Should this be permitted? Your opinions please

[Aramis]

Blind obedience is not required, merely obedience.

One of the interesting tidbits in the CCEO is the right to address the bishops with our needs and wants. Note that in Liturgiam Authenticum, His Holiness Benedict XVI noted that the right is also a duty, when it affects worship.

As the shepherd serves the needs of the sheep, including both those the sheep realize and those they don’t, so the bishop shepherds his flock… In the case of the Kananaya, their recourse is to address the bishop. And then, to obey. If their assigned bishop says “end this practice” then they must. But know that most people will neither be supportive of maintaining formal practice of endogamy, nor do they like the racism inherent in it, and unlike their brethren in India, their local bishop is specifically not one of them, and is shared with others who have the same right to address the bishop, and often, may have good financial reasons to want to be ascribed to the closer parish.

 

[Thomas48]

Quite interesting to see all the comments being made. To share my opinion I would like to express the view point of us Knananites on this issue.

One reason like I have stated before is because of course us Knananites would like to maintain our distinct identity even in America. To maintain that identity, endogamy must be withheld. Our forefathers in respect of our Early Christian heritage kept safe this tradition as well as the numerous other Knanaya customs for centuries.

In the time before St.Thomas Syro Malabar diocese was established, Knanaya missions supported the creation of the diocese on the fact and only the fact that the Syro Malabar Church promised us that these missions would remain strictly endogamous under the newly created diocese. Before the creation of the diocese our missions were under the local Latin Diocese, in which the ordinaries allowed us to practice strict endogamy.

Having faith in this promise Knananites across North America spent millions of dollars on parishes/mission halls that we thought would be respective to our traditions. As the years progressed we received the prot from the Congregation for Oriental Churches that Knananites may not have strictly endogamous churches. This caused high frustration among community members because if Knanaya parishes respective to our traditions could not be withheld, the community just wasted millions of dollars. Basically after we received the prot our churches are just like any other regular Syro Malabar Parishes. Instead of wasting these millions of dollars in parishes we could have just gone to the local Syro Malabar Parishes which are less than 5 miles away from every Knanaya Parish. If this prot had been delivered earlier us Knananites would have kept our missions under our local Latin Diocese’ where our customs were respected but of course it is too late for that now.

I guess you could say us Knananites feel cheated by the diocese? Because instead of fighting for the cause of the Knananites the Syro Malabar Diocese without question pushed the order of the Congregation for Oreintal Churches. Us Knananites had no way of letting our voice be heard to Rome. Please do not think I am judging Mar Jacob Angadiath, but we brought this issue to him many times and many times he never returned an answer. Like many of you have stated Metropoltan Mar Mathew Moolakattu has no dog in this fight because he is bishop of Kottayam and does not have jurisdiction in the U.S. So basically we are left with no hierarchical help, we have a Knanaya Vicar General under the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese but he is a whole different story…

 

[LilyM]

Quite interesting to see all the comments being made. To share my opinion I would like to express the view point of us Knananites on this issue.

One reason like I have stated before is because of course us Knananites would like to maintain our distinct identity even in America. To maintain that identity, endogamy must be withheld. Our forefathers in respect of our Early Christian heritage kept safe this tradition as well as the numerous other Knanaya customs for centuries.

In the time before St.Thomas Syro Malabar diocese was established, Knanaya missions supported the creation of the diocese on the fact and only the fact that the Syro Malabar Church promised us that these missions would remain strictly endogamous under the newly created diocese. Before the creation of the diocese our missions were under the local Latin Diocese, in which the ordinaries allowed us to practice strict endogamy.

Having faith in this promise Knananites across North America spent millions of dollars on parishes/mission halls that we thought would be respective to our traditions. As the years progressed we received the prot from the Congregation for Oriental Churches that Knananites may not have strictly endogamous churches. This caused high frustration among community members because if Knanaya parishes respective to our traditions could not be withheld, the community just wasted millions of dollars. Basically after we received the prot our churches are just like any other regular Syro Malabar Parishes. Instead of wasting these millions of dollars in parishes we could have just gone to the local Syro Malabar Parishes which are less than 5 miles away from every Knanaya Parish. If this prot had been delivered earlier us Knananites would have kept our missions under our local Latin Diocese’ where our customs were respected but of course it is too late for that now.

I guess you could say us Knananites feel cheated by the diocese? Because instead of fighting for the cause of the Knananites the Syro Malabar Diocese pushed the order of the Congregation for Oreintal Churches.

Oh please - you were building a church and a parish, no? Places which are meant to be devoted to the glory and service of God? Or are they only places for the glory of the Knanaya where you could sit around smugly revelling in your exclusivity?

 

[Filii_Dei]

Oh please - you were building a church and a parish, no? Places which are meant to be devoted to the glory and service of God? Or are they only places for the glory of the Knanaya where you could sit around smugly revelling in your exclusivity?

There are more charitable ways of expressing your view.

 

[LilyM]

There are more charitable ways of expressing your view.

How much charity - or Christian spirit for that matter - is there in asserting, as the OP has done, that the donation of money to a parish gives a person the right to dictate who may or may not be a member? How much in complaining when you find out it doesn’t - as it rightly shouldn’t?

 

[Thomas48]

How much charity - or Christian spirit for that matter - is there in asserting, as the OP has done, that the donation of money to a parish gives a person the right to dictate who may or may not be a member? How much in complaining when you find out it doesn’t - as it rightly shouldn’t?

I think you may have misinterpreted something I posted? I did not say the above statement. In my previous post that you commented on, I was saying that us Knananites saw there to be no need of Knanaya parishes if our religious customs could not be withheld. After the prot from the Congregation for Oriental Churches all of our churches were basically regular Syro Malabar Churches. That means us Knananites wasted millions of dollars in building/buying these parishes and mission centers. We only built these institutions on the promise that they would be strictly endogamous. Since this promise was not kept its almost like saying you Knananites had no need of building your own churches because we’re not going to allow your customs, instead of wasting millions of dollars you could have just gone to your neighboring Syro Malabar parish since now after the prot your Knanaya parishes are the exact same thing as regular Syro Malabar parishes. You can understand why this would anger community members.

 

[Zekariya]

Thomas48, you have my prayers that the Knananites may keep their right to practice their traditions.

 

[Thomas48]

Thomas48, you have my prayers that the Knananites may keep their right to practice their traditions.

Thank you for your prayers, I ask that all who read this thread may pray for Knanaya Catholics and the meeting with the Major Archbishop scheduled in the upcoming weeks. In the eyes of the The Great Servant of God, Knanaya Bishop Mar Mathew Makil, communion between the Syro Malabar Church and Knanaya Catholics is a blessing.

Thank you
Thomas48

View attachment 16317
Servant Of God
His Holiness Mar Mathew Makil
First Bishop of Kottayam

 

[Zekariya]

Thank you for your prayers, I ask that all who read this thread may pray for Knanaya Catholics and the meeting with the Major Archbishop scheduled in the upcoming week. In the eyes of the The Great Servant of God, Knanaya Bishop Mar Mathew Makil, communion between the Syro Malabar Church and Knanaya Catholics is a blessing.

Thank you
Thomas48

View attachment 16317
Servant Of God
His Holiness Mar Mathew Makil
First Bishop of Kottayam

Please keep us updated.

 

[LilyM]

I think you may have misinterpreted something I posted? I did not say the above statement. In my previous post that you commented on, I was saying that us Knananites saw there to be no need of Knanaya parishes if our religious customs could not be withheld. After the prot from the Congregation for Oriental Churches all of our churches were basically regular Syro Malabar Churches. That means us Knananites wasted millions of dollars in building/buying these parishes and mission centers. We only built these institutions on the promise that they would be strictly endogamous. Since this promise was not kept its almost like saying you Knananites had no need of building your own churches because we’re not going to allow your customs, instead of wasting millions of dollars you could have just gone to your neighboring Syro Malabar parish since now after the prot your Knanaya parishes are the exact same thing as regular Syro Malabar parishes. You can understand why this would anger community members.

Why do you consider it to be waste? Was the money given to decorate St Peter’s in Rome something that was strictly necessary? Of course not - a much simpler building would have been good enough. Was the money spent on its magnificence a waste then? Certainly not!

As Our Lord said, ‘You have received freely, give freely, expecting nothing in return’. (Matt 10:8). No good comes of giving when things are given with strings attached.

 

[Filii_Dei]

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.

I found this very educational. Thank you malphono, for another informative post.

 

[Thomas48]

Why do you consider it to be waste? Was the money given to decorate St Peter’s in Rome something that was strictly necessary? Of course not - a much simpler building would have been good enough. Was the money spent on its magnificence a waste then? Certainly not!

As Our Lord said, ‘You have received freely, give freely, expecting nothing in return’. (Matt 10:8). No good comes of giving when things are given with strings attached.

I can understand what you are saying and of course since our churches have been built/bought, we will cherish and defend them in all ways but what community members were saying was that, because of the prot from Rome instead of buying Knanaya Churches we could have shared the near by Syro Malabar parish with our Syro Malabar brothers. The reasoning for this idea was the fact that our parishes basically are no longer “Knanaya” in tradition since the mother church does not allow our customs.

But in my honest opinion if a Syro Malabar parish was shared it would just cause rift over which community actually owned the church or from which community the vicar was, and a whole list of other problems. Endogamy is not the only reason Knananites have the own parishes, for centuries Syro Malabar and Knanayas have not gotten along. During the Portuguese rule of Kerala a Portuguese Roman Catholic bishop by the name Menezes had tried to force Knananites and Syro Malabar Catholics to share parishes, he stated that doing this caused strife and even bloodshed among the children of Thomas of Cana and the children of St.Thomas. But of course this level of tension no longer exists among our community, after the 1900’s our relations improved greatly.

**Update - There will be a protest on March 3, 2013 outside the Syro Malabar Bishops House at the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Cathedral. Bus loads of community members from each state will gather in Chicago to attend the event. It seems that they have even made an official insignia for the protest.

Aramana- Bishops House/Bishops Church

View attachment 16330

 

[Thomas48]

March 3, 2013

I am very proud to say that the Knanaya Faithful lead a peaceful protest march to protect the identity of the Knanaya Catholic Church at the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Cathedral. Knananites from across North America and Canada flocked to Chicago just for this event. Their numbers counted in the thousands and included many of our Knanaya priests.

View attachment 16461 View attachment 16462 View attachment 16463

View attachment 16464 View attachment 16465 View attachment 16466

 

[Thomas48]

View attachment 16467 View attachment 16468 View attachment 16469

View attachment 16470 View attachment 16471 View attachment 16472

 

[jimmy]

Endogamy aside, this sounds like the way the west deals with ecclesiology and discipline. If they don’t like something, just change it. It doesn’t matter what the community’s tradition is or what they want. All that matters is that they are making change, and you better get on board. They’ll scrap thousands of years of tradition by a simple decree. It is a little bit unsettling.

 

[LilyM]

Endogamy aside, this sounds like the way the west deals with ecclesiology and discipline. If they don’t like something, just change it. It doesn’t matter what the community’s tradition is or what they want. All that matters is that they are making change, and you better get on board. They’ll scrap thousands of years of tradition by a simple decree. It is a little bit unsettling.

Well, didn’t Our Lord and the Apostles do the same with a good many venerable traditions? Circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifice, Saturday sabbath, Jerusalem as the preeminent base of faith - poof, all gone in a moment by ‘a simple decree’.

I don’t recall much consultation with the laity when they did so either. I’m sure at least some of them if asked would have wanted to retain all of the above.

 

[jimmy]

Why do you consider it to be waste? Was the money given to decorate St Peter’s in Rome something that was strictly necessary? Of course not - a much simpler building would have been good enough. Was the money spent on its magnificence a waste then? Certainly not!

As Our Lord said, ‘You have received freely, give freely, expecting nothing in return’. (Matt 10:8). No good comes of giving when things are given with strings attached.

This sounds sanctimonious. The Kerala Christians wanted churches where they could celebrate their faith according to their own tradition. Now their traditions are changed against their will and they are rightly upset. Maybe when french Christians complain that the govt is confiscating their churches and giving them to muslims we should tell them to give freely without expectation of compensation.

 

[jimmy]

Well, didn’t Our Lord and the Apostles do the same with a good many venerable traditions? Circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifice, Saturday sabbath, Jerusalem as the preeminent base of faith - poof, all gone in a moment by ‘a simple decree’.

I don’t recall much consultation with the laity when they did so either. I’m sure at least some of them if asked would have wanted to retain all of the above.

That was a distinction between the old and new covenants. There is no such claim to be made here. This is a buerocratic move. They don’t like it so their gonna change it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

And as someone pointed out above, that was done by the apostles. The bishops aren’t apostles.

 

[LilyM]

This sounds sanctimonious. The Kerala Christians wanted churches where they could celebrate their faith according to their own tradition. Now their traditions are changed against their will and they are rightly upset. Maybe when french Christians complain that the govt is confiscating their churches and giving them to muslims we should tell them to give freely without expectation of compensation.

Apples and oranges - for one thing the OP is talking of brother and sister Catholics, not an alien faith that does not even acknowledge the divinity of Christ.

St Paul collected money offerings (from the Corinthians if memory serves) and took them back (to Jerusalem?) with him. No question of that money being spent merely on the wants or needs of Corinth. It was up to those in authority to decide what was to be done with it.

 

[LilyM]

That was a distinction between the old and new covenants. There is no such claim to be made here. This is a buerocratic move. They don’t like it so their gonna change it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

And as someone pointed out above, that was done by the apostles. The bishops aren’t apostles.

The bishops are the successors of the Apostles - as fully endowed with Christ’s authority as the original 12. Including in bureaucratic matters - or does the power to bind and loose ‘whatever’ not extend to where the laity doesn’t want to be bound?