Syro Malabar Bishop states, "Knanaya Diocese was a mistake by the Holy See"?

[angelic06]

I have not participated in this conversation up until now because, outside of topics regarding true unadulterated Catholic faith and morals and high quality worship befitting His Majesty the King, my philosophy of life in the Church is to “live and let live”. However, as a non-Knanayan, let me say this: I have not seen anything in this multiple page thread to convince me that Knanayan traditions (sans endogamy) cannot be handed down by non-Knanayans.

As an aside, I am one of the founding members of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic community, take two, here in San Antonio. These Catholics first came to the United States when Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants arrived in the mid-19th century. Now, am I Carpatho-Rusyn? No, I am the son of Filippinos, immigrants to the United States. I doubt I have a shred of Carpatho-Rusyn blood in me. Is that important? I respectfully submit that it is not. I came to the Byzantine community because I have an active interest in promoting their worship and other traditions, not because I am blood related to a Byzantine (canonically, my immediate family is entirely Latin).

This brings me back to this conversation on the Knanayans. Having skimmed through this thread, it appears to me that the reason why Knanayans want endogamy is to preserve their traditions. Fine. What are the traditions they want preserved? I have read but a few, but from reading this thread, it appears to be…endogamy. This sounds circular to me.

So, kindly do not be insulted for me inquiring, but I have to respectfully ask, what does endogamy have to do with the Catholic religion that the Knanayans should ask the Holy Church (through the use of dioceses, etc.) for help in preserving it? If they want to preserve it, they can use such devices as associations formed according to the norm of secular law to form their “red hat clubs”, as one poster put it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I have not participated in this conversation up until now because, outside of topics regarding true unadulterated Catholic faith and morals and high quality worship befitting His Majesty the King, my philosophy of life in the Church is to “live and let live”. However, as a non-Knanayan, let me say this: I have not seen anything in this multiple page thread to convince me that Knanayan traditions (sans endogamy) cannot be handed down by non-Knanayans.

As an aside, I am one of the founding members of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic community, take two, here in San Antonio. These Catholics first came to the United States when Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants arrived in the mid-19th century. Now, am I Carpatho-Rusyn? No, I am the son of Filippinos, immigrants to the United States. I doubt I have a shred of Carpatho-Rusyn blood in me. Is that important? I respectfully submit that it is not. I came to the Byzantine community because I have an active interest in promoting their worship and other traditions, not because I am blood related to a Byzantine (canonically, my immediate family is entirely Latin).

This brings me back to this conversation on the Knanayans. Having skimmed through this thread, it appears to me that the reason why Knanayans want endogamy is to preserve their traditions. Fine. What are the traditions they want preserved? I have read but a few, but from reading this thread, it appears to be…endogamy. This sounds circular to me.

So, kindly do not be insulted for me inquiring, but I have to respectfully ask, what does endogamy have to do with the Catholic religion that the Knanayans should ask the Holy Church (through the use of dioceses, etc.) for help in preserving it? If they want to preserve it, they can use such devices as associations formed according to the norm of secular law to form their “red hat clubs”, as one poster put it.

Very well articulated.

 

[Thomas48]

I can only display my ignorance in my questions.

Knaynaya Catholics are endogenous, correct?

Outside of conversions from a larger (similar) ethnic pool, how do the generations continue, especially in a different country than where the church originated?

We have quite large communities outside of India, in example in North America we have 15,000-20,000 Knanayas. Through our lay organizations as well as our churches the youth form strong friendships and relationships. Along with this, we have a national convention every two years which is basically a large social gathering.

This brings me back to this conversation on the Knanayans. Having skimmed through this thread, it appears to me that the reason why Knanayans want endogamy is to preserve their traditions. Fine. What are the traditions they want preserved? I have read but a few, but from reading this thread, it appears to be…endogamy. This sounds circular to me.

Here are lists of some of the social/religious customs that the community has preserved through endogamy. Also the community has maintained a strong tradition of folk songs, which contain a lot of Knanaya history/wedding procedures as well as stories from the Old testament. Note that these links only shed light on a few of the many customs that we have preserved.

(Traditions) kottayamad.org/knanaya-tradition/
(Folk Songs) kottayamad.org/traditional-knanaya-songs-2/
(Traditions) jeffinknanaya.blogspot.com/2011/02/various-customs-and-traditions-of.html

So, kindly do not be insulted for me inquiring, but I have to respectfully ask, what does endogamy have to do with the Catholic religion that the Knanayans should ask the Holy Church (through the use of dioceses, etc.) for help in preserving it? If they want to preserve it, they can use such devices as associations formed according to the norm of secular law to form their “red hat clubs”…

Like I posted earlier it is pure social context. In the age old existence of the community, the original reason why we practice endogamy is not known due to the unclear origins of the community. What is known however is that the Thomas Christians and the Knanaya, did not get along to any extent. Records dating back to the 1500’s state of regular clashes among the two groups and that they would not dare share their churches with each other.

This continued up to the time of the Syro Malabar Church receiving its first diocese’ from the Holy See. It is fact that back then the Syro Malabar Christians did not want Knanaya in their diocese/churches and vice versa. It is even known that when Mar Mathai Makil (First Knanaya Bishop) was assigned by the Latin Church to preside over a Syro Malabar Diocese, that the patrons of the diocese resented him and soon chased him out of town. During his exile, Mar Mathai Makil thought that his people who had owned distinct churches for over 1700 years different from the Syro Malabar Community, should deserve their own diocese to preserve their culture. With this thought and after long prayer, he boarded a ship and sailed to Rome. Mar Mathai Makil then pleaded with Pope Pius X and the Holy See to erect such a diocese for his people. The Holy See accepted and Kottayam Diocese was created in 1911 for only Knanaya Catholics. Our diocese grew and the Knanaya community flourished into what we have today. Till this day I do not understand why the Catholic Church allowed us to create such a diocese if today they have such problems with endogamy.

Since the earliest mentions of the communities existence it is known that it was not just an association/community/etc but was greatly tied to the Church. The Knanaya historically owned five and half distinct endogamous churches separate from the Thomas Christians. The community also had its owns priests among other ecclesial structures. So basically they functioned separate from the Thomas Christians, having the same religious rite but maintaining different community/social culture. For this reason it is impossible for us to only act as an association. The Knanaya have basically functioned as there own sui juris church within the Catholic Church for centuries, even though we are technically counted as only a “community”. When Rome erected Kottayam Diocese solely for Knanayas, this only pushed the idea of mixing church and Knanaya culture.

Whatever the origins of endogamy in the community is unknown, the most pushed theory is that the Knanaya were a group of Middle Eastern migrants who traveled with a Syrian Merchant by the name of Knai Thoma and established their own churches along side the Thomas Christians. Knanaya oral tradition greatly supports this theory. Other theories are that the Knanaya were a Hindu Community who joined the Thomas Christians. Another is that the Knanaya were a break a way group from the Jews of Kerala. Whatever the origin of the community, all that is known is that they always made sure to preserve their identity through endogamy. In the 1500’s the Portuguese called Knanayas, " The Children of Knai Thoma" and the other native Christians “Children of St. Thomas”. Even in Portuguese records they numerously state that the Knanaya were a closed community and did not allow others to enter their churches. They also noted that the Knanaya had very peculiar and pagan (In Portuguese eyes) customs and traditions.

What I am trying to summarize is the fact that we have always been allowed to mix our churches with our community practices. For some reason, even throughout Latin Rule over the Syro Malabar Church, we were never forced to end our custom of endogamy. Even in 1911 Rome erected a separate diocese just for Knanaya Catholics, once again mixing community and church. I do not understand why after so many centuries that the Holy See has an issue today.

 

[Thomas48]

I have not participated in this conversation up until now because, outside of topics regarding true unadulterated Catholic faith and morals and high quality worship befitting His Majesty the King, my philosophy of life in the Church is to “live and let live”. However, as a non-Knanayan, let me say this: I have not seen anything in this multiple page thread to convince me that Knanayan traditions (sans endogamy) cannot be handed down by non-Knanayans.

I apologize for the previous extensive reply, I can get quite passionate about this topic. All though I am not such a prideful Knanaya as others, I do like to share our history and traditions. I understand the question you ask and the answer is simply that the Knanaya Community was minuscule among the Thomas Christians. Throughout history the Thomas Christians owned hundreds of churches, the Knanaya owned five and half. Not to mention that the fact that there was a large Hindu and Muslim community as our neighbors. So you can only imagine how tiny the community was. To my understanding the reason why Non-Knanayas were historically not allowed to enter the community was simply the fear that with more and more Non-Knanayas, Knanaya culture would eventually disappear.

I have studied anthropology and from my understanding, the Knanaya communities fears would be true if it were not for endogamy. The culture and traditions of all the Non-Knanaya converts would have eventually over-run the tiny Knanaya Community and today there would undoubtedly be no distinct Knanaya Community in existence. For this reason once again, endogamy played a great role in the survival and preservation of this community as it has others.

 

[Jack007]

Thomas,
one of the traditions given in the link is margam kali. it was originally a knanaya tr form but is now done by st thomas christians who understood the art. why not do the same for other traditions too?

and now i truly understand why your community practices endogamy.

 

[Thomas48]

Thomas,
one of the traditions given in the link is margam kali. it was originally a knanaya tr form but is now done by st thomas christians who understood the art. why not do the same for other traditions too?

and now i truly understand why your community practices endogamy.

Margam Kali may be listed as a Knanaya tradition but Thomas Christians also claim this traditional dance as their own. It is unclear in which community this dance form originated. All that is known is that both communities performed the dance in antiquity.

 

[Jack007]

Margam Kali may be listed as a Knanaya tradition but Thomas Christians also claim this traditional dance as their own. It is unclear in which community this dance form originated. All that is known is that both communities performed the dance in antiquity.

but a knanaya named ittit thomman kathanar popularised it when it was suppressed by the woeful synod of diamper or udayamperur

 

[Thomas48]

but a knanaya named ittit thomman kathanar popularised it when it was suppressed by the woeful synod of diamper or udayamperur

Anjilimoottil Itty Thomman Kathanar was a very famous Knanaya Jacobite priest of the 1600’s. He along with Thoma Kathanar of Kuruvilangad who later become Mar Thoma I, were the main leaders of the Koonan Kurishu Satyam (Leaning Cross Oath) in 1653 against the Latin Catholic Portuguese oppressors. I did not know this fact about him, may I ask where you found this information?

 

[Jack007]

Anjilimoottil Itty Thomman Kathanar was a very famous Knanaya Jacobite priest of the 1600’s. He along with Thoma Kathanar of Kuruvilangad who later become Mar Thoma I, were the main leaders of the Koonan Kurishu Satyam (Leaning Cross Oath) in 1653 against the Latin Catholic Portuguese oppressors. I did not know this fact about him, may I ask where you found this information?

Wikipedia

 

[disney1957]

SyroMalankara, dear friend from my knowledge on the topic of Fr. Vellians case, Mar Matthew was compliant on the orders he received from Rome. The punishment Rome has given to Fr. Vellian was that he was not to perform public ministry under the archdiocese placement. Since the time of his charges (which was quite recent), Fr. Vellian has not been assigned a parish or position by the Archdiocese of Kottayam but only shows up for special events that he is privately called too, i.e weddings/funerals/etc.

In truth the accused priest Fr. Vellian does not perform public ministry (which was reported by Mar Matthew) but only does private ministry in which the priest is called to ceremonies by friends/family/other priests/etc. I am not in anyway supporting the accused priest but only stating that to my knowledge Mar Matthew has been compliant to the orders of Rome. I do not believe Mar Matthew is in anyway on the “low radar of Rome”, he regularly visits the Holy See and is largely an open figure. The abuse is said to have occurred in 1975, Fr. Vellian retired in 2009, and the victim opened up about her case in 2011 it seems. As of 2009, Fr. Vellian has lived in a Catholic retired priests home and only performs ministry when called personally (not assigned by the archdiocese), i.e called to con-celebrate a special Syriac Mass by Syriac scholar colleagues. From 1975-2010 the archdiocese had no knowledge of his actions in America (nor did anyone besides the victim) and gave him the same rights as all other priests. Only pro-2011 did the archdiocese place restrictions on him and since then the priest has lived a majorly quite life only attending very few private ministries.

Your information is NOT correct! The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith at the vatican said that he will should not be performing ANY public ministry. Also, the CDF at the vatican said back in 2010, that Msgr. Vellian was so old and in such poor health he was not able to perform public ministry anyway. When it was found a year ago or so that he had presided at a large Mass for over 2,000 people, the Bishop from the Diocese of Kalamazoo contacted both the CDF and Archbishop Moolakkatt and said, please, keep Msgr. Vellian from performing ANY PUBLIC ministry, not just that assigned to him by the diocese. He also has been active in making a video series on the history of the syriac language and church. The CDF at the Vatican and Arvchbishop Moolakkatt has NOT heard the last from the Bishop of the Kalamazoo Diocese. We have been tracking Msgr. Vellian’s activities via the internet and have proof of him disobeying the CORRECT guidelines from the CDF. Even if asked by his Syriac Scholar colleagues he is NOT to be performing public ministry. Both he and Archbishop Moolakkatt are being disobedient to the Vatican!

The reason I did not file an official complaint against Msgr. Vellian until 2010, was because I was still to ashamed of what happened, and was still getting up the courage to make the report. And, in fact one other priest here in Michigan knew of the abuse, and in 2002 I met with our Bishop then, who was Bishop Murray, and told him about it, but was not yet ready to file a report with the local police or officially with the church. So there were two others that new of the abuse but kept it quiet to protect my reputation and honor my confidentiality.

You may also find it interesting that at the time I made my report Msgr. Vellian was assigned to the Mission Syro-Malabar church in San Jose, CA. When the diocese there was contacted our Diocese Investigator was told Msgr. Vellian was in India on vacation! After officially filing my report, and his Bishop was contacted, we were told he decided to stay in India and retire. We believe he changed his mind from vacation to retirement for fear of coming back to the US. He has not been back in the US since. He knows once he is back on US soil, he would be subject to our laws and regulations about child abusers.

 

[Thomas48]

Your information is NOT correct! The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith at the vatican said that he will should not be performing ANY public ministry. Also, the CDF at the vatican said back in 2010, that Msgr. Vellian was so old and in such poor health he was not able to perform public ministry anyway. When it was found a year ago or so that he had presided at a large Mass for over 2,000 people, the Bishop from the Diocese of Kalamazoo contacted both the CDF and Archbishop Moolakkatt and said, please, keep Msgr. Vellian from performing ANY PUBLIC ministry, not just that assigned to him by the diocese. He also has been active in making a video series on the history of the syriac language and church. The CDF at the Vatican and Arvchbishop Moolakkatt has NOT heard the last from the Bishop of the Kalamazoo Diocese. We have been tracking Msgr. Vellian’s activities via the internet and have proof of him disobeying the CORRECT guidelines from the CDF. Even if asked by his Syriac Scholar colleagues he is NOT to be performing public ministry. Both he and Archbishop Moolakkatt are being disobedient to the Vatican!

The reason I did not file an official complaint against Msgr. Vellian until 2010, was because I was still to ashamed of what happened, and was still getting up the courage to make the report. And, in fact one other priest here in Michigan knew of the abuse, and in 2002 I met with our Bishop then, who was Bishop Murray, and told him about it, but was not yet ready to file a report with the local police or officially with the church. So there were two others that new of the abuse but kept it quiet to protect my reputation and honor my confidentiality.

You may also find it interesting that at the time I made my report Msgr. Vellian was assigned to the Mission Syro-Malabar church in San Jose, CA. When the diocese there was contacted our Diocese Investigator was told Msgr. Vellian was in India on vacation! After officially filing my report, and his Bishop was contacted, we were told he decided to stay in India and retire. We believe he changed his mind from vacation to retirement for fear of coming back to the US. He has not been back in the US since. He knows once he is back on US soil, he would be subject to our laws and regulations about child abusers.

My apologies, note I stated in the earlier post that this is only to my knowledge. I do not know too much about the case except for little rumors here and there. However I do have a question, what is defined as public ministry? Does the terminology mean the individual may not perform ministry of any sort or just not publicly? If you do not mind, please pm me with your response, I am truly interested. Also for the fact that the Fr. Vellian case is completely off-topic from this thread about the Knanaya Diocese, a pm would be more appropriate.