Thomas, if I visited a Knanaya parish, would I be denied Communion even though I am a faithful Catholic? I can understand membership being denied but, if we are in Communion with each other as Catholics, wouldn’t I be permitted to commune in a Knanaya parish during the Divine Liturgy?
- Status
T
Thomas48
Guest
No you would not be denied membership, you may take part in the Holy Qurbana every week if you chose to.
Keep us posted. 
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Thomas,
So if one chooses to attend, register, and partake of all the Sacraments and social gatherings except endogamy - what does the Knanaya parish do that the other Syro-Malabar parish cannot?
T
Thomas48
Guest
Well technically speaking you would not be able to register, because of community tradition but you may of course take part in the sacraments (excluding a few). About social gatherings, in all honesty I have never seen this happen but I’m sure if a Non-Knanaya kept returning to Knanaya based social gatherings the community members would find that peculiar. Of course he/she is welcome but why would a Non-Knanaya come on a daily basis to social gatherings of a community he or she is not apart of? Also its not like they would be able to take part in the communities religious customs/etc. In a sense it’s like Non-Knanayas have unlimited visitation rights to our parishes and events but of course they can never become actual members of the community.
The Syro Malabar and Knanaya parishes differ in the religious cultural background of the parishioners and priests. Of course we share many aspects of our culture but we differ in many as well. I think the main reason why us Knanayas and Syro Malabar Catholics have different parishes is because we have different community religious customs. If these were just social customs, I’m sure the Catholic Church would not allow Knananites their own parishes. But of course endogamy is huge factor as well and also pride. Knanayas have a great sense of pride and a need to protect their identity. Many times have I seen Knanayas marry across ritual churches to keep their Knanaya Identity. For example there are numerous cases where Knanaya Catholics marry Knanaya Jacobites (Our Syriac Orthodox Counterparts) in order to keep their identity as Knanayas.
An example of the high sense of Knanaya pride could be when the issues started with the St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese. When the Knanaya Catholics thought there religious customs weren’t being respected they flocked to the U.S Knanaya Jacobite bishop, Mor silvanos Ayub for assistance on the matter, even though they are members of an entirely different church. Knanaya Catholics have a closer relation to the Knanaya Jacobites than to the Syro Malabar Church itself.
Here is a picture from our 2012 national convention. Our Knanaya Jacobite bishops were invited but Mar Jacob Angadiath was not.
View attachment 16539 View attachment 16540
L
LilyM
Guest
Non-Knanaya would be denied membership - ie not registered as members of the parish - treated as guests, visitors, outsiders, not truly part of the parish no matter how often they attend or how much they may contribute.
A bit of background here. When I was growing up I was part of a Latin parish that was designated ‘Croatian’. In other words Masses and other activities were held in the Croatian language, we sang traditional Croatian songs and danced traditional Croatian dances, the parish was dedicated to Our Lady under the title of Queen of Croatians and we had a lot of social gatherings for the Croatian community.
Non-Croatians did attend all of the above. They wanted to learn a out our cukture and participate in our gatherings and events. Some, although not Croatian themselves, had spouses or other family members such as sons- or daughters-in-law who were Croatian and were interested and involved for that reason.
We welcomed them as full members of the parish. Some of them knew the language, songs, dances etc far better than I who was born to Croatian parents.
There was not the slightest diminution of the culture or the community in letting people who were not born into it participate fully as members of our parish. If anything it strengthened it. They were there because they wanted to be - very often I, who was born into it, didn’t want to, and so wasn’t there.
I can tell you from experience that it is upon such as them, the interested ones, who maybe were not born into the culture, not me, who was born into it but grew disinterested, that the continuing health and vitality of a parish and community depends.
T
Thomas48
Guest
Well this is embarrassing I cant believe I didn’t catch that. Excuse me, I am so sorry I was not paying attention to what I was posting. I meant to say Non-Knanayas would not be denied Sacraments/ Visitation Rights etc. But of course like I have posted, to be an official member you must be born of both Knanaya parents and also choose to marry a Knanaya spouse when you come of age.
In order to be considered Knanaya, one thing is being apart of the culture but another thing is following the family linage of Knai Thoma and the 72 families who sailed to the Malabar Coast in 345 A.D, that is why it is impossible to make someone Knanaya.
L
LilyM
Guest
Wow - so each and every member of the Knanaya community - regardless of religious affiliation - must have either a genealogy going all the way back uninterrupted to 345 AD or else DNA results (I think you mentioned a genetic marker somewhere on another thread) in order to demonstrate that they have the correct Knanaya descent? Otherwise you can’t possibly allow that they are Knanaya.
It is strongly doubtful that even the most pedigree-obsessed members of the nobility of Europe and the rest of the world could trace their lineage back that far. I don’t think any part of the world has been in peace long enough for uninterrupted records to be kept for that long.
And these 72 families have all been intermarrying for over 1600 years? Ecch, the genetic problems such a thing would cause!
T
Thomas48
Guest
Lily, it is just a level of faith. Most Jews think they are for a fact descended from one of the original twelve tribes of Israel. In that same sense Knanayas have faith that we are indeed the descendants of one of those 72 Early Christian Families. I don’t really have much more to say on that topic except maybe the strictness of the endogamous community is a factor towards this faith.
If you think the current Knanaya endogamy is strict than you are wrong. Before the creation of Kottayam diocese in 1912, the community was strict to an extreme level. For example if a Knanaya son/daughter had married out of the community the rest of his Knanaya family would no longer consider him or her kin. Also after the creation of the diocese is when these visitation right were created. From what I know Non-Knanayas weren’t even allowed to step in side Knanaya Parishes. But of course we can happily say that after the creation of Kottayam/Chingavanam Diocese this is no longer the case.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Thomas,
Does this have to do with “Christian faith” or cultural belief or whatever? What does this have to do with our Holy Church?
Does this have to do with “Christian faith” or cultural belief or whatever? What does this have to do with our Holy Church?
G
g13715
Guest
Here is the original Papal Bull from St. Pius the Xth in the creation of Kottayam Diocese in Kerala. Note that it was created, explicitly, for the Knanaya people (also known as the Southists). The Pope decided to create the separate diocese (Vicariate) to take care of their spiritual needs of the dissidents. I think, the demand, now, is to extend that authority to outside of India which should not be a problem in my opinion.
English:
For the future record of the matter. (note that, throughout this text, the Holy See uses the “royal We” to refer to itself)
In the duty of governing the Universal Christian flock (that has been) divinely entrusted to Us, We think it belongs to Us in particular to set for Churches boundaries which both are desirable to those presiding over them and answer to the good of the faithful. With this goal in mind, to better provide for the faith and piety of the Syro-Malabarican people, We have decreed to set up a new Apostolic Vicariate in their region. In this nation Our predecessor of fond memory Pope Leo XIII–by a letter similar to this one dated 28 July 1894–set up three Apostolic Vicariates (i.e. Trichur, Ernakulam, and Changanacheri), and for these three he considered and arranged for three officials, selected from among those Syro-Malabarican people–to be put in charge.
But now, because the three Apostolic Vicars of these Vicariates named above have assiduously sought from Us–by mutual consent and though a letter dated March 1st of this year–that a new Apostolic Vicariate be drawn up in the city commonly called Kottayam to better provide for the spiritual needs of those regions and counsel the minds of dissidents, We, having maturely and carefully looked over all (“omnibus” for the typo “ominibus”?) the important details with the venerable bretheren of our Holy Roman Church (VV. FFr. NN. S.R.E.) the Cardinals of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Christian Name according to the business of the Oriental Rite, have decided to graciously receive these sorts of requests and demonstrate the pledge of Our benevolence to the aforementioned nation.
Wherefore, by motu proprio (lit. “by his own impulse”, but really a legal phrase indicating a written command of the Pope), out of sure knowledge and in the fullness of our power, we separate all the Suddists (Southists) parishes and churches from the twofold Apostolic Vicariates of Ernakulam and Changanacheri and establish them in a new Apostolic Vicariate for the Suddists (Southists) people in the city commonly called “Kottayam”. Which, therefore, takes in all the Churches and Shrines reaching to the Deaconry of Kottayam and Kaduthuruthy in the Apostolic Vicariate of Changanacheri along with the Suddist (Southists) Churches of the Apostolic Vicariate of Ernakulam.
We want and command these things, decreeing (“decernentes” for the typo “decermentes”) this letter to forever be firm, valid, and legal, and will win and obtain its own full and integral effects, and will most fully favor in all things and in every way those to whom it concerns now and in the future, and should be judged so in the future, and considered null and void if it happens at a later date to be changed–knowingly or unknowingly–by anyone regardless of their authority. But nothing shall prevent the right of Our own Apostolic Chancery or of other Apostolic Constitutions in contradiction, from nullifying this decree.
Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, under the ring of the fisherman, 29-August-1911, the 9th year of our pontificate.
English:
For the future record of the matter. (note that, throughout this text, the Holy See uses the “royal We” to refer to itself)
In the duty of governing the Universal Christian flock (that has been) divinely entrusted to Us, We think it belongs to Us in particular to set for Churches boundaries which both are desirable to those presiding over them and answer to the good of the faithful. With this goal in mind, to better provide for the faith and piety of the Syro-Malabarican people, We have decreed to set up a new Apostolic Vicariate in their region. In this nation Our predecessor of fond memory Pope Leo XIII–by a letter similar to this one dated 28 July 1894–set up three Apostolic Vicariates (i.e. Trichur, Ernakulam, and Changanacheri), and for these three he considered and arranged for three officials, selected from among those Syro-Malabarican people–to be put in charge.
But now, because the three Apostolic Vicars of these Vicariates named above have assiduously sought from Us–by mutual consent and though a letter dated March 1st of this year–that a new Apostolic Vicariate be drawn up in the city commonly called Kottayam to better provide for the spiritual needs of those regions and counsel the minds of dissidents, We, having maturely and carefully looked over all (“omnibus” for the typo “ominibus”?) the important details with the venerable bretheren of our Holy Roman Church (VV. FFr. NN. S.R.E.) the Cardinals of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Christian Name according to the business of the Oriental Rite, have decided to graciously receive these sorts of requests and demonstrate the pledge of Our benevolence to the aforementioned nation.
Wherefore, by motu proprio (lit. “by his own impulse”, but really a legal phrase indicating a written command of the Pope), out of sure knowledge and in the fullness of our power, we separate all the Suddists (Southists) parishes and churches from the twofold Apostolic Vicariates of Ernakulam and Changanacheri and establish them in a new Apostolic Vicariate for the Suddists (Southists) people in the city commonly called “Kottayam”. Which, therefore, takes in all the Churches and Shrines reaching to the Deaconry of Kottayam and Kaduthuruthy in the Apostolic Vicariate of Changanacheri along with the Suddist (Southists) Churches of the Apostolic Vicariate of Ernakulam.
We want and command these things, decreeing (“decernentes” for the typo “decermentes”) this letter to forever be firm, valid, and legal, and will win and obtain its own full and integral effects, and will most fully favor in all things and in every way those to whom it concerns now and in the future, and should be judged so in the future, and considered null and void if it happens at a later date to be changed–knowingly or unknowingly–by anyone regardless of their authority. But nothing shall prevent the right of Our own Apostolic Chancery or of other Apostolic Constitutions in contradiction, from nullifying this decree.
Given at Rome at St. Peter’s, under the ring of the fisherman, 29-August-1911, the 9th year of our pontificate.
G
g13715
Guest
Just to add a few more thoughts:
The original Latin text is as follows:
Ad futuram rei memoriam. In Universi Christiani gregis regendi munere Nobis divinitus commisso Nostrum praesertim esse ducimus eos Ecclesiis fines terminare qui cum praesidum optatis, tum fidelium bono apprime respondeant. Hac mente ad ducti quo gentis Syro-Malabaricae fidei ac pietati melius consultum sit novum Vicariatum Apostolicum in illorum regione constituere decrevimus. In hac enim natione rec. me. Leo PP. XIII Dec. Noster suis hisce similibus litteris die duodetricesimo Julii anno MDCCCXCVI datis, tres Apostolicos Vicariatus id est Trichurensem, Ernakulamensem et Changanachernsem condidit, eisque tres antistites ex ipso Syro-Malabarico populo delectos praeficiendos censuit et curavit. Nunc vero cum tres Vicarii Apostolici eorumdem, quos supra memoravimus, Vicariatuum, initis inter se consiliis per epistolam diei primi Martii huius vertentis anni a Nobis enixe petierint, ut ad spirituali illarum regionum commoditati satius prospiciendum et ad dissidentium animos consiliandos novus Apostolicus Vicariatus in urbe vulgo “Kottayam” nuncupata erigeretur. Nos ominibus rei momentis cum VV. FFr. NN. S.R.E. Cardinalibus S. Congregationis Christiano nomini propagando pro negotiis ritus orientalis mature ac sedulo perspectis, huiusmodi preces benigne excipere, atque illi preafatae nationi benevolentiae Nostrae pignus exhibere statuimus. Quare motu proprio, ex certa scientia ac de potestatis Nostrae plenitudine a duplici Vicariatu Apostolico Ernakulamensi et Changanacherensi omnes paroecias et Ecclesias- Suddisicas dismembramus easque in novum Vicariatum Apostolicum in urbe vulgo “Kottayam” pro gente Suddistica constituimus. Quis idcirco complectatur omnes Ecclesias et Sacella pertinentia ad Deccanatum Kottayamensem et Kaduthuruthensem in Vicariatu Apostolico Chenganacherensi una cum Ecclesiis Suddisticis Apostolici Vicariatus Ernakulamensis. Haec volumus ac precipimus, decermentes praesentes litteras firmas, validas, efficaces semper existere et fore suosque plenarios et integros effectus sortiri et obtinere, illisque ad quos spectat et in posterum spectabit in omnibus et per omnia plenissime suffragari, sicque in praemissis esse iudicandum, atque irritum esse et inane si secus super his a quoquam quavis auctoritate scienter vel ignoranter contigerit attentari. Non obstantibus Nostrae Cancellariae Apostolicae regula de iure quaesito non tolenda aliisque Constitutionibus Apostolicis in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque. Datum Rmae apud S. Petrum sub anulo Piscatoris die XXIX Augusti MCMXI Pontificatus Nostri Anno Nono.
Note that the decree seems to indicate that only a future Pope or a prior documents can overrule this directive. May be I din’t understand the 2001 re-script clearly, but, It sounds like the Oriental Congregation with its appointee from India, indirectly, over ruled this in the 2001 decree.
Are there rules against extending the authority from India to here for the Southists? Anyone know? Also, may be the local Bishop can support the petition to the Holy See similar to before (3 bishops from the Thrissur, Ernakulam, Changanascheri) and get a similar decree based on the precedence?
The original Latin text is as follows:
Ad futuram rei memoriam. In Universi Christiani gregis regendi munere Nobis divinitus commisso Nostrum praesertim esse ducimus eos Ecclesiis fines terminare qui cum praesidum optatis, tum fidelium bono apprime respondeant. Hac mente ad ducti quo gentis Syro-Malabaricae fidei ac pietati melius consultum sit novum Vicariatum Apostolicum in illorum regione constituere decrevimus. In hac enim natione rec. me. Leo PP. XIII Dec. Noster suis hisce similibus litteris die duodetricesimo Julii anno MDCCCXCVI datis, tres Apostolicos Vicariatus id est Trichurensem, Ernakulamensem et Changanachernsem condidit, eisque tres antistites ex ipso Syro-Malabarico populo delectos praeficiendos censuit et curavit. Nunc vero cum tres Vicarii Apostolici eorumdem, quos supra memoravimus, Vicariatuum, initis inter se consiliis per epistolam diei primi Martii huius vertentis anni a Nobis enixe petierint, ut ad spirituali illarum regionum commoditati satius prospiciendum et ad dissidentium animos consiliandos novus Apostolicus Vicariatus in urbe vulgo “Kottayam” nuncupata erigeretur. Nos ominibus rei momentis cum VV. FFr. NN. S.R.E. Cardinalibus S. Congregationis Christiano nomini propagando pro negotiis ritus orientalis mature ac sedulo perspectis, huiusmodi preces benigne excipere, atque illi preafatae nationi benevolentiae Nostrae pignus exhibere statuimus. Quare motu proprio, ex certa scientia ac de potestatis Nostrae plenitudine a duplici Vicariatu Apostolico Ernakulamensi et Changanacherensi omnes paroecias et Ecclesias- Suddisicas dismembramus easque in novum Vicariatum Apostolicum in urbe vulgo “Kottayam” pro gente Suddistica constituimus. Quis idcirco complectatur omnes Ecclesias et Sacella pertinentia ad Deccanatum Kottayamensem et Kaduthuruthensem in Vicariatu Apostolico Chenganacherensi una cum Ecclesiis Suddisticis Apostolici Vicariatus Ernakulamensis. Haec volumus ac precipimus, decermentes praesentes litteras firmas, validas, efficaces semper existere et fore suosque plenarios et integros effectus sortiri et obtinere, illisque ad quos spectat et in posterum spectabit in omnibus et per omnia plenissime suffragari, sicque in praemissis esse iudicandum, atque irritum esse et inane si secus super his a quoquam quavis auctoritate scienter vel ignoranter contigerit attentari. Non obstantibus Nostrae Cancellariae Apostolicae regula de iure quaesito non tolenda aliisque Constitutionibus Apostolicis in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque. Datum Rmae apud S. Petrum sub anulo Piscatoris die XXIX Augusti MCMXI Pontificatus Nostri Anno Nono.
Note that the decree seems to indicate that only a future Pope or a prior documents can overrule this directive. May be I din’t understand the 2001 re-script clearly, but, It sounds like the Oriental Congregation with its appointee from India, indirectly, over ruled this in the 2001 decree.
Are there rules against extending the authority from India to here for the Southists? Anyone know? Also, may be the local Bishop can support the petition to the Holy See similar to before (3 bishops from the Thrissur, Ernakulam, Changanascheri) and get a similar decree based on the precedence?
T
The_Blunt_Brig
Guest
The Latin rite of the Catholic Church currently allows inter-religion marriages too. I think it causes people with weaker faith than their spouses to leave the Catholic Church.
:bible1:“This only take care of with all diligence, that you love the Lord your God. But if you will embrace the errors of these nations that dwell among you, and make marriages with them, and join friendships: Know ye for a certainty that the Lord your God will not destroy them before your face, but they will be a pit and a snare in your way, and a stumblingblock at your side, and stakes in your eyes, till he take you away and destroy you from off this excellent land, which he has given you.” -Joshua 23:1-13
:bible1:“This only take care of with all diligence, that you love the Lord your God. But if you will embrace the errors of these nations that dwell among you, and make marriages with them, and join friendships: Know ye for a certainty that the Lord your God will not destroy them before your face, but they will be a pit and a snare in your way, and a stumblingblock at your side, and stakes in your eyes, till he take you away and destroy you from off this excellent land, which he has given you.” -Joshua 23:1-13
L
LilyM
Guest
It might not be a problem, but it is also not a requirement. Neither is any of this something set in stone - obviously times change, priorities change, realities change and that affects whether it is worthwhile to establish or continue with certain communities.
T
Thomas48
Guest
The practice of endogamy is an ancient Catholic practice as well as a Jewish practice. Many communities practice it today but aren’t as strict as the Knanaya Community. Like I have stated earlier it is a community practice and it should not be altered by church hierarchy.
g13715, This point is what I argued earlier in the thread, the re-script is without papal consent but that of the Oriental Congregation, so how can it be valid?
Before the events of the protest march on March 3, our Knanaya Vicar General and KCCNA President left for India to meet with the Major Archbishop. The meeting composed of our Vicar General Fr. Abraham Mutholam, KCCNA President Shiens Akasala, Knanaya Bishops, the Major Archbishop and other priests. After conversing, the Major Archbishop asked KCCNA to formalize an official petition. He promised that he will submit this petition to Rome and try his best to get the re-script withdrawn.
Circular of the meeting-
docs.google.com/file/d/0ByZb47piG8MFT2xnY1NzZVZoVFE/edit?pli=1
G
g13715
Guest
Thomas48:
I think this is the right way to go after reading the Papal decree. It is clearly indicated in the decree that there was a mutual agreement between the 3 bishops to request a separate diocese. So, if the people you mentioned work together then they should be able to make it happen. To me, the extension of Kottayam to overseas is the best option.
I think this is the right way to go after reading the Papal decree. It is clearly indicated in the decree that there was a mutual agreement between the 3 bishops to request a separate diocese. So, if the people you mentioned work together then they should be able to make it happen. To me, the extension of Kottayam to overseas is the best option.
B
BrethrenBoy
Guest
I have two questions for you. I don’t want to seem judgemental, as I strongly support you desire to preserve your cultural traditions, but I am curious and would like your honest answers.
- I am Protistant. If I were to convert to Catholicism, I would need to learn a new set of tradition and join a new faith community. What is stopping me from learning and joining yours rather than the Latin Church’s, or one of the other Eastern Catholic Church’s?
- What is stopping a part Knanaya child from learning your traditions from their Knanaya parent and extended family?
L
LilyM
Guest
See this is where I’m getting confused. If you said something like ‘true Knanaya never ever associate with non-Knanaya - they do not socialise with them, they do not attend the same churches as them, nothing’, then I can see that, yes, allowing those who marry non-Knanaya to be members of your parish might be altering the customs.
But this is not the case. You do, apparently, worship and otherwise freely associate with non-Knanaya. You are free to only marry Knanaya if you so choose. How exactly does having non-Knanaya members of your parish interfere with your desire to practice endogamy any more than your allowing non-Knanaya to worship or socialise with you does?
That is what I don’t understand, and you haven’t offered any explanation as to how the one thing (having non-endogamous members of your parish) interferes with the other (your freedom to practice endogamy).
If I as a Croatian believed I should only ever marry other Croatians, having members of my parish who married non-Croatians doesn’t interfere with my right to believe that all as far as I can see.
]
G
g13715
Guest
Hi Thomas48:
I think, bringing endogamy into this discussion is a problem. If you were to strictly go by the original Papa bull and work with the bishops to either extend or create a similar Vicariate in US, will solve the issue.
If one justifies the creation of a new diocese just to protect the tradition with endogamy being a intricate part of it, causes problems because many people interpret endogamy as a bad tradition and thus the whole request is bad. This, then, turns it into a discussion on the validity of endogamy. You will never be able to convince others on that subject.
So, my recommendation is to stay with the decree only. If pushed, further, then the argument should be that you have a need to protect traditions that is 1700 years old and it is consistent with the 4th decree of 2nd Vatican Council. And leave it at that. No mention of endogamy, membership, etc.
From what I understand, your need to protect your tradition requires a diocese and church specifically for your people because that is how you have protected your tradition thus far. And this is because, traditionally, church is where everyone got together, socialized, and found suitable matches for marriage. Having the membership restricted, it guaranteed that only your people showed up to these churches and thus no mix up. Even today, it sounds like, church is what uniting your community and thus this is the ideal vehicle to protect the traditions. Another option that some may suggest is to continue the tradition within your family (in your social gatherings besides church) and do not get the church involved in it. But, this may be tough because yours is a church oriented community.
The question to others is:
Besides using the original Papal bull, what other way is there to protect a culture/community which is strongly linked to the church? Please leave the validity of endogamy aside. If the answer is that one cannot protect this culture then we are not addressing the concern brought out by Thomas48. I think, it is worth it to explore this beyond that.
I think, bringing endogamy into this discussion is a problem. If you were to strictly go by the original Papa bull and work with the bishops to either extend or create a similar Vicariate in US, will solve the issue.
If one justifies the creation of a new diocese just to protect the tradition with endogamy being a intricate part of it, causes problems because many people interpret endogamy as a bad tradition and thus the whole request is bad. This, then, turns it into a discussion on the validity of endogamy. You will never be able to convince others on that subject.
So, my recommendation is to stay with the decree only. If pushed, further, then the argument should be that you have a need to protect traditions that is 1700 years old and it is consistent with the 4th decree of 2nd Vatican Council. And leave it at that. No mention of endogamy, membership, etc.
From what I understand, your need to protect your tradition requires a diocese and church specifically for your people because that is how you have protected your tradition thus far. And this is because, traditionally, church is where everyone got together, socialized, and found suitable matches for marriage. Having the membership restricted, it guaranteed that only your people showed up to these churches and thus no mix up. Even today, it sounds like, church is what uniting your community and thus this is the ideal vehicle to protect the traditions. Another option that some may suggest is to continue the tradition within your family (in your social gatherings besides church) and do not get the church involved in it. But, this may be tough because yours is a church oriented community.
The question to others is:
Besides using the original Papal bull, what other way is there to protect a culture/community which is strongly linked to the church? Please leave the validity of endogamy aside. If the answer is that one cannot protect this culture then we are not addressing the concern brought out by Thomas48. I think, it is worth it to explore this beyond that.
L
LilyM
Guest
Putting the validity of endogamy aside, I don’t know that the church is so strongly linked to the culture (or at least this one particular aspect of it - I cannot really speak to other aspects) or that the church is necessarily the only or best way to preserve it. I think it is something separate from issues of church membership. I’m scratching my head a bit in terms of how to preserve it - restricting church membership does not seem, AFAIK, to be effectively inciting Knanaya to stop marrying outside their culture
- Status