Should this be permitted? Your opinions please

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas48
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomas48

Guest
On Christmas mass vicars at Knanaya Churches explained to their parishes that under the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese of Chicago, Bishop Mar Jacob Angadiath has decreed that endogamy may no longer be practiced in Knanaya Churches. All Knanaya persons who marry non-Knanaya as well as their non-Knanaya spouses may retain and or be permitted membership into Knanaya Churches.

Knanayas have been practicing endogamy for 1700 years, it is a basic fundamental of our community. This new decree only affects those Knanaya Parishes under the Syro Malabar Diocese of Chicago. The Kottayam Knanaya Diocese in India still strictly practices endogamy. I just do not understand how the St.Thomas diocese has the right to take away this basic Knanaya custom. From the Papal proclamation of Pope St.Pius X under the Catholic Church members of Kottayam Diocese may follow endogamy along with other Knanaya Customs. Does this mean when members of the Kottayam Diocese go else where these rights should be surrendered?

Under the St.Thomas diocese, Knanaya Churches were allowed to be built and if they are true Knanaya Churches endogamy will be practiced. But now with this new decree how can they even be called Knanaya Churches? Do you think this fair? I would like your opinions on this topic.
 
The practice involved is rather unique, so even commenting on the situation is difficult for any non-Knanaya. That said, if there is sufficient support, a separate canonical jurisdiction could come to pass. You might refer back to [thread=697835]this thread[/thread], and in particular the [post=9600024]last post[/post] therein.
 
It appears to be a custom, a discipline, rather than a matter of faith or morals, and so, is subject to alteration.
 
Galatians 3:28
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
 
ConstantineTG said:
[BIBLEDRB]Deut 7:1-4[/BIBLEDRB]Deut 7:1-4 (Douay Rheims)
Click to expand...
Rahab was from one of those groups, yet she married one of the big-shots from the tribe of Judah and is listed as an ancestress of Jesus Christ. The prohibition was aimed at the religions of those groups, not their ethnicities.
 
I did not post this thread to argue on the ethics of endogamy. I posted this to show you how invalid and unlawful this decree is. Do you not see how it is criminal for the St.Thomas diocese to impose this? It is against papal decree and the right of Knananites. Would you be okay if your community practiced a certain custom for hundreds of years and a bishop with a sign of his pen, stated that your practice is null and void?
 
Thomas48 said:
I did not post this thread to argue on the ethics of endogamy. I posted this to show you how invalid and unlawful this decree is. Do you not see how it is criminal for the St.Thomas diocese to impose this? It is against papal decree and the right of Knananites. Would you be okay if your community practiced a certain custom for hundreds of years and a bishop with a sign of his pen, stated that your practice is null and void?
Click to expand...
The people can still freely choose to marry within their own race - it’s just that now, if they choose not to, they will no longer be excommunicated.

I see this as a good thing, since there is no law in the Universal Church that requires people to be married within the same race.
 
Thomas48 said:
I did not post this thread to argue on the ethics of endogamy. I posted this to show you how invalid and unlawful this decree is. Do you not see how it is criminal for the St.Thomas diocese to impose this? It is against papal decree and the right of Knananites. Would you be okay if your community practiced a certain custom for hundreds of years and a bishop with a sign of his pen, stated that your practice is null and void?
Click to expand...
What, like the Jews practiced circumcision and kosher for hundreds of years until the bishop St Paul with a single stroke of his pen told them that such were no longer required?
 
Thomas48 said:
I did not post this thread to argue on the ethics of endogamy. I posted this to show you how invalid and unlawful this decree is. Do you not see how it is criminal for the St.Thomas diocese to impose this? It is against papal decree and the right of Knananites. Would you be okay if your community practiced a certain custom for hundreds of years and a bishop with a sign of his pen, stated that your practice is null and void?
Click to expand...
Times change. Old ways change. Our understanding of others changes. Ideas about race are mainly bogus. There is more genetic diversity in one small troop of chimpanzees than there is across the whole of the human race.

We get to heaven by following the Gospel. not by being racially “pure.”

Wiki says “DNA tests have confirmed that the community has had significant admixture with the local population. Further more it has been illustrated that other Jews joining the community, as genetic testing indicates, was certainly allowed in the past.”
 
Thomas48 said:
. But now with this new decree how can they even be called Knanaya Churches? Do you think this fair? I would like your opinions on this topic.
Click to expand...
They aren’t supposed to be Knanaya Churches. They are supposed to be Catholic - universal - Christian churches. Endogamy is antithetical to Christianity. “Fair” is a word the devil invented to keep us all feeling like victims. Church authority has spoken, accept this as God’s will and help others accept it in humility and gratitude.
 
LilyM said:
What, like the Jews practiced circumcision and kosher for hundreds of years until the bishop St Paul with a single stroke of his pen told them that such were no longer required?
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, it did involve the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem as well as a written letter from the first Church council (Acts 15).
 
Come now, I think the point is that the OP believes this decree is illegal and void due to Pius X’s prescriptions.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Come now, I think the point is that the OP believes this decree is illegal and void due to Pius X’s prescriptions.
Click to expand...
I am wondering if the practice was prohibited, or simply relaxed. Huge difference. How can the Bishop prohibit one parishioner from marrying another? There is a back story here, but we don’t have it yet.
 
I am not an Eastern Rite Catholic so maybe I have no right to comment on this but I see no reason why Knanaya should only marry other Knanaya which I assume is an ethnic group. I mean, if the other partner is a faithful and devout Catholic then I see no reason to bar marriage between that person and a member of the Knanaya.
 
Thomas48 said:
On Christmas mass vicars at Knanaya Churches explained to their parishes that under the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese of Chicago, Bishop Mar Jacob Angadiath has decreed that endogamy may no longer be practiced in Knanaya Churches. All Knanaya persons who marry non-Knanaya as well as their non-Knanaya spouses may retain and or be permitted membership into Knanaya Churches.

Knanayas have been practicing endogamy for 1700 years, it is a basic fundamental of our community. This new decree only affects those Knanaya Parishes under the Syro Malabar Diocese of Chicago. The Kottayam Knanaya Diocese in India still strictly practices endogamy. I just do not understand how the St.Thomas diocese has the right to take away this basic Knanaya custom. From the Papal proclamation of Pope St.Pius X under the Catholic Church members of Kottayam Diocese may follow endogamy along with other Knanaya Customs. Does this mean when members of the Kottayam Diocese go else where these rights should be surrendered?

Under the St.Thomas diocese, Knanaya Churches were allowed to be built and if they are true Knanaya Churches endogamy will be practiced. But now with this new decree how can they even be called Knanaya Churches? Do you think this fair? I would like your opinions on this topic.
Click to expand...
The decision originates from the Congregation for Oriental Churches.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Code: 
                       ** Text of Pastoral Letter from Bishop Mar Jacob Angadiath **
**കഴിഞ്ഞ ഞായറാഴ്ച അമേരിക്കയിലെ ക്നാനായ പള്ളികളില്‍ വായിച്ച അങ്ങാടിയത്ത് പിതാവിന്റെ ഇടയലേഖനം നമ്മുടെ വൈദികര്‍ ആര്‍ക്കും മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ സാധിക്കാത്ത എന്തോ കാരണംമൂലം പരമ രഹസ്യമായി സൂക്ഷിക്കുകയാണ്. എന്നാല്‍ അരമനരഹസ്യം ഇതാ അങ്ങാടി പാട്ടായിരിക്കുന്നു. അന്ന് വായിച്ച ഇടയലേഖനം അതേപടി ചുവടെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു. **
Administrator.​

Establishment of Sero-Malabar Knanaya Catholic Parishes/Mission

Prot. No.6/2012
December 20, 2012.

Dear and Reverend Fathers and dear faithful of Knanaya Community.

During this period of Advent, let us prepare ourselves in the spirit of prayer to welcome Infant Jesus, born for us as our Saviour.

I would like to recall the instructions given to me by the Congregation for Oriental Churches in Rome
“This congregation foresees a pastoral care which is sensitive to the Knanaya expectation to be served by Knanya priests, but does not make any allowance for endogamy to play a role in defining the membership of faithful in any mission or parish established by the Eparchy”
Based on these instruction, things have been clarified in many occasions. The membership of those Knananities who marry from outside Knanaya has been a question. All Parishes and missions for Knanaya people in this diocese are established only on basis of this instruction.

SO NO PARISH/MISSION IS STRICTLY ENDOGAMOUS

In the analysis of this statement, we understand that those Knananites who marry non-Knanaya , WILL NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THEIR KNANAYA PARISH. It is true that the Syro- malabar aparish is open to welcome those Knanayites who marry non-Knanaya spouses. If they wish, they can continue as members of the Knanaya parish/mission.

Since family is one unit and its unity is very important, his/her spouse and children will enjoy all pastoral and spiritual care from Knanaya priests at Knanaya parish/mission where his/her Knanaya spouse belongs. The priests in charge of Knanaya parish/mission should see that the spiritual and pastoral needs of those non Knanaya faithful are fully attended. Family unity and spiritual well-being are our primary concerns.

Mar Jacob Angadiath
Bishop

worldkna.blogspot.com/2012/12/text-of-pastoral-letter-from-bishop-mar.html?showComment=1356547946396
 
I understand for those of you that are Non-Knanaya the topic of endogamy is a rather trying one and hard to understand. But for us Knananites it is apart of our tradition and a basic fundamental of our community.

Now I don’t care if you want to bash or don’t believe in our history but the reason we Knanayas follow endogamy is because when our ancestors reached the shores of Kerala they were Christians but early converts to Christianity who still clung to many Jewish practices. They were very strong followers of the Prophets Ezra and Nehemiah, who believed in order to keep religion pure you may not marry those outside of Judaism. And so even upon reaching India our ancestors still clung onto this belief and did not intermarry or tried their best not to intermarry with the local St.Thomas Christians. Those Knananites who married others were excluded from the community and joined the churches of their Non-Knanaya spouses. So for hundreds of years the churches owned by the Knanaya community remained endogamous. In the early 1900’s when diocese’ were erected for the Syro Malabar Church one of them (Kottayam Diocese) was created for just Knanaya Catholics. Pope St. Pius accepted the traditions of Knanaya community and erected Kottayam Diocese. Even Blessed John Paul II had stated upon the elevation of the Syro Malabar church to a Major Archeparchy that the Syro Malabar Church must maintain and withstand the traditions and customs of The Kottayam Diocese.

My question to you all is not if you think endogamy or Knanaya customs are proper but is that do you think this decree is fair upon Knanayas? If the Pope himself agreed that Kottayam Diocese can be endogamous and just for Knanayas. Than why is it than when Knananites go else where this right should be taken away? If Knanaya Churches were allowed to be built under the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese, can we not preserve and maintain our rights?

This decree was originally issued to Knanaya Churches under the St.Thomas Diocese by the Congregation for Oriental Churches in 1986. Bishop Angadiath is restating this decree because Knanaya Churches have not been following it for 26 years. We have been trying to get this decree re-scripted ever since.
 
Thomas48 said:
I understand for those of you that are Non-Knanaya the topic of endogamy is a rather trying one and hard to understand. But for us Knananites it is apart of our tradition and a basic fundamental of our community.

Now I don’t care if you want to bash or don’t believe in our history but the reason we Knanayas follow endogamy is because when our ancestors reached the shores of Kerala they were Christians but early converts to Christianity who still clung to many Jewish practices. They were very strong followers of the Prophets Ezra and Nehemiah, who believed in order to keep religion pure you may not marry those outside of Judaism. And so even upon reaching India our ancestors still clung onto this belief and did not intermarry or tried their best not to intermarry with the local St.Thomas Christians. Those Knananites who married others were excluded from the community and joined the churches of their Non-Knanaya spouses. So for hundreds of years the churches owned by the Knanaya community remained endogamous. In the early 1900’s when diocese’ were erected for the Syro Malabar Church one of them (Kottayam Diocese) was created for just Knanaya Catholics. Pope St. Pius accepted the traditions of Knanaya community and erected Kottayam Diocese. Even Blessed John Paul II had stated upon the elevation of the Syro Malabar church to a Major Archeparchy that the Syro Malabar Church must maintain and withstand the traditions and customs of The Kottayam Diocese.

My question to you all is not if you think endogamy or Knanaya customs are proper but is that do you think this decree is fair upon Knanayas? If the Pope himself agreed that Kottayam Diocese can be endogamous and just for Knanayas. Than why is it than when Knananites go else where this right should be taken away? If Knanaya Churches were allowed to be built under the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese, can we not preserve and maintain our rights?

This decree was originally issued to Knanaya Churches under the St.Thomas Diocese by the Congregation for Oriental Churches in 1986. Bishop Angadiath is restating this decree because Knanaya Churches have not been following it for 26 years. We have been trying to get this decree re-scripted ever since.
Click to expand...
But is endogamy a right? Clergy in the Latin church were allowed to be married up until about 1000, at which point the Popes started enforcing the discipline of clerical celibacy. Did those clergy who felt put upon by this deviation from ancient custom start talking about ‘rights’ of clergy to be married?

The only “rights” any of us has are those few which Holy Mother Church grants us. And what she grants in matters of discipline as opposed to dogma or doctrine - which covers things such as most aspects of liturgy as well as priestly celibacy and customs such as endogamy - she can take away.

Papal pronouncements do not automatically trump the authority of a bishop in his see. To be sure, the Holy Father can step in if the good Bishop has given beyond the bounds of his office. Nothing preventing people raising these issues with the Holy See. But we cannot in humility assume that every such change is either unwarranted or an infraction of some supposed “right”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top