www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Malabar trouble?

http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=12142

I found this news (not very new though).
It seems that the Malabar Church in India has identity trouble, while some groups (supported by the Vatican) are trying to resore the chaldean-eastern heritage of the liturgy, they want a pure eastern liturgy.
On the other side, some modern priests prefer a "modernized" liturgy according to the "Spirit of Vatican II", a liturgical model more opened to hinduism as well as latinism, instead of a rigid Chaldean model. The Indian faction says that the Oriental Congregation and the Chaldeans want to put them under the Chaldean Catholicosate.

I would like to know if Mor Ephrem or Anastasios, perhaps could explain more about this Church. What does it differ from the Malankar?
I knew that the Malabar were originally Nestorian, and the malankar were in communion with the Myaphisites of Syria, before gettin in union with Rome. Is this accurate?

Why not a Patriarch of All India in the Malabar-Malankar Church?
Would this solve the problems?

Dear Remie,

The Syro-Malabar Church is the descendant of the original Church in India. Before the advent of the Portuguese, the Indian Church was under the Assyrians, and practiced an Assyrian (Chaldean) rite that was influenced to a great extent by Indian culture. When the Portuguese came with their missionaries, all of them decided that we were heretics, and so they sought to make us Catholics under Rome. They burned all of our original liturgical books with all the inculturated elements, and replaced them with first the Tridentine rite in Syriac, then in Latin (it's what I've heard anyway), and then they brought back the Chaldean rite, but "corrected" and latinised it to a great extent. This situation continued for about three hundred years, give or take. Most of the original "Nestorians" went under Rome, but a small minority stayed under the Assyrians, and the biggest minority sought help from Antioch. These are the Malankars.

After Vatican II, this heavily latinised Church was ordered by the Vatican to become more Eastern. I don't know if anyone really wanted to go that direction, but they were ordered to, and to that end, all the people approved by Rome to become bishops were as pro-Eastern as they could find among their number. These bishops and a number of the clergy are in favour of bringing back the Chaldean liturgy. But many (possibly a majority) of the priests don't want it. They want a more modern rite that is not Chaldean but Indian, with inculturation...something that resembles the rite they used to have before the Portuguese. The problem with this is that we have no books at all because they were all burned, and so anything that is done toward this end will be a fabricated rite. My personal opinion is that this push for a modern liturgy is not so much to become Indian as it is to preserve the latinisations. I personally know of no Christians in India, Catholic or Orthodox, who would feel comfortable with elements of Hinduism in their Liturgies. So for me, I can't imagine that they want Hindu elements in the Liturgy as much as they want to preserve the latinisations. Besides, it's not like they are recent converts to Christianity...in Kerala, there have been Christians for two thousand years. There is no need for Hindu elements in Christian liturgy there as there may be in parts of northern India.

I don't know if having a Patriarch would solve these problems for the Malabar Catholics. They've still got a long way to go as far as getting rid of latinisations goes, and I think "Patriarch" might be too Eastern a title for some of them to handle. Their major archbishop wears Latin ecclesiastical garb only, when not in liturgical vestments. It just looks odd. I honestly don't think they are ready for a Patriarch. I would think the Malankara Catholics would be more ready for one, but even they've got their problems (although not nearly as bad as the Malabars).

I am curious - What problems do the Malankara Catholics have?

The problems the Malankara Catholics have are not as great as those of the Malabar Catholics, but a couple of them that stand out are the use of unleavened bread in the Liturgy and Liturgy celebrated facing the people in some places.

Of course, there are others, but I'm not sure exactly what their status is. For instance, I would say that mandatory clerical celibacy was one, but I recently read a paper where the reasons for this choice on the part of Mar Ivanios were discussed. I don't think it was necessary, even with his explanation, but apparently he did. So with situations where it could be something I'm just not sure of, I'd rather not comment.

Of course, they are also, with the Malabar Catholics, taking advantage of the current situation with the rival Orthodox factions in India, but that's another story altogether.

Dear Remie:

I am Asian and I have a keen interest in Asian Catholicism.

The following might be of help as a backgrounder to Indian Catholicism, in addition to what Mor Ephrem has already posted:

The Syro-Malankar Catholic Church:

It is also known as the "Church of St. Thomas," as it began with the apostle's preaching. There are four religious congregations in this Church, which is rooted in India: the Order of the Imitation of Christ, the religious of the Imitation of Christ, the Daughters of Mary, and the Kristia Sanyasa Sabha (Christian Religious Congregation).

The Syro-Malankar Church, of the Antiochene rite, regained full communion with Rome in 1930. It uses the West Syriac liturgy in West Syriac and Malayalam.

The 350,000 Malankarese Catholics are found in India and North America.

The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

These are Catholics from Southern India using the East Syriac liturgy. The Syro-Malabars returned to Rome in the 16th century from the Nestorian heresy. Liturgical languages are Syriac and Malayalam.

Over 3 million Syro-Malabarese Catholics can be found in the state of Kerela, in SW India.

Roman Catholics:

In additon to the above Eastern Catholics, there are about 14 million Roman rite Catholics. (Mother Teresa and her religious Congregation are of the Roman Rite.)

Problems?

There have been recent tensions among Syro-Malabar Catholics over liturgy and tradition, and also between Latin- and Eastern-rite Catholics over the care of Catholics outside their traditional boundaries.

India's 1 billion or so population is mainly Hindu, with anti-conversion laws in some states. Since 1998, violence against Christians has increased. Catholics are concentrated mainly around Goa and Kerala.

Episcopal Conference:

The current President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India is Archbishop Cyril Mar Baselios, who, I think, is Syro-Malabar(?)

AmdG

Just a few amendments...

1. The Syro-Malankara Church is not known as the "Church of Saint Thomas". This title is used for the Indian Church as established in Kerala by the Apostle. For 1500 or so years, there was substantial unity in this group. After the Portuguese, some went and became Eastern Catholics, although heavily latinised. Others stayed faithful to the Assyrian Church with which the Indian Church was allied, but they were a minority. Many saw what the Portuguese were doing to the Church, did not like it, and sought refuge in communion with Antioch, thus bringing the West Syrian rite to India (the Indian Church prior to this was practicing the East Syrian rite with quite a bit of inculturation). Somewhere in this, one bishop was ordained by the Patriarch of Antioch for the now Syrian Orthodox Christians in India, but there were some problems, and so he retired as a monk and lived in a church...eventually, it became an independent diocese, and now that is its own church, in communion with God knows who. With the British came the Protestants, and a section of the Orthodox accepted Protestant principles and became "Syrian rite Anglicans" (not an official term, but that is essentially what they are). In 1930, Mar Ivanios of the Orthodox Church, along with Mar Theophilos and others, entered into communion with Rome, starting the Syro-Malankar Catholic Church.

Basically, the point of all this is to say that the Indian Assyrians, the Indian Orthodox, the Syrian Orthodox in India, the Syro-Malabars, the Syro-Malankars, the Knanaya communities within the Orthodox and Syro-Malankar Catholic Churches, and the Mar Thomites (those Protestants) are all rightfully considered "Saint Thomas Christians". Interestingly, because the Roman Catholics, in Kerala and elsewhere throughout the country, are not descended from folks who were Christians due to the evangelisation of the Apostle, but rather became Christians from Saint Francis Xavier, the Indian Roman Catholics are not included as "Saint Thomas Christians".

Now...

With regard to the Syro-Malankars, it should be noted that the OIC (Imitation of Christ) was an order founded by Mar Ivanios when he was Orthodox. Therefore, it is still found in the Orthodox Church. The KSS (I thought it was "Samaj", and not "Sabha", as this latter word is usually used to denote the Church in Christianspeak over there) is the community of Kurishumala Ashram, founded by Father Bede Griffiths.

With the Syro-Malabar Catholics, although I guess theoretically they could use Syriac, I don't think they ever use it. Ever. I've never heard it. It seems even less popular with them than Latin is with Roman Catholics.

And the current president of the CBCI, Mar Baselios, is Malankar, not Malabar. You'd rarely hear a name like "Mar Baselios" in the Malabar Church. They use the Syrian form wrong, and so they just add Mar to the Bishop's actual name, without giving him a new name and adding "Mar" to it, while preserving the original last name, in accordance with tradition. Hence, Malabar Bishops might be "Mar John Smith", while Malankar Bishops would be "Smith Mar Severios", if Severios was the name given to him when he became a monk/bishop.

Thanks for the explanations.

I've seen some pictures of the Malankar Catholic Bishops, and yes they look very Eastern, while the Malabar look very latinized.

I once heard that one of the differences between the Chaldean rite in Iraq (the Church of Catholicos Mar Raphael I), and the Indian version of the Chaldean Rite, is that in the Chaldean Rite of Iraq, the words of the Consacration are missing (the words were so sacred that needed to be protected from pagan contacts), although the Consacration is indeed valid. And the Indian version has the words of the Consacration took from the Maronite Liturgy (or the Latin Mass?).

About Kerala, I know that the State of Kerala has been the most progressive State of India, and after the independence they had the first Marxist State government in India, mixed with Christian principles (some kind of Liberation Theology?).
According to the statistics, India is the country with the largest number of vocations to priesthood (of both catholics and Oriental Orthodox) and the Church continues to grow, in spite of the conduct of the Pagans (the vast majority of the population).

Dear Remie:

Yes, India leads in the number of vocations to the priesthood for the entire world, i.e., as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

What is more astounding is that the close to 11,000 seminarians were drawn from a Catholic population of only ~18 million.

Compare this to the second runner, my country of origin, the Philippines, which has ~7,000 seminarians in a Catholic population of around 65 million!

And how about the U.S., with a Catholic population of around 63-64 million, there are only about 3,500 seminarians!

I've seen some pictures of the Malankar Catholic Bishops, and yes they look very Eastern, while the Malabar look very latinized.

Well, to be fair, Malankara Catholic bishops can look just about as latinised as their Malabar brethren. I've seen pictures of Malankara Catholic bishops in which they look like Orthodox bishops, and then I've seen pictures of these same bishops in Latin dress, but also wearing the monks' hood. It just depends on what picture you've seen.

I once heard that one of the differences between the Chaldean rite in Iraq (the Church of Catholicos Mar Raphael I), and the Indian version of the Chaldean Rite, is that in the Chaldean Rite of Iraq, the words of the Consacration are missing (the words were so sacred that needed to be protected from pagan contacts), although the Consacration is indeed valid. And the Indian version has the words of the Consacration took from the Maronite Liturgy (or the Latin Mass?).

I've never heard that the words were taken out because they were so sacred. Sounds like a Roman Catholic explanation to me. It is generally accepted that the Assyrian anaphora never had the words of institution. I thought the Chaldean Catholics added it to their Liturgy; their diocesan website for this country seems to say as much.

Last year, I attended a Malabar Catholic wedding/Liturgy. The words of consecration were in the anaphora, but they were definitely not from any Syrian sources I know of. They sounded like a Malayalam translation of the Latin text.

About Kerala, I know that the State of Kerala has been the most progressive State of India, and after the independence they had the first Marxist State government in India, mixed with Christian principles (some kind of Liberation Theology?).

Not really. Communism and Marxism and related philosophies don't really emphasise God at all. They are atheistic. But atheism is not really all that common at all in a land where four major world religions were born, and where all major religions are found. So while Marxist principles are employed in administering state affairs, the atheist stuff is ignored, and so you have a theistic Marxism which works rather well. We are the only Indian state to have 100% literacy, and that in three languages. In all sorts of technical and scientific fields, our people excel. In some ways, it's like what Russia was, but without the religious suppression. But it's not really liberation theology at all, as I understand that is something different.

According to the statistics, India is the country with the largest number of vocations to priesthood (of both catholics and Oriental Orthodox) and the Church continues to grow, in spite of the conduct of the Pagans (the vast majority of the population).

This is true, and more and more I am seeing Indian priests, often times Malabar priests, and a few Malankar priests, sent to America to serve in Latin parishes due to the priest shortage. And they do very well here.

As far as the Orthodox go, they are also doing very well back home; and one of their American dioceses (belonging to the Catholicos' faction) has about ten young men, raised here, ordained in various minor orders, preparing slowly but surely for priestly ordination, and I know of at least two or three more who are interested in following the same route. That's pretty darn good! There's even talk of establishing the Orthodox Church's third theological seminary in the US (one is in Kerala and the other in northern India, in Nagpur, I think). The Orthodox are doing very well. Aside from settling the current problems with the Patriarchal faction (in the interests of having one united Orthodox Church in India), I think that the next thing that should be done is a revival of traditional Syrian monasticism. Right now, only priests who are celibate become monks. There are no laymen who just enter the monastic life without aspiring to Holy Orders. They usually become monks after ordination.

Mor,

I've read your numerous posts - both here, on other boards, and in private discussions - on the history of the Christian communities of India. Guess what? I still can't keep it all clear in my head!

It is sad that such dis-unity exists in India and I pray that one day soon some sort of reconciliation may take place. Not to rejoice in your misery, but whenever I despair over the state of Ukrainian Churches I think of India and things doesn't seem so bad. Though, but for the grace of God, I'm sure we could could probably do much, much worse!

Andrij

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

As always, you "do your Church proud!"

Could you comment on the marriage between Orthodox tradition and Hindu ways in India?

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:
[QB]Thanks for the explanations.

I once heard that one of the differences between the Chaldean rite in Iraq (the Church of Catholicos Mar Raphael I), and the Indian version of the Chaldean Rite, is that in the Chaldean Rite of Iraq, the words of the Consacration are missing (the words were so sacred that needed to be protected from pagan contacts), although the Consacration is indeed valid. And the Indian version has the words of the Consacration took from the Maronite Liturgy (or the Latin Mass?).

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari, used by the Assyrian Church of the East and in modified form by Indian Church is perhaps the oldest Eucharistic prayer in continuous use anywhere. There is no evidence that it ever had an institution narrative, not because the words were considered "necessary" but were omitted to "protect them from pagan contacts", but rather because, in the sacramental theology of the third century, the notion that there was a "moment" at which the transformation of the elements did not exist. The entire anaphora (if not the entire liturgy) was considered a single consecratory act, so that no particular formula was considered essential. As Mar Bawai Soro of the Church of the East puts it, "We prefer to do what Jesus did, rather than say what He said". The idea that there must be a formula by which the consecration is achieved can be dated to the scholastic movement in the West in the second millennium, which was to some extent imitated by Orthodox theologians in the post-Byzantine period (with the Byzantines insisting that the Epiclesis, rather than the Institution is the decisive moment). But that approach is not patristic, and cannot be found in the earliest sources.

Well, Alex, one instance is in the marriage ritual itself, where instead of crowns, gold chains with gold crosses are used. The groom ties a pendant around the bride's neck (which is not actually the "moment" of marriage, but is considered such by the people, who don't put as much importance on the crowning), and places a special sari on her head, all of which are Hindu customs that came into our tradition. Oil lamps and saffron robes as an option for monks, as well as various "rites of passage" traditions all come from Hinduism.

Dear Qathuliqa,

How fascinating!

I wonder if there is any connection to the Celtic tradition here, since the Celts formerly did not crown their kings, but only placed a gold chain around their necks, in the case of the High King of Scots, a double gold chain.

What do you think of the use of India's other religious books in Christian worship services?

Alex

Dear Alex,

This is where Father Francis of Kurishumala and I differ. I have no problem with Hinduism or the reading of Hindu religious texts. In fact, I'm taking a class now to do just that, and hope to read more even after the class is over. But I don't think Vedic hymns really should have a place in Christian Liturgy, whether the Holy Qurbana or the Hours. I don't mind them in private prayer (as long as they in some way correspond to Christianity, like the selections Father Francis has in his liturgical books do), but I don't think they should be included in our liturgical prayer. I guess I'm just a purist like that.