But it’s not about ending endogamy - parishioners are as free as they ever were to marry only within their own culture (ie be endogamous) if that is their wish. They are not being commanded to marry outside their culture.
Knanaya (Kah-Na-Nai-Ya)That is wonderful Thomas. Keep us updated on the decision.By the way, is the “K” pronounced in Knanaya or, is it silent?
We are protesting the 1986 Prot from Rome and the diocese for sitting silently whenever the issue was brought to it.
The SMCC had no right to do so other than as an economia - endogamy is inherently a violation of the St Paul’s commentary that “Before God there is Neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman.”
This verse is speaking about salvation. We cannot ordain women. Also, Philimon is a letter from St Paul sending a slave back to his master.
Here’s the odd thing about it - no one really wants to be a member of the Knanaya parishes unless they are children of Knanaya who married non-Knanaya people, or are Knanaya members who adopted non-Knanaya children.
Nobody is going to their parishes and not willing too.Also nobody wants to marry from their parish as history states.The protest is just for self promotion.To hide the facts that they are the sons / daughters born to knai thomman with an indian concubine. Their wikipedia site also states the truth.
Careful of what you say and how you say it here. I’m sure there are more sensitive ways to express your view.
My Opinions
I can understand your point SyroMalankara but for this reason above is why we must remember the Knanaya Community is just that, a community. They are in fact not a Sui Juris/Eastern Catholic Church. The greater Syro Malabar Church has missions in Tamil/Hindi/English/etc. But the Knanaya are only a minority community of the Syro Malabar Church in which whom they are permitted to have their own personal parishes.
As I said earlier in this thread, I don’t have a horse in this race, but I find the topic somewhat interesting, at least on a procedural level. So here’s my :twocents: plain (a squirt of seltzer, if you will).
Agreed.
It’s not the child’s fault. If Knanaya parents adopted a child from outside the community, it seems to me that the child must be considered part of the parent’s community.If that were the case, yes, but it seems that there is invariably an overlap, so it appears to be a moot point.
Now that question is not for me. At least I hope you didn’t mean it for me.
Phyletism is in a sense a “confusion between church and nation”. Church is the body of Christ which is an ecclesiastic figure created by the Mishiha himself. The Knanaya **Community ** is a man made figure, lets not mix divinity and community. You must always remember this is a community practice not a church practice so it is not in any form heretical. If the practice of endogamy were heretical the Catholic Church surely would not have raised Kottayam Diocese in 1911.
In full understanding, there is no point in denying Knanaya Catholics the right to practice endogamy. Like I have said and you have posted, their is a Syro Malabar parish only minutes a way in which you will receive the exact same sacraments. And even so if a certain patron had a dire need to receive the Holy Sacraments in a Knanaya parish than he may do so.As I said earlier in this thread, I don’t have a horse in this race, but I find the topic somewhat interesting, at least on a procedural level. So here’s my :twocents: plain (a squirt of seltzer, if you will).
Maybe it’s just me, (and of course I’m neither Knanaya nor Malayali so it could well be that I’m missing something), but I still fail to see the basic problem with designated Knanaya parishes, whether in India or elsewhere, including in the US.
The Knanaya have their own particular customs and while it may be true that non-Knanaya are denied formal membership in a Knanaya parish (or, in India, in the Archeparchy of Kottayam for that matter), they do not seem to be excluded from physical attendance in Knanaya churches, nor does it seem they are denied the Sacraments (except, I imagine, Matrimony, Holy Orders being another matter entirely). (NB: I will not engage in a discussion of the merits or demerits of endogamy. That’s really of little interest to me, nor is it any of my business. All I can and will say on the matter is that if the Church were entirely opposed to the practice, it would seem that the Archeparchy of Kottayam would not have been established in the manner which it was.)
Referring to my [post=10379333]previous[/post] comment in this thread, the fact 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), leads me to think that this jurisdictional overlap was purposefully done to address the sensibilities of the Knanaya faithful. Again, maybe I’m missing something, but that “overlap” seems to say a lot.
FWIW, [post=10379868]Thomas48’s follow-up [/post] didn’t gainsay my appraisal, which leads me to think that I may not be completely off base.
That statement is false, the family you speak of are parishioners of my church.The father, mother, and adopted daughter have complete membership in our parish. If earlier I had posted otherwise, I was unaware of their current situation.
Syro Malankara Knanayas (from what I know) have chosen to stay within the larger Syro Malabar Knanaya group in the U.S. There are many Syro Malankara Knanayas that are members of my church St.Mary’s Knanaya (Syro Malabar) Church, Houston. I’m not sure if they have the ability to erect their own Syro Malankara Knanaya parishes in the U.S because even in India they are under (Syro Malabar) Knanaya Kottayam Archdiocese with their own Vicar General. Since there is no Knanaya Diocese here I do not think they can attain their own parishes, unless they are put under the (Syro Malabar) Knanaya Catholic Region under Vicar General Fr. Abraham Mutholam.