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

Metropolitan Andrew had juristiction over the whole Russian Empire. Mind you it was done is such a messy way he had to prove this to a later Pope when this was questioned in Rome. The 3 blessed Metropolitan set up the Russian and Bielorus Greek Catholic Churches in the Empire and in Poland. HB was wise and stashed the docs in a bank in Vienna. So was able to prove his area of responsibility to the sceptics who doubted his word. what I alluded to was the Metropolitan of Lviv and all diocese were in the western Former Polish territories and Patriarch Lubomyr had to get exarchates in the other parts of the country which gradually became diocese. He had to fight to be the Metropolitan of Kiev in fact, not just in fancy. The Catholicos may have to do the same in India.

The Pope JPII had to reserve to himself matters to do with the liturgy due to the behaviour of the clergy of the Malabars. It should reflect badly on the Malabars that the Pope had to do it at all.

As the Malabar clergy are so deeply Latinised and seem to seek a after all things western. How may of my age remember the 'Nun running' scandals of the 60 and 70s. They were still doing the same into the 90s as I was to see when I was in Italy. What came out was that girls had few options it was marriage or the convent. It took an English lady in Italy to become aware of the kick back to the Higher Malabarese clergy and sadly the deaths by suicide of a number of the sisters shipped off to Italian Convents (Latin rite of course). They should have fitted is so well being Malabarese. The were needed to fill the void in the active congregations who could not attract Italian women.

As for bi-ritual Malabarese nothing will drag them down lower than they are than swinging from one rite to the next like this.

As I under stand it when one head of a particular church addreses the other as Catholicos that there is no problem there. Both should use the title and get on with things both have much to to. Rome is not going to hold their hands and the little chap that did all their running around in Rome was retired ages ago and was last seen taking tea with Ingocnitus over by the Piazza d'Spana in the tea rooms and sharing the latest gos.

First of all, it's great to see Neil and Phil posting again on the forum!

I think Phil has hit the nail on the head. I have had the exact same experience. And, as I've written earlier, even in India, my father's family almost always attended the local Latin church, rather than the church of their own SM parish, simply because the former was closer. The one exception to this that I have seen was St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Church of the Bronx, NY. I visited several times, and I was impressed to find lots of families there who come from all over the NYC metropolitan area to attend Qurbana.

This too is exactly right. In my experience, Syro-Malabar Catholics are fiercely proud of being "St. Thomas Christians" and "[East] Syrian Catholics", but this doesn't translate into any particular desire to return to liturgical tradition; despite the fact that we feel we are different from the Latins, we don't try to do anything differently.

To give a few examples:

• Our Holy Qurbana is all too often referred to as Holy Mass; I once asked a SM priest whether an upcoming liturgy would be the Latin-rite Mass in English, or the Syro-Malabar Qurbana in English; his response was that it would be the Syro-Malabar Mass in English (which left me only marginally less confused than before I had asked the question). Even small slips in terminology, like this one, contribute to our self-perception as being different from the Latins in name only.
• Moreover, the one time that I did attend a Syro-Malabar Holy Qurbana in English, the whole liturgy was mangled by taking out parts and sticking in songs straight out of the OCP Breaking Bread hymnal. (Now, I know many of you despise that kind of music; I actually like it, and it's what I grew up with. But I think we ALL can agree that it didn't belong in a Syro-Malabar Qurbana!) I never went back to the English celebration of the Qurbana; I'd much rather be at a properly done (or at least better done) Malayalam celebration -- even though I can't understand a word of Malayalam!
• Another example (which really dismays me) is that my own cathedral church in Chicago celebrates Divine Mercy Sunday on the Sunday after Qyamta (Resurrection).
• To give one more (perhaps unfair) illustration, people have asked me on several occasions whether the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church ordains married men to the presbyterate. I answer that we (currently) don't, and I half-jokingly add that if the Latins ever start ordaining married men, we'd probably start doing so automatically, because it's so easy for us to forget that we have a different "particular law"/discipline/liturgy/hierarchy than the Latins.

Sigh.

I do want to see my Church return to its East Syrian roots and I want it to be authentically Indian -- both in terms of its liturgy and practices and in terms of greater independence from Rome. I don't think "more East Syrian", "more Indian", and "less Latin" are at all mutually exclusive.

Well, we mustn't give up hope, and at least we can pray...


Peace,
Alex NvV

Good on you. Get rid of the Latinisms and asianise the lit. West Asia is still Asia and has the ancient link to your Church. Good luck and many prayers.

This topic got me interested in the Indian Christian Church once more. It's confusing, and I spent the past few hours going through it. This is my take on the situation at present, please correct me if I'm wrong:

Until the arrival of the portuguese there was no significant schism in indian church. Portuguese influence led to union with Rome in 1599.
A while later many faithfull repudiated the portuguese influence and appealed to the Syrian Patriarch. Those who were received into his jursidiction became the Syro-Malankara Church, the Syro-Malabar being those who remained in communion with Rome.

During the past century, some of the Syro-Malankara Orthodox broke away and joined Rome again, thus "creating" the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.

Therefore the main Easterne churches in existence in India at this time are: Syro-Malankara Orthodox; Syro-Malankara Catholic and Syro-Malabar. As far as I could see, there is no Orthodox equivalent to the Syro-Malabar church.

Is this about right?

Malabar obviously derives from the Malabar coast, but where does Malankara come from?

Why have the Malankara and Malabar catholic churches not been blended into one, after all they do have the same roots, do they not?

This does get confusing!
Thanks for any help.
Filipe

Following my last post, and since the two are related. This is how I've briefly summerised the situation regarding christians in the Middle East. Any corrections (bearing in mind this is just a brief description)?

Assyrian Church of the East � with faithful in India. Not in communion with any other church body.

Chaldean Catholic Church � Derived from the Assyrian Church of the East, in communion with the Catholic Church.

Syriac Orthodox Church � In communion with the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptics, Armenians, Ethiopians, Malankara Orthodox etc).

Syrian - Catholic Church - Derived from the Syriac Orthodox Church, in communion with the Catholic church.

Greek Orthodox � In Communion with the Orthodox churches of Byzantine heritage.

Melkites � Derived from the Greek Orthodox churches of the middle east, in communion with the Catholic Church.

Maronites � In communion with the Catholic Church, and with no Orthodox equivalent.

What about the greek orth. faithfull in Palestine, for example, who converted to Catholicism? Are they greek-catholics, or do they automatically become Melkites?

Sadly, my first reaction after the past hours of sorting through this is... what a mess! God must have a plan for it all though.

What's "triple Mass"?

Filipe,

It's too late for me to answer your questions right now (you always were good at coming up with them in grand style ). If no one has answered by the time I get back, late tonight, I'll tackle them then.

Meanwhile, check Father Ron Roberson\'s book [cnewa.org] online at the CNEWA site. It should answer most of them for you.

Alex,

Thanks for the welcome back, my friend.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Friends,

Yes, it is great to see the Catholicos Mor Ephrem posting here as well as the Irish Melkite!

With respect to Latinization - it is clear that these Eastern Christians do not have a tradition of "tension" between themselves and the RC's as do, say the Ukrainians and Russians (?).

"Latinization" for the East Slavs has always been tied in with a kind of cultural assimilation that included not only the traditions of their Eastern Churches but also their very nationality.

In Eastern Europe for hundreds of years, whenever one said he or she was "Catholic" - this meant one was Polish (rather than RC or EC). To be "Orthodox" meant one was of Rus' or else one was a Kozak etc.

To be "Latinized" therefore meant one was betraying one's nationality/Church all at once. That is why "Latinization" was/is such a problem in E. Europe.

And certainly, the Union of Brest was seen, by both EC's and Orthodox, as an opportunity by their RC neighbours to step up Latinization - which also meant being divested of their native language, traditions and the like.

I would imagine none of the above would apply to the Syro-Malabar situation where one is "Catholic" in terms of one's religious identity, quite separate from one's national/cultural identity, and therefore the issue of "rite" is a secondary one.

?

Alex

I think this "request" of the SMC will be resolved positively in favor of the Syro-Malabars.

The 3 Catholic Churches in India have been thisclose and their bishops enjoy working together, so much so that the presidency of the CBCI have been rotated among them recently.

A good map of India showing the state of Kerala (Southwestern part), bordering the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu:

http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/india-political-map.htm

Speaking of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the Catholics in these states appear to be mainly Latin Rite and having "language" problems:

http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=32621

Yes, Catholicsim in India is in ferment!

Amado

The Syriac Orthodox Malankara Archdiocese doesn't seem too mad about the title of Catholicos at all...
What I meant about the Syriac Catholic Church "coming back into the fold" was not a matter of sheep-stealing, but about a return to their authentic liturgical roots. The Syriac Church is the mideast is some strange blend of Aramaic and Latin Mass, not at all reminiscent of the Syriac Traditions - Catholic or Orthodox. Having a joint Syriac-Malankara Catholic/Orthodox seminary would maybe help with this venture.

Fillipe asks:

"greek orth. faithfull in Palestine, for example, who converted to Catholicism? Do they become Melkites or Greek Catholics?"

Melkites are Greek Catholics!

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge:

I think Filipe is referring to the "real" Greek Catholic Church, mainly in Greece (not the Latin Rite Greek Catholics), since she is one among the numbered 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Thus, ethnic Greek Orthodox in Palestine (and in the Middle East) who convert to Catholicism should be numbered among their ethnic Greek Catholic counterparts. Similarly, ethnic Arab Orthodox who convert should go to the Melkites.

Asking for your blessings,

Amado

The "Triple Mass" is celebrated in the Syriac Churches on certain feast days and at particular shrines and Churches. It is a Qurbono with three priests celebrating at three separate altars, at the same time, each with their own deacons. The main celebrant prays aloud, while the other two priests pray silently. This is called the "Vishudha Moonninmel Qurbono", roughly translated 'Divine Triple Qurbono (Offering)'.

A larger example of this can be found here [saintgregorios.org] , it is the Jubilee Feast of St. Gregorios with 101 priests concelebrating, with the Patriarch as chief celebrant.


Alex,

I know you mentioned that your priest referred to the Holy Qurbono as "Mass", but it seems the Orthodox in India use the word interchangeably as well. I don't know how this came about, but it seems to be the norm...

All this could have been avoided if the Latin church had respected the "home" territories of other churches to begin with.

Originally, the churches of Antioch would have no limits from the Mediterranean coast to the South China Sea. This region was never formally assigned to the church of Roma.

So how the Syro-Malabar church could be restricted to one part of India is totally beyond me. It is the Latin church that is the interloper.

Just as Syro-Malabar priests are today serving Latin parishes in the USA with bi-ritual faculties, Latin missioners could have helped build up the Syro-Malabar church in India (and neighboring states)over time. Instead, the Syro-Malabar church is constrained to accept a minor status and limited role in it's own country while the local Ordinaries are Latin almost everywhere.

This is just the standard operating procedure of the Latin church, it has continually worked this way since the schism. The "home" territory concept is an artificial shackle on the subordinated eastern churches, it should properly be called a "captive" territory they way it looks. Those churches "in communion" should not be required to obtain permission from Roma to spread the faith to the world outside of western Europe, and the synods of those churches should be able to erect new eparchies as needed on their own authority.

Michael

Allow me to begin by thanking you all for your greetings!

True, but as I said earlier, I don't think an independent SMC is necessarily going to return to "its proper tradition". There is a fundamental disagreement in the Church on what that proper tradition is. For one group, becoming more liturgically Eastern (Chaldean, to be specific) is the proper tradition; for the other, Latinization ("Indianization" for them basically amounts to this) is the proper tradition. Depending on Rome, at least in the short term, while hindering independence, will have a better chance of guaranteeing a return to Eastern tradition.

I'm going to limit myself to addressing the "tradition" of "triple Mass", since it is fresh in my experience, and was asked about.

The so-called Triple Mass is a concocted English term for what we call "Mooninmel Qurbana". Most of you know that, back when the "Tridentine" Mass was the normative Mass, multiple low Masses could be/were celebrated in the same church, often at the same time. I've seen video from Fontgombleaut (sp?) depicting this practice as still ongoing there.

Well, at some point, a few Indians saw this and thought "Wow, what a great idea!" And so, Moonimnel: most churches have three altars, the main altar and two side altars. In a "triple Mass", three priests/bishops/some combination of these occupy one altar each. The senior clergyman usually occupies the central altar, and the two others the sides. Each altar is equipped with the necessary deacons and liturgical equipment. The chief celebrant will pray the Liturgy out loud, and the sides will pray silently, but with all liturgical movements of priest and deacon(s) synchronized. The result, if done well, is three completely simultaneous Liturgies, each mirroring the other.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I enjoy this example of Indian liturgical excess when I'm able to watch it from the nave. However, have you ever had to serve as deacon for one of these things? Try praying while synchronizing your censing with two other guys...your head is constantly moving, looking for the other guys to see where they are and where you should be. The side priests have to do the same with the main celebrant, leading to confusion. If the main celebrant is a bishop and the other celebrants are priests, and you are stuck deaconing with the priests on the sides (as happened to me last Sunday), it gets strange: I had to cense as if I was serving at Liturgy with a priest, but the guy in the middle had to cense in the pontifical style, which meant we on the sides had to wait for him...what do you do in the meantime? This kind of Liturgy has to be meticulously planned for it to be executed well, and it usually isn't planned well at all, making its survival miraculous, because somehow it usually ends up being alright.

Why stop at three, though? Well, there are places where they've had five altars, leading to "pentamass", or, as the Patriarchal faction did a few years ago, "Nootoninmel Qurbana": one hundred and one altars, with simultaneous Liturgy at each.

Besides the theological issues with this sort of practice, abuses lead to increasing the numbers to increase solemnity or something like that, and it just looks weird. Three is nice, one is the best. If the Syro-Malankara Catholics don't do this, I think it's probably better for them to stay that way.