Knanaya Catholics and Endogamy

  • Thread starter Thread starter yawsep1569
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Knanaya have their own particular customs and traditions, so it is only proper that these should be respected, insofar as possible, by the church. And this is what has happened – they have their own archdiocese, including mission houses around the world, which operates independently, and their priests and bishops minister to their own community. They have remained a part of the Syro-Malabar Church up until now primarily in order to ensure that their unusually pronounced nativist tendencies do not come into conflict with the basic doctrine of the faith. A few of the leaders, and more than a few of the parishioners, are unhappy with this arrangement and want complete freedom to determine what goes on in their churches and who can be a member, regardless of what Catholicism actually teaches. This is by no means a universally held position in the community, and it is a demand that I suspect is very unlikely to be granted. If the Vatican had a clear assurance from the bishops that a Knanaya sui juris church would faithfully uphold all the canon law which the 23 other churches accept, then one may well be created, but at the moment the people seeking more independence are the very people within the community whom the Vatican trusts least to adhere to this.

I don’t know enough about the specific situation within the Syro-Malabar Church to comment on the allegations against various individuals made in this thread, but I will say that, while the issue is so highly politicized and divisive, the Vatican is extraordinarily unlikely to make any major changes in the structure of the church, regardless of the merits of the case. If any change is to come, it will only happen after the infighting has died down and the community to be affected has reached consensus among its own members.
 
To DhuAl, I completely agree with what you said DhuAl, except for the fact that a few members want change, KCC(representative congress for Knanayas in Kerala) and KCCNA(representative congress for Knanayas in North America) have agreed that we would like change. Like what i stated before all we really want is more diocese in other parts of the world so our bishops can govern our people and so problems like what is happening with Mar Angadiath in Chicago wont happen.

Our other alternative to this is like I’ve stated, full autonomy in the creation of a Sui Juris. Even Arch Bishop Mar Moolakattu and our other bishops have agreed on this. Arch Bishop Moolakttu has even recommended non cooperation with the St.Thomas Diocese of Chicago (Syro Malabar).

To Yawsep, I’m sorry but i cannot provide evidence on the case of Mar Makil because i heard this information on a speech given by KCC officials. And to the allegations to Mar Angadiath i can give you a good example. The Knanaya Mission in Houston had been planning to build or buy a church during the summer of 2011. All was going well and members of the community had agreed on building a church and had invested more than $500,000 in the plot and construction of the church. The construction committee had informed us that building this church would take at least 9 months or more than a year. When Mar Angadiath found out about this he told the community in Houston to bring up a church in three months and that if we didn’t we would have to cancel masses in our mission hall…Why??? Why would Mar Angadiath say this?? Eventually the community in Houston had to buy a church within those three months and community members lost more than $300,000. Angadiaths reasoning for this was that the community had been holding masses in a hall not a church and this was not correct. Angadiath had known that the mission in Houston had been using this hall for more than 14 years… Why would he have such a problem right at the time when we decided to buy a church…??
 
I suspect that if the Syro-Malabar sui iuris Church was split to create the Knanaya sui iuris Church, that it would no be subject directly to the Holy See. Maybe Kottayam would be the Metropolitan or it may be changed to a non-metropolitan church. Then in other countries any Knanaya parishes would be in the care of another church sui iuris, or an exarchate created there, depending upon the number of Knanaya faithful and available bishops.

Syro-Malabar:

Ernakulam–Angamaly (Major Archeparchy 1992)
Changanacherry / Changanassery (Metropolitan Archeparchy 1956)
Tellicherry / Thalassery (Metropolitan Archeparchy 1995)
Trichur / Thrissur (Metropolitan Archeparchy 1995)
Kottayam (Metropolitan Archeparchy 2005) *
25 other Eparchies
 
When the Houston Knanayas asked why Mar Angadiath never gave a clear answer except for that its not right to celebrate quarbana in a hall.

Yea, I believe if we petition for a Sui Juris, we’ll receive a Metropolitanate not a Major Archeparchy. But that would be appropriate because we only have one diocese and 4 bishops.
 
fijiq48 said:
When the Houston Knanayas asked why Mar Angadiath never gave a clear answer except for that its not right to celebrate quarbana in a hall.

Yea, I believe if we petition for a Sui Juris, we’ll receive a Metropolitanate not a Major Archeparchy. But that would be appropriate because we only have one diocese and 4 bishops.
Click to expand...
I think if there is only one eparchy in a church sui iuris then it is an eparchal church rather than a metropolitan church, because a metropolitan church has a synod of bishops each a proper presbyter of ther own eparchy.

Also, when I posted the word no appeared by mistake when editing, it should read:
“I suspect that if the Syro-Malabar sui iuris Church was split to create the Knanaya sui iuris Church, that it would be subject directly to the Holy See.”
 
Anyway like i said before , i just hope that we receive a Metropolitanate or like you said an autonomous eparchy sui juris.

Oh and if anyone was wondering about and liturgical differences between Knanaya Catholics and Syro Malabars there are none except for during the wedding quarbana. Knanayas sing the ancient Knanaya Syriac song Barru Mariam(meaning son of Mary) and have other customs during the wedding quarbana.

Barru Mariam-

youtube.com/watch?v=TPs9IVORjAs&feature=related
 
The entire issue is being oversimplified here by those who claim to be in the know.
  1. (I’m not disputing that this is their version of history, but I’m not sure of it’s accuracy) If Knanaya are and have been strictly endogomous, why do they genetically match the other “St Thomas Christian Syrian Christians of Kerala”?
  2. If there are unique customs that Knanaya have, where did they come from? They say from the Jews, yet most of the customs are similar to other St. Thomas Syrian Christians (who’s customs are also a mix of Jewish and Hindu), or are not found in any Jewish sources, nor are they found in Chaldean/Assyrian sources - where Knai Thomas is said to have come.
  3. If Knanaya Catholics are as they claim, why should they be separate from both Syro-Malabar/Syro-Malankara and have their own eparchy under Rome? Why not directly under the Chaldean Catholicos-Patriarch?
  4. The majority of Knanaya Catholics celebrate the Syro-Malabar Rites exactly, and there are a minority of Knanaya Catholics of the Syro-Malankara Tradition. These minority correspond exactly to the Traditions of the Knanaya Syriac Orthodox. – which version of history do the Catholic Knanaya in N. America hold? Did Knai Thoma & company go to India with the permission of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, or did he go with permission of the Chaldean/Assyrian Catholicos-Patriarch?
  5. Do any of the “differences” between Knanaya Catholics / Orthodox rites and non-Knanaya Catholics/Orthodox rites have to do with cultural/social items or are their any differences in the Ecclesial realm?
More when these are answered. Thanks.
 
To Syro Malankara
1.Some Knanayas say strict endogamy only came around in 1911 or when our diocese was erected and others claim 1700 years of endogamy. This is a highly disputed topic which no one can argue, because there is no real answer.
  1. Well i don’t know about you but I’ve never seen any other St.Thomas Christians have traditions such as- Kaipidutham, Mylanchi Ideel, Chandam Charthu, Ichappad Kodukkal, Nada Vili, Nellum Neerum, Vazhu Pidutham, Paallum Pazhavum, Barru Mariam Pattu and others.
  2. Shouldnt the Syro Malabar Church be under the Chaldean Patriarch aswell then? Is the Syro Malabar rite not just another form of the Chaldean rite and the Jacobites directly under the Syriac Patriarch ?Throughout history Kerala Christians have faced many changes, so we seperated ourselves from each other into differant groups. Jacobites,Malankara Orthodox, Syro Malabar, Knanaya(Knanayas being already separate), Marthomas, and Syro Malankara. Change happens so we can not always stick to our original ways. Of course it would be great if the Mar Thoma Christians were all one united church but that’s not the deal.
4.The Eastern Church (Chaldean), please excuse what i had put in an earlier post.
  1. Knanaya Jacobites and Knanaya Catholics have always supported there mother church Knanaya Catholics with the Syro Malabar Church and Knanaya Jacobites with The Syrian Jacobite Church. When the Koonan Kurishu Sathyam occurred the once united Knanayas either joined the Jacobites or the Syro Malabar.
 
Fijiq48, it does seem that there was some agitation among non-Knanaya about being placed under Mar Makil. I am sorry this occurred and believe that this was absolutely wrong. For me as a non-Knanaya Syro-malabar, the Knanaya are comparable to a large family with their own special customs and traditions (especially when considering endogamy). I fully support the preservation of ancient God-honoring traditions and practices. Nothing wrong with that. I just do not support creating a separate ecclesiastical identity that is based on membership to a certain family (one that you cannot even be adopted into), especially since there is no liturgical difference. It is slightly outrageous to me that there can be two adjacent church buildings with the exact same liturgy being conducted with the only difference being the family the priest was born into. Since non-Knanaya can already attend services at a “Knanaya church”, why should membership in the parish depend upon which family one belongs to? The Knanaya identity is not an ecclesiastical one (at least I do not think it should be). Knanaya family members should be free to celebrate their own customs but one should not merge that into the church. I hope the time will come when non-Knanaya can be served by a Knanaya priest and bishop, and vice versa.

It does seem to me that many Catholics are too willing to sacrifice unity (in terms of ecclesiastical identity) in order to placate those who agitate for a distinction to be made (ecclesiastically) out an inflated sense of the importance of their uniqueness (as cherished as it should be). I pray for the day when Knanaya and non-Knanaya can see each others as brothers who are united in Christ and can attend Qurbana in the same church as equal members. If the traditions are true, then certainly I am grateful for the Knanaya coming to Kerala and greatly strengthening our church (is that not proof that they never desired a separate church?). Mar Thoma is the father in faith to both Knanaya and non-Knanaya, so let us live in peace and harmony as his children Nasranis! 🙂
 
You are right yawsep the Knanaya identity is not an ecclesiastical one, we celebrate the same quarbana as our Syro Malabar brothers and most Kna’s including my self have no problem in remaining as the Arch Diocese of Kottayam but we must also remember that certain eastern catholic churches celebrate the exact same mass but are separated through tradition and or geography for example, The Byzantine Rite has 14 separate churches within it. The reason our customs are merged into the church is because our biggest difference between other churches is our wedding customs and matrimony is a big part of Christian life and church.

In agreement to what you said, the biggest problem we see between each church im talking about all Eastern Catholics here, is wanting to preserve customs and traditions of each church or else we could all like Christ wanted, be united under one church. But being humans we have too much pride for our individual church and want to maintain the methods,customs,and traditions of our individual churches. Like Rome said during the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, “United but divided”
 
Since the purpose of a sui iuris Church is to preserve the rite (for the benefit of the faithful and all Catholic churches) with their own laws, it makes sense to have on for the Knanaya. That means those ascribed to that Church sui iuris will then have the right to celebrate in their traditional way. There is likely more than only the marriage laws that is unique. The Apostolic See would have to determine the legitimacy of the marriage traditions of the Knanaya, so there is where the greatest difficult lies, I think.
 
To Vico,

Yes, i do hope one day we achieve our goal of a Sui Juris. And yes marriage will be the biggest problem. Also missionary work, The Knanaya Diocese at the time does do missionary work but all converts are sent directly to Syro Malabar Diocese. If a Knanaya Sui Juris is erected how can they do missionary work with all endogamous diocese? My guess is that some sort of deal will be made where all converts are placed under the latin church.

To Yawsep,

For some reason whenever Knanayas and Syro Malabar are forced to share parishes or diocese problems occur. Like I’ve stated there was the issue with Mar Makil but then in the 1980’s when our people first started moving to the U.S there was no separate diocese, churches, or priests for us here.

Then the Knanayas requested that our Metran at the time Mar Kunnacherry send over a Knanaya priest to hold masses in the U.S , and so Mar Kunnacherry did. Soon after the priest was sent, a Knanaya Mission was created. This mission was shared by both The Knanayas and the Syro Malabar though it was officially a Knanaya Mission. This only lasted for a short time because once the Knanaya Mission was set up the Syros requested that a mission for them be set up as well and so it was and it soon become the St.Thomas Diocese.

Another problem was recorded in the 1600’s. When the Portuguese landed in Kerala the Latin Church took control of all St.Thomas Christians, until of course the Koonan Kurishu Sathyam took place and the Mar Thoma Christians were split into either Syro Malabar Catholics or Jacobite Orthodox. During the years of Latin rule over the Syro Malabar Catholics it was recorded that when Bishop Menezes (Latin Bishop of Kerala in 1600) tried to force Knanayas and Syro Malabars to share churches, blood shed occurred. Hopefully in the near future Knanayas and Syro Malabars will have an even better relationship then that of what we have today.
 
Hesychios said:
Well, that’s not an unrealistic observation …

The problem is according to the report of the OP, one cannot join the parish/diocese if one is not connected through blood. They have their own bishops and priests. If so it is an exclusive club supported by the church.

Naturally, I would be delighted to learn that this is not true. 🙂

Now people can discriminate like that if they want to, without having a special church structure devoted only to them. If they want to be unwelcoming to newcomers, that is their business as individuals, and only God judges so I will let it go at that.

The church though, should not have an official policy in support of this attitude. Every parish and mission should be open and welcoming to any and all inquirers, regardless of social station, education level or ethnic origin.

I know we as individuals fail at this all too often, and it troubles and shames me, it is like soiling the seamless garment of Christ. 😦
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your point. You don’t seem to be interested in joining that community. They probably do not want you to join their community. I don’t know how they can evangelize, but I trust the Church to make that judgement. The fact that these people apparently are entitled to be in the community only through family links is irrelevant for the argument: there are plenty of alternatives. I don’t see any reason why people should worry about this small group operating under the authority of the Church other than a misplaced, politically correct view that all people should be welcomed everywhere. If you go to a Carthusian convent, for example, you won’t be able to just step in and enjoy. Unless you’re in need of help, they’ll kindly tell you to go somewhere else; and even if you ardently want to join in, it’s possible that they won’t accept you.

As long as these people are not heretics (and this precludes that they generally indulge in evil practices), they should be allowed to live according to their ancient customs.
 
fijiq48 said:
To Vico,

Yes, i do hope one day we achieve our goal of a Sui Juris. And yes marriage will be the biggest problem. Also missionary work, The Knanaya Diocese at the time does do missionary work but all converts are sent directly to Syro Malabar Diocese. If a Knanaya Sui Juris is erected how can they do missionary work with all endogamous diocese? My guess is that some sort of deal will be made where all converts are placed under the latin church.

To Yawsep,

For some reason whenever Knanayas and Syro Malabar are forced to share parishes or diocese problems occur. Like I’ve stated there was the issue with Mar Makil but then in the 1980’s when our people first started moving to the U.S there was no separate diocese, churches, or priests for us here.

Then the Knanayas requested that our Metran at the time Mar Kunnacherry send over a Knanaya priest to hold masses in the U.S , and so Mar Kunnacherry did. Soon after the priest was sent, a Knanaya Mission was created. This mission was shared by both The Knanayas and the Syro Malabar though it was officially a Knanaya Mission. This only lasted for a short time because once the Knanaya Mission was set up the Syros requested that a mission for them be set up as well and so it was and it soon become the St.Thomas Diocese.

Another problem was recorded in the 1600’s. When the Portuguese landed in Kerala the Latin Church took control of all St.Thomas Christians, until of course the Koonan Kurishu Sathyam took place and the Mar Thoma Christians were split into either Syro Malabar Catholics or Jacobite Orthodox. During the years of Latin rule over the Syro Malabar Catholics it was recorded that when Bishop Menezes (Latin Bishop of Kerala in 1600) tried to force Knanayas and Syro Malabars to share churches, blood shed occurred. Hopefully in the near future Knanayas and Syro Malabars will have an even better relationship then that of what we have today.
Click to expand...
Very interesting post. It seems that my compatriot Menezes didn’t have enough diplomatic skills. A curiosity: my paternal grand-father was the only living relative of St. João de Brito when this great saint was canonized, back I guess in the 1940s. St. João de Brito was martyred in India in 1693.
 
These people can always leave their particular section and join another one, under full compliance with canon law. What’s the problem then?
 
antunesaa said:
These people can always leave their particular section and join another one, under full compliance with canon law. What’s the problem then?
Click to expand...
Because the church does not practice racial or ethnic discrimination – in any of its branches – so it is impermissible to have Catholic churches where the priest will refuse to witness a marriage simply because one of the parties is not of the “correct” tribe. This is by far the biggest sticking point with the Knanaya. In comparable situations in the recent past – rural white congregations in the American south that refused to worship with blacks or allow a black priest to enter the church – the Vatican has actually used interdicts to place the entire parish under a temporary state of excommunication, so this is clearly something that the Vatican is not prepared to countenance.
 
yawsep1569 said:
I have many Knanaya friends and love them as members of our church. I do not even have too much of a problem with their endogamy since many groups support it to some degrees. However, I do not see on what basis they can be recognized as being ecclesiastically distinct from other Syro-malabar christians. Even granting that they really are a separate genetic group (which I sincerely doubt), how can the Church discriminate a group that is purely motivated on genetic/ancestral grounds? Is not the Church open to all converts? But the Knanaya (Kottayam eparchy) is completely closed to any converts. If there is something I am missing, please let me know. Otherwise, I see their ecclesiastical existence as a blemish upon the Syro-malabar church 😦
Click to expand...
Are the ‘Syro-malabar’, ‘Syro-malankara’ or for that matter the Armenians any different?
 
yawsep1569 said:
… I hope the time will come when non-Knanaya can be served by a Knanaya priest and bishop, and vice versa.

… Mar Thoma is the father in faith to both Knanaya and non-Knanaya, so let us live in peace and harmony as his children Nasranis! 🙂
Click to expand...
I hope the time will come when all prefixes like ‘Latin’, ‘Syrian’ and ‘Knanaya’ will vanish and there will be just ONE HOLY CATHOLIC & APOSTOLIC CHURCH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top