aim was to have a Priest in each of the Scottish Dioceses to serve their own people.
Whether or not this is happening I have no idea - I still get the Scottish Catholic Observer from time to time [ courtesy of Fr Gerald's Mother ] but as I am in Edinburgh at the UGCC Church every week now - I'm really not up-to-date on that

Anhelyna,

It may well be. The Syro-Malabars, well prior to the establishment of their Eparchy here in the US, appeared to have a fair number of clergy scattered about the country in those Latin dioceses where there were numbers of Indian Catholics. As most seemed to have been bi-ritual, I'm sure they found ready acceptance from Latin dioceses, where they could meet the pastoral needs of their own people and simultaneously help out the Latin clergy.

Many years,

Neil

Do you (or does anyone) know of a website which states the official boundaries of each Catholic Church?

Although I am unaware of the history of this Eparchy of Kalyan, I think Fr. Serge brings up a point which, although largely "ignored" (for lack of a better word) in this thread, I think is key. Where I live, there are Syro-Malabar parishes available within a reasonable driving distance, and there are Syro-Malabar priests who are bi-ritual who work in Latin parishes and are only too happy to offer liturgical services in their rite, but it doesn't usually happen. For most, going RC is either a) more convenient, b) more "Catholic", or usually c) both. In Kerala, they are more likely to go to their own church, but outside of Kerala, whether it's New York or New Delhi, I think it's probably the same thing. I think all the Indian Catholics I know are (originally) SM, and all of them attend RC churches and identify themselves as RC.

I don't know how much can be blamed on the SM bishops. As I recall, the news reports alluded to earlier in this thread about liturgical developments in this Church had the bishops pitted against priests and lay people: the bishops wanted to enforce the mandate from Rome to "Easternize" the Liturgy, and the priests and laity wanted to make it more "Indian" (read: RC) because they didn't want to be under the dominance of Persians. It wouldn't surprise me to learn, though, that even in their Synod they were divided on the mandate: some probably wanted to be more Eastern (and thus obey Rome), and others probably wanted to take advantage of being more or less an independent jurisdiction (sui iuris and all that) to further their own "Indian" agenda. An interesting situation: be more Eastern liturgically, but submit to Elder Rome, or insist on one's right to self-governance as an Eastern Church and be more Latinized. Anyway, I defer to persons more informed about the goings on in their Synod.

Oh yes, definately start with the bishops. Go for the top, where the excuses come from.

To find out what the boundaries are of a particular church I suspect you will have to pull them up one by one on the internet. Some will be very easy as they are the borders of the nation. The 2 Indian eastern Rites have Kerala as in and the rest of the nation out. A strange set up that does need to be looked at again I feel. The UGCC were in a similar situation restricted to the old Pre WWII Polish territories. They have since fixed that and now cover the whole of their country. I dont know what the story is with the African churches. That would be interesting to know.

If the Syro-Malabar Church truly wants to return to it's proper Tradition as Church of the East, she needs to act independently. If she is going to rely on Rome forever, Rome will forever rule. The fact is the Church and her Primate needs to show her strength and independence. Afterall, no Church has vocations nor growth like the Syro-Malabar Church.

As for the Syro-Malankara Church, in my humble opinion, she needs to renew that forgotten Tradition of married priests, triple Mass, and Indian saints. Maybe start a joint seminary with the Indian and/or Syriac Orthodox. Maybe even get the Syriac Catholics to come back into the fold...

Peter,

There is no such website, unfortunately. David Cheney's Catholic Hierarchy [catholic-hierarchy.org] site includes the geographic descriptions of jurisdictions here and there, chiefly the more recently erected ones, I believe, as those are cited in documents proclaiming the erection.

What you are asking, I believe, is what are generally termed "the historical bounds" within which a sui iuris Church's primatial hierarch and its synod exercise the fullest measure of their authority (versus the diaspora, where there are limits on most all such exercises, except those pertaining to matters liturgical).

Such seldom change. In the 19th century, that of the Melkite Patriarchate was extended to Jerusalem and Antioch. Pavel has alluded to changes in that of the UGCC; I'm not certain that there was such a change in that instance. It seems to me that Metropolitan Andriy, of thrice-blessed memory, exercised jurisdiction well beyond the region that Pavel mentioned. In that particular case, I think the exercise of authority throughout the historical territories was simply not possible during most of the Soviet era and what we see now is a return to the historical bounds. I don't remember any formal grant of an extension to the UGCC's bounds. If David Cheney himself or Charles Bransom, both of whom post here occasionally, reads this thread, either can likely confirm or refute my recollection.

If there is a particular Church about which you are curious, feel free to PM me and I may be able to get you the information.

Phil & Father Serge,

Firstly, Phil, it's good to see you, my friend

I agree with both of you as to the "identity crisis" (for lack of a better phrase) that haunts the Syro-Malabarese.

Rome cannot be said to have entirely ignored this (although the continuing geographic restrictions on the two Indian Churches are certainly not helpful). But, unfortunately, in its efforts to be all things to all people, Rome has undone with one hand what it has done with the other. I'm fairly sure that Father Serge's reference to the Eparchy of Kalyan was intended to point that out.

The Eparchy of Kalyan of the Syro-Malabars is a geographically sizeable jurisdiction, overlying (coterminous) with the bounds of the Latin Archdiocese of Bombay and 2 Latin Dioceses. It was erected sometime in the late 1980's, shortly after the visit to India of HH John Paul II, of blessed memory, with the intent of assuring pastoral care in their own Rite to a sizeable Syro-Malabar population in those regions and, thus, remedying some of the inequity in distribution of territories among the Rites.

A few years afterward, however, Rome issued a Rescript, addressed to the Syro-Malabarese of the Eparchy of Kalyan. It specifically permitted them to receive the Mysteries in the Latin Rite, if they so wished, without affecting their status as faithful of the Syro-Malabar Church. Now, on its face, there appears to be nothing untoward since the faithful of any Catholic Church may receive the Mysteries in any other Catholic Church. Further, Canon Law specifically provides that even regular attendance at and participation in the liturgical worship of a different Church sui iuris than that in which one is enrolled does not make that individual a member of the Church in which he is worshipping - i.e., does not change his enrollment. So, the Rescript merely restated existing law.

I think the issue lies in the less than subtle encouragement to its audience to "feel free to go your Latin way, despite the fact that we have taken measures to be certain that there are temples of your own Rite readily available to you."

An excellent piece, including historical perapectives on the entire matter of the Eastern Churches in India and their relations with the Latin Church of India, is on the webpage of His Excellency Mar Joseph Powathil, Metropolitan Archeparch of Changanacherry of the Syro-Malabarese. See Communion of Churches in the Indian Context [archbishopjosephpowathil.org]

Many years,

Neil

Michael,

The likelihood of a joint seminary with the Indian Orthodox is a very unlikely venture right now for the Malankarese. Unless something has changed recently (and Phil can better speak to this), Mar Cyril Basilios' insistence on styling himself as Catholicos has caused some significant breaches in the relationship between the two Churches.

As to the Syriac Catholics, "sheep-stealing" between the various Catholic Churches sui iuris is very much frowned upon and does nothing for us as a body except to make us look like Latins (with all due respect to my Latin brethren).

Many years,

Neil