Should this be permitted? Your opinions please

[Zekariya]

While I don’t have a vested interest in this thread, I will interject another comment anyway.

Yes, of course.

Except, of course, that unless one physically relocates, one does not exactly choose his/her parish. The law says it’s all by geography and, often times, not logical or proximate geography either. This applies to the Latin Church (where it does happen that a person may reside 100 feet from a church but is canonically ascribed to a different parish miles away), as much as it does to the Eastern/Oriental Churches, albeit that they’re far more spread-out. So, no, one really cannot pick to which parish one is ascribed.

Anyway, looking at the Syro-Malabar eparchial website, I count 16 Knanaya parishes & missions in the US. From what I see there (and perhaps I’m mistaken), it appears that wherever there is a Knanaya parish or mission there is also a “regular” Syro-Malabar parish or mission (it may not be “next door” but still in the same general area). That leads me to think that what they have is a jurisdictional overlap, and it would seem that this was done on purpose in order to address the sensibilities of the Knanaya faithful.

It does not seem to be that, where a Knanaya marries a non-Knanaya, the person is expelled from the Church. Yes, it may be that the person would no longer be ascribed to his/her particular Knanaya parish/mission (they would, rather be ascribed to neighboring “regular” Syro-Malabar parish/mission, but that is very different from being denied membership in the Church. And the person could, of course, still attend and participate in the life of the Knanaya parish/mission, although their canonical records would be held at the “regular” Syro-Malabar parish/mission.

Maybe it’s just me. but frankly, I really don’t see the problem with that.

Ah, that makes more sense. Although, why their canonical records must be changed seems a bit odd. Then again, it could just be me, seeing as I am not part of their culture.

 

[malphono]

Ah, that makes more sense. Although, why their canonical records must be changed seems a bit odd. Then again, it could just be me, seeing as I am not part of their culture.

I would think it’s like when someone moves: their canonical records, from the time of the move onward, are in the parish to which they are now canonically ascribed. The baptismal record would remain in the original parish but the matrimonial record, and any subsequent records, would be in the “new” one (at least I imagine this would be the case, based on the parallel).

 

[Zekariya]

I would think it’s like when someone moves: their canonical records, from the time of the move onward, are in the parish to which they are now canonically ascribed. The baptismal record would remain in the original parish but the matrimonial record, and any subsequent records, would be in the “new” one (at least I imagine this would be the case, based on the parallel).

I see. Thanks!

 

[Thomas48]

While I don’t have a vested interest in this thread, I will interject another comment anyway.

Yes, of course.

Except, of course, that unless one physically relocates, one does not exactly choose his/her parish. The law says it’s all by geography and, often times, not logical or proximate geography either. This applies to the Latin Church (where it does happen that a person may reside 100 feet from a church but is canonically ascribed to a different parish miles away), as much as it does to the Eastern/Oriental Churches, albeit that they’re far more spread-out. So, no, one really cannot pick to which parish one is ascribed.

Anyway, looking at the Syro-Malabar eparchial website, I count 16 Knanaya parishes & missions in the US. From what I see there (and perhaps I’m mistaken), it appears that wherever there is a Knanaya parish or mission there is also a “regular” Syro-Malabar parish or mission (it may not be “next door” but still in the same general area). That leads me to think that what they have is a jurisdictional overlap, and it would seem that this was done on purpose in order to address the sensibilities of the Knanaya faithful.

It does not seem to be that, where a Knanaya marries a non-Knanaya, the person is expelled from the Church. Yes, it may be that the person would no longer be ascribed to his/her particular Knanaya parish/mission (they would, rather be ascribed to neighboring “regular” Syro-Malabar parish/mission, but that is very different from being denied membership in the Church. And the person could, of course, still attend and participate in the life of the Knanaya parish/mission, although their canonical records would be held at the “regular” Syro-Malabar parish/mission.

Maybe it’s just me, but frankly, I really don’t see a problem with that.

**Correction, 20 Knanaya parishes/missions.
Thank you for your comment Malphono, this would probably be the best way to explain the situation.

 

[Zekariya]

**Correction, 20 Knanaya parishes/missions.
Thank you for your comment Malphono, this would probably be the best way to explain the situation.

It certainly helped me to better understand.

 

[malphono]

**Correction, 20 Knanaya parishes/missions.

OK … I counted them again just now. This time I came up with 19! Not the easiest website to count from, (why they broke it up into non-pageable pages I’ll never know) so it could very well be 20 or … ach! I have a headache!!!

Thank you for your comment Malphono, this would probably be the best way to explain the situation.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t care if people want to only marry within their own people. That is their choice. Membership in a particular parish or diocese should not be based on ethnicity. It should be based on the Catholic Faith.

If I (a white person of european descent) am faithful to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, will I be denied membership at your parish?

I wouldn’t fight to keep the ethinically impure from being members of my Catholic parish. You can marry who you want to marry. The Catholic Faith is One. If you adhere to the Catholic Faith, you may become a member in any of her parishes.

While I don’t have a vested interest in this thread, I will interject another comment anyway.

Yes, of course.

Except, of course, that unless one physically relocates, one does not exactly choose his/her parish. The law says it’s all by geography and, often times, not logical or proximate geography either. This applies to the Latin Church (where it does happen that a person may reside 100 feet from a church but is canonically ascribed to a different parish miles away), as much as it does to the Eastern/Oriental Churches, albeit that they’re far more spread-out. So, no, one really cannot pick to which parish one is ascribed.

Anyway, looking at the Syro-Malabar eparchial website, I count 16 Knanaya parishes & missions in the US. From what I see there (and perhaps I’m mistaken), it appears that wherever there is a Knanaya parish or mission there is also a “regular” Syro-Malabar parish or mission (it may not be “next door” but still in the same general area). That leads me to think that what they have is a jurisdictional overlap, and it would seem that this was done on purpose in order to address the sensibilities of the Knanaya faithful.

It does not seem to be that, where a Knanaya marries a non-Knanaya, the person is expelled from the Church. Yes, it may be that the person would no longer be ascribed to his/her particular Knanaya parish/mission (they would, rather be ascribed to neighboring “regular” Syro-Malabar parish/mission, but that is very different from being denied membership in the Church. And the person could, of course, still attend and participate in the life of the Knanaya parish/mission, although their canonical records would be held at the “regular” Syro-Malabar parish/mission.

Maybe it’s just me, but frankly, I really don’t see a problem with that.

One big problem is the inexcusable waste of resources in duplicating services for the Knanaya for no valid reason. Kind of like having two groups of children in a classroom who can’t get along and building another room and hiring an extra teacher instead of doing the sensible thing and telling the children they have to get along with each other and that disruptive nonsense will be punished.

 

[malphono]

One big problem is the inexcusable waste of resources in duplicating services for the Knanaya for no valid reason. Kind of like having two groups of children in a classroom who can’t get along and building another room and hiring an extra teacher instead of doing the sensible thing and telling the children they have to get along with each other and that disruptive nonsense will be punished.

Whether there is a “valid reason” or not to “duplicate” is for the Church to determine. Rome spoke long ago and the Kotayam Archdiocese was erected specifically for the Knanaya, so apparently they saw that there were reasons. Apparently, the Syro-Malabar Church in the US has seen fit to follow that example.

 

[Zekariya]

One big problem is the inexcusable waste of resources in duplicating services for the Knanaya for no valid reason. Kind of like having two groups of children in a classroom who can’t get along and building another room and hiring an extra teacher instead of doing the sensible thing and telling the children they have to get along with each other and that disruptive nonsense will be punished.

Read Acts 16. Why did St Paul have St Timothy circumcised? It was to remove a stumbling block from the people who would reject an uncircumcised Timothy.

 

[LilyM]

Read Acts 16. Why did St Paul have St Timothy circumcised? It was to remove a stumbling block from the people who would reject an uncircumcised Timothy.

St Paul did so - that doesn’t mean it was the best way to resolve the situation. St Paul, being human and fallible, doubtless made pastoral errors on occasion, as can Rome and Kottayam.

 

[Zekariya]

St Paul did so - that doesn’t mean it was the best way to resolve the situation. St Paul, being human and fallible, doubtless made pastoral errors on occasion, as can Rome and Kottayam.

The key here is to be in obedience if it isn’t causing you to sin. It might not be the best way to go about things but, we are to be obedient to the Church.

 

[LilyM]

The key here is to be in obedience if it isn’t causing you to sin. It might not be the best way to go about things but, we are to be obedient to the Church.

Talk to the Knanaya about obedience - they are the ones contemplating the enormous scandal of suing the archdiocese if they do not get their way, not me or anyone else.

 

[malphono]

St Paul did so - that doesn’t mean it was the best way to resolve the situation. St Paul, being human and fallible, doubtless made pastoral errors on occasion, as can Rome and Kottayam.

Not to argue, but who is to determine that it was a “pastoral error”?

I’m not a big fan of this expression, but it certainly does fit here: Roma locuta. Causa finita.

 

[Zekariya]

Talk to the Knanaya about obedience - they are the ones contemplating the enormous scandal of suing the archdiocese if they do not get their way, not me.

You said St Paul “doubtless made pastoral errors on occasion” and I said that if it doesn’t cause you to sin, you [meaning all of us Catholics] should obey the Church. I never said that the Knanaya should be disobedient.

 

[LilyM]

Not to argue, but who is to determine that it was a “pastoral error”?

I’m not a big fan of this expression, but it certainly does fit here: Roma locuta. Causa finita.

Two bishops, two differing opinions on what Rome has actually said/permitted, if my understanding is correct. Rome doubtless will speak again and resolve the dispute of required. It is not for the laity to interfere and take sides by means of protests, petitions and lawsuits. The two bishops concerned are amply able to make their cases themselves.

 

[Zekariya]

Two bishops, two differing opinions on what Rome has actually said/permitted, if my understanding is correct. Rome doubtless will speak again and resolve the dispute of required. It is not for the laity to interfere and take sides by means of protests, petitions and lawsuits. The two bishops concerned are amply able to make their cases themselves.

And we then accept with obedience what Rome says is to be followed. Your obedience is to the bishop you are under (unless he wants you to sin). If Rome says that your bishop is wrong, your bishop should obey Rome and correct himself.

 

[malphono]

Two bishops, two differing opinions on what Rome has actually said/permitted, if my understanding is correct. Rome doubtless will speak again and resolve the dispute of required. It is not for the laity to interfere and take sides by means of protests, petitions and lawsuits. The two bishops concerned are amply able to make their cases themselves.

Rome caused the Archdiocese of Kottayam to be erected specifically to address the sensibilities of the Knanaya. In the US, it is equally true that some 20 parishes/missions have been established for the Knanaya for the exact same reason. If dismantling those parishes/missions were on the table, I might agree, but (and maybe I missed it) I haven’t seen or heard anything about that. Absent that, it would seem to logically follow that that a change in “eligibility for enrollment” in those parishes/missions goes against the founding principle.

In any case, as I said in an earlier post, I don’t have a vested interest in this, so I’m letting it rest here.

 

[LilyM]

Rome caused the Archdiocese of Kottayam to be erected specifically to address the sensibilities of the Knanaya. In the US, it is equally true that some 20 parishes/missions have been established for the Knanaya for the exact same reason. If dismantling those parishes/missions were on the table, I might agree, but (and maybe I missed it) I haven’t seen or heard anything about that. Absent that, it would seem to logically follow that that a change in “eligibility for enrollment” in those parishes/missions goes against the founding principle.

It would seem to equally logically follow that changes in eligibility for enrolment are a matter that is within the purview of the Bishop of any diocese, and moreover that unless and until Rome corrects said Bishop, it is to be assumed that he is within his rights to decide and to act as he has.

 

[malphono]

It would seem to equally logically follow that changes in eligibility for enrolment are a matter that is within the purview of the Bishop of any diocese, and moreover that unless and until Rome corrects said Bishop, it is to be assumed that he is within his rights to decide and to act as he has.

Maybe no, maybe yes. I’m merely saying that the Knanaya community has a case. Apparently, the Metropolitan-Archbishop of Kottayam thinks so as well. How it will play out in the end I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that I’m certainly not in a position to gainsay the established custom. No one on this board is.

 

[LilyM]

Maybe no, maybe yes. I’m merely saying that the Knanaya community has a case. Apparently, the Metropolitan-Archbishop of Kottayam thinks so as well. How it will play out in the end I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that I’m certainly not in a position to gainsay the established custom. No one on this board is.

But unless and until Rome indicates otherwise, the Bishop certainly is in such a position. And we are in infinitely less of a position to gainsay him.