Syro-Malabar Liturgy.

  • Thread starter Thread starter bpbasilphx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When did the Syro-Malabar split occur? What is its root cause? Going back to history one can pick up certain events: Syro-Malabar Bishops translated Roman Pontifical from Latin to Syriac and requested approval of Holy See for it. Pius XI on 1-12-1934 rejected it on the ground that it is a crime to promote Latinism among Orientals. Holy See wants to catholicize, not latinise; partial means are neither generous nor fruitful. So he decreed to make a liturgical commission for editing the Pontifical according to traditional usages. Text was ready in 1938, but not printed due to war; it was published in 1957 in Syriac. The Canonical Prayers of Priests published by CPF (Propaganda) in 1886, was reprinted on 6.1.1938; the Syro-Malabar Bishops did not want to use this Breviary of 3 volumes with all prayers for various seasons and feasts because it was too long! The Syro-Malabar Church’s spirituality based on liturgy is lost!

Trichur Bishop replies on 30.11.1938 to Cardinal Tisserant to the letter of 17.1.1938 from Oriental Congregation about the adoption of Chaldean Missal and Breviary by the Syro-Malabar clergy. The Syro-Malabar Rite is distinct from the Chaldean Rite and 3.5 centuries old. Historians and Roman Congregations recognized it as a distinct Rite. In fact in Trichur areas “Chaldean” means “Nestorian”, the pure Chaldean is looked upon as a strange and foreign Rite! The importance and necessity of maintaining at present the distinction between the schismatic and Catholic forms of Liturgy are not merely of missionary character. The legal position and security of several churches in the Trichur Diocese depend on the distinction between the pure Chaldean rite and the Syro-Malabar rite. (In this connection, we must bear in mind that the name “Chaldean” was given by Rome in 1553 to the Catholic Patriarch Sulaqa. Bishop Pazheparambil in 1912 speaks of Syro-Chaldaeo-Malabaric Mass, printed at Puthenpally).

Trichur Bishop insists on Syro-Malabar Rite because the Malabar Catholics are racially and ethnologically Indian; Syrian colonists may have come to Malabar, but they became extinct in course of time. That the Malabar Syrian Christians are real Syrians in blood, in traditions, or in culture is indignantly rejected by the whole community. In fact we are Syrians only in the sense in which the English and German Catholics are Latins. He suspects the influence of the Patriarch of Babylon in the proposal of adopting the Chaldean Pontifical, Missal and Breviary. May the Holy See be graciously pleased to reconsider the adoption of the Syriac translation of the Roman Pontifical with all necessary amendations and corrections. Syro-Malabar Bishops’ mentality static!

Letter of Syro-Malabar Bishops on 6.12.1938 to Cardinal Tisserant shows their disapproval of restoring Chaldean Missal and Breviary. If it be your mind that we should change our existing Missal and Breviary which have been in use for centuries, thus bringing about momentous changes in our Syro-Malabar rite, it would be a regretful surprise to us and to the flock entrusted to our care.

Syro-Malabar Bishops appointed in 1953 a liturgical committee to study if reform of Qurbana and divine office were needed. A sub-committee was formed for the reform of Qurbana, aimed to shorten, latinise and vernacularise. Fr Raes, SJ rejected the proposals of the sub-committee and requested Cardinal Tisserant to accept the suggestions of Placidachan.

Cardinal Tisserant, visiting Kerala in 1953, consulted the Syro-Malabar Bishops on restoring the Qurbana; then he appointed a liturgical commission in 1954 to restore Qurbana and informed Syro-Malabar Bishops about it and asked for their suggestions. They opposed the decision. The draft of Qurbana sent in 1955 to Syro-Malabar Bishops for comment was the Latin Text published by Bishop Pazheparambil in 1912 with minor changes. It had also the 2nd and 3rd Anaphoras in Latin version; ‘Ordo’ and Calendar. Archbishop Kandathil and other Bishops sent their observations to Rome. What was restored? East Syriac Liturgical Calendar, structure of 1st Anaphora, 2nd and 3rd Anaphoras, some Latin rubrics were modified. For Syro-Malabar Bishops reform means to shorten and to latinise! They want to say Mass and get good stipend: less time, more money! Pastoral need is Pastor’s need! Bishops never change! Bishops never obey! Bishops Rule!
 
Holy See appoints latinised priests as Bishops and they stand for further latinisation: Roman Curia wants their submission only, Holy See had recourse to unholy policy to divide and rule; it made Chenganacherry an ecclesiastical province in par with Ernakulam. Power politics starts; liturgy becomes a means of using power. So the modified draft of Qurbana was more welcome to Syro-Malabar Bishops. Plenary Session of the Oriental Congregation in 1957 approved the modified text; it was approved by Pius XII on 26.6.1957 and by John XXIII in 1959. It is known as the Restored Qurbana of 1962.

Syro-Malabar Bishops were reluctant to study and put into practice liturgical books: Pontifical for Ordination; Ordo (Rubrics) for Qurbana, the variant parts (Propria) for Sundays and Feast days, etc. The Syriac Qurbana of Malabar was printed in Aluva in 1960 with changes made in reform. More than 90% of prayers were the same. Yet reformed Qurbana is labeled antiquated and Nestorian! Ignorance? Contempt?

Oriental Congregation on 20.1.1962 issued an Instruction on Reformed Rite of Eucharistic Sacrifice to all Bishops of Malabar Church. Unfortunately, Syro-Malabar bishops ignored the wise directives for new Qurbana:
  1. Malayalam is permitted for the whole Divine Liturgy; but Anaphoras must be printed in both Syriac and Malayalam; celebrant can choose one or the other for celebration.
  2. Leavened bread is prescribed for Qurbana; but unleavened bread is permitted.
  3. In case the liturgical vestments of one’s own Rite are not available, those of other Catholic (Oriental) Rites can be used. In churches where the ‘proper’ vestments are not used, Bishop has to see to their use be restored.
  4. Divine Eucharist is to be given to the faithful under both species, even in both solemn and most solemn Qurbana.
  5. Use of sanctuary veil in Divine Liturgy be resumed in Raza; also in solemn Qurbana, if there is a custom.
Holy Prelates shall consult in their meetings about uniform celebration of Qurbana to be introduced in every church. Let them edit Lectionaries of O.T. readings, of Epistles and of Gospels.

Oriental Congregation made some suggestions for introducing new Qurbana:
  1. Let those who were ordained before, say the old Qurbana
  2. Start new Qurbana in seminaries, scholasticates and novitiates.
Instruct the faithful about the new Qurbana, Holy See’s desire to reform all oriental rites to their glory; roman Rite also will be reformed, as in the case of Holy Week.

Syro-Malabar Bishops prepared half Malayalam and half Syriac Qurban-akramam ! New Qurbana on 3.7.1962. Novelty and prestige! Many priests tried! Mockery of Qurbana! Why? Syro-Malabar Bishops wanted to show: they were right and the Holy See wass wrong; because it wanted reform and vernacular for the Syrians, while the Latins had no reform! Inferiority revenge! Proprias were not yet translated; it would make Qurbana longer!

“Restoring the old vestments like “Paina” for Mass will not in any way help our people. We live intermingled with Latins and very often priests of our rite officiate in churches of Latin rite and viceversa. Want of uniformity in vestments will cause much inconvenience to the priests of both Rites. There is nothing to gain by restoring the antiquated vestments. On the contrary our churches will have to suffer considerable financial loss if the present vestments are to be discarded. Besides, in a hot country like India, such vestments will cause much inconvenience during the divine worship” (Archbishop Kandathil on 6.6.55 to Cardinal Tisserant, 6:7-11). Gothic vestments are comfortable!
 
Syro-Malabar Bishops were in a hurry to request the Oriental Congregation to shorten Qurbana (22.10.1962) and it was easily granted (3.12.1962) without sufficient time for experiment of new Qurbana. Naranath Branthan’s work! A long period of work to reform Qurbana for spiritual growth; after a short interval to practice it, it is manipulated and rejected! from 1934/53 to 1962: but aborted after 5 months by a decree. Mutilated Malayalam Qurbana of 15.8.1968 continued till July 1986! Final Judgement and Papal inauguration of Raza on 8.2.1986 was a bluff and mockery! It was the “definitive text” meant for all 3 forms but rejected by “majority” group of anti-Orientals! and by decree of 5.5.1988 !

General Instruction, n. 16: “Optional prayers are given in smaller letters. The asterisks indicate parts common to Raza and the solemn form of the Qurbana. Columns show the specific parts of Raza”. Syro-Malabar Bishops wanted the simple form of Qurbana for easy use. Lourduswamy, the then prefect of the Oriental Congregation, supporting the anti-Oriental lobby against Raza text made a split among Syro-Malabar Bishops in 1986 and encouraged petitions to Rome. Then he sent the definitive text and caused division! He was a known anti-Oriental. His parochialism divided even the Latin Church in Bangalore! and the Bangalore Cathedral was closed down on Christmas Day ! However, he was found fit for heading the Oriental Congregation by the Holy See of Rome!! It made split in Syro-Malabar Church. Oriental Congregation rejecting its own Final Judgement, “formulated a “via media” with the intent of putting together the spirit and the principles of liturgical reform on the one hand, and the pastoral need on the other” and issued Norms and Directives personally approved by the Pope on 30.4.1988. Further latinisation imposed! Yet, Raza “remains the basis of Syro-Malabar Eucharist Liturgy”!!

“Sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy….Hence in order to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that sweet and living love for sacred scripture to which the venerable tradition of Eastern and Western rites gives testimony” (SC No. 24). Hence, Latin Rite added a 2nd lesson on Sundays and feast days; added a longer reading as optional to the shorter one. But Syro-Malabar Bishops as blind leaders asked for cutting short both passages and readings: “When the prescribed passages are truly long, they can be reasonably shortened, so that at least 5 verses are read, and not much more than 10 verses (Request of Bishops granted on 3.12.1962). Directives of 5.5.1988, n. 54: “ Readings at Solemn and Simple Qurbana may be reduced to three or two, depending on the solemnity and occasion. The last reading is always the Gospel”. East Syriac spirituality is based on liturgy!
 
Experimental Text of Qurbana, approved on 3.4.1989 for simple and solemn forms, was to please anti-Oriental lobby: Oriental Congregation confirms the dispensations granted even from the Directive Norms of 5.5.1988 for pastoral reasons, “as and where a different custom is in vogue”, which evidently cannot be included in the Missal ! Why? What principles for reform? What motives for dispensations?

Liturgical scamp came up in the letter of Bishop Thoomkuzhy, Chairman of Seminary Commission, on 29.6.1989 to Rector of Vadavathoor Siminary: I ask you to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the Main Chapel of the Seminary, alternating between the two forms given below: 1) The Liturgy of the Word facing the congregation and the Liturgy of the Eucharist facing the altar 2) The entire liturgy facing the altar”. Where is honesty, the best policy? **There was no custom of facing the people, even during the entire liturgy of the Word (n. 64). Qurbana of 1968 only permitted: Liturgy of the Word may be celebrated facing people (No. 5). Trade Union mentality and pressure tactics of anti-Oriental group! They abused it by celebrating the entire Qurbana looking at the people, as the Latins did, as Parecattil practiced! **

**Liturgy of the Marthoma Nazrani Church must remain faithful to traditional Syro-Oriental Liturgy, mainly in the celebration of Eucharistic Sacrifice according to norms of SC n. 5-6 and 12. Cardinal Rubin on 30.8.1980: “Fidelity to tradition implies the renunciation of every purely individual initiative and, it goes without saying, the refusal of every liturgical text that has not been approved or authenticated, in either experimental or definitive fashion, by the Episcopal Conference and the Holy See”.
**

Now see the mentality of Bishops appointed by Rome. Mar John Vadakkel, Bishop of Bijnor, appointed by the Holy See has the following to say in an interview to a weekly magazine:

"…. We are trying our level best to cope with the traditional Hindu way of living. In our prayers also we use a lot of Hindu prayers and even in the Mass we have our own way of arathi and so on. It is very pleasing to the Hindus. When they come and attend our Mass, they appreciate many things in it, because they see many things in common with Hinduism in our prayers and so on.”

The Nazrani hopes the Holy See is listening!

Source- thenazrani.org/issue.htm
 
Apologize for the number of posts. Thanks to Google, these are some of the good coverage of the basic issues in liturgical problems in Syro Malabar Church i got. This is good read to those who wants to know how differences started in Syro Malabar Church on liturgy.

Most funny statement was from the Bishop appointed by Rome- Mar John Vadakkel, Bishop of Bijnor on liturgy. I don’t know how he can make such statements. Has he just got the name to sound as a Malabar Christian. Has he ever participated in liturgy in Malabar !!!
 
Bishop Mar Sebastian Vayalil in his autobiography, Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, 1987, refers to reform of liturgy (p. 460-75). Corrected Text of our Qurbana (1774-1962) was approved by the Plenary session of the Oriental Congregation on 27.5.1957, and by Pius XII, 27.6.1957. The Nazrani Bishops were united to issue a common pastoral letter with due study. There were some differences in gestures at old prayers and caused some confusions for old priests who dared to say Reformed Qurbana, against the directives given by the Holy See on 20.1.1962. It caused some opposition against it; it’s too long!

Central Liturgical Commission prepared a new Text in 1968 with substantial changes from the original, and unbecoming additions. It was given to the Holy See for approval. The Holy See approved it for experiment for three years. In spite of different opinions about it, the Bishops celebrated it (Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, page 470).

Later “short mass” and “Indian Mass” appeared without even the knowledge of the Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference and without the approval of the Holy See and came to usage in some dioceses and institutions.

It was against the spirit of SC-22, of Vatican II and of Syro-Malabar liturgy. Therefore, Mar Sebastian Vayalil of Pala opposed them (Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, page 471).

Cardinal Parecattil of Ernakulam favoured and fostered them in a cunning way: by avoiding discussion of liturgy in the Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference.

Bishop Mar Sebastian Vayalil demanded the liturgy to be discussed in Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference of 1974 August, 12 to 14th and insisted on it on 14th of August, 1974. Archbishop Mar Joseph Powathil of Changanacherry, Bishop Mar Abraham Mattam of Satna and Bishop Mar Perumattam of Ujjain supported it (Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, page 472). So they were isolated and stamped as a separatist group, not yielding to Cardinal Parecattil.

Subcommittees were formed under a Bishop to draft Texts: Mar Pallickaparampil of Pala for Qurbana; Mar Powathil for Namaskaram; Mar Valloppilly of Thalassery for Pontifical; Mar Kunnassery of Kottayam for Sacraments; Mar Mankuzhikary of Ernakulam for Calendar. The Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference decided that no liturgical Text shall be published for use, even in private, without discussion and approval of Central Liturgical Commission and SMBC, and permission from the Holy See.

However, in spite of this, Cardinal Parecattil continued to use them on the pretext that the decision is for future liturgical books. Fr Abel produced a lot of liturgical books with previous imprimatur of Cardinal Parecattil! This situation and mentality of Cardinal Parecattil destroyed mutual trust and love! (The so-called “imprimatur” is foreign to Nazranis. It is only a Latin practice alien to the Orientals).
 
A letter of Cardinal Philippe to Cardinal Parecattil dated 22.5.1979 points to the radical mistake in reform. The letter reads “…Your Eminence is well aware of the abuses and arbitrary usages which, under the specious pretext of Conciliar reform, have lacerated the union of hearts and impoverished Divine worship, to the grave detriment of the unity and sanctity of the Church”. It continues: “Under the circumstances, therefore, I would request Your Eminence to further, with united and concerted effort, the work of producing agreed and definitive texts of the Eucharistic Liturgy, the Divine Office and the Rituals, and to forward the texts so prepared to this Sacred Congregation”.

This observation was the basic issue or reason for the meeting of Syro-Malabar Bishops in Rome in 1980, as Cardinal Rubin inaugurating the meeting said on 26.8.1980 and urged to reactivate the groups of experts and the Commissions which will have to complete the preparation of the new texts on the spot. Cardinal Rubin’s concluding speech on 30.8.1980 contained the following points:

In discussing the manner of effecting the “revision, renewal, adaptation” of the Liturgy there emerged a diversity of opinions. The Syro-Malabar Hierarchy intends to maintain its identity as an Eastern-Rite Church in conformity with the Conciliar Decrees on the Eastern Churches, with its own distinctive Eastern liturgy, which goes upto the Apostolic times, without hybridisms, derived from other liturgies and without syncretisms from other religions. No one has contested the fact that the Church of the Thomas Christians is an Indian Church in every respect.

“I desire to recall the principle of ‘appropriate and organic development’…” In every living organism there must coexist a power of assimilating new elements and a power of conservation, i.e. of remaining oneself, of maintaining the identity. This fidelity must be pre-supposed; otherwise, one simply undergoes a dilution, and not vital assimilation. This ‘appropriate and organic development’, therefore, implies the avoidance of both immobilism and instability. “I believe that in reconciling these two exigencies lies the key to the solution of the problem of revision, renewal and adaptation of the liturgy”. Fidelity to the tradition implies the renunciation to every purely individual initiative and the refusal of every liturgical text that has not been approved or authenticated, in experimental or definitive fashion, by the Episcopal Conference and the Holy See of Rome. The dynamic character of the reform must be regulated according to principles enunciated in the Papal Documents, especially the “Evangelii nuntiandi” (n. 63), the “Catechesi tradendae”, the “Dominicae cenae”, and the “Inestimabile donum”. Because the basic principles of such documents apply also to the Oriental Liturgies. Central Liturgical Commission was to present the new text before Christmas, 1980. “In the meantime, in order not to repeat the error of 1962, it will be necessary to prepare the clergy and the laity by means of an appropriate catechesis, to enable them to receive the revised text with favour, with intelligence and with real profit and so eliminate without difficulty the use of the not approved texts”. Those Bishops who obeyed the Holy See followed this directive, and accepted the new Text of Raza Qurbana in 1986, as wise virgins welcomed the groom.
 
Now, let us evaluate the conflict: Report on the state of liturgical reform in the Syro-Malabar church, given by the Oriental Congregation to Syro-Malabar Bishops, contains fundamental doctrinal principles for an authentic liturgical reform and comments on the so called “Indian Mass” and the “Indianised Mass” of Dharmaram College which were declared unacceptable on 12.8.1980.

Pope John Paul II addressed the Syro-Malabar Bishops on 28.8.1980 and gave fundamental principles for the Syro-Malabar liturgical reform. But 15 Syro-Malabar Bishops protested against the Roman meeting of Syro-Malabar Bishops in their memorandum of 3.9.1980! Is there any desire for unity in the Syro-Malabar Church?

Cardinal Parecattil criticised the speech of Cardinal Rubin in his letter dated 2nd December, 1980 to the Oriental Congregation entitled: “Evaluation of the meeting in Rome”. Yet, the latinised, anti-orientals cry, Archbishop Powathil causes division!

Tug of war continues even today. SMBC in December 1980 gave 4 principles for the preparation of the draft Text, and appointed a sub-committee for preparing the Text of the Qurbana. Cardinal Parecattil writes to the Pope on 15.3.1981 that the “Chaldean” (?) liturgy is unacceptable! Draft Text of Qurbana was submitted to SMBC before 15.3.1981 for their opinion and suggestions, to be sent to Bishop Mar Kunnassery. It was also published in Sathyadeepam and Dukrana for comments of clergy and laity; 7,581 letters came in response. Sub-committee studied them.

Cardinal Rubin in his reply explains the long standing policy of Rome (26.5.1981). SMBC, after putting controversial points to vote, finalised the text on 2.6.1981. Malayalam and English versions of Qurbana were submitted to the Holy See on 3.10.1981 for approval. The Holy See set up a special liturgical committee in December 1981 to study the Qurbana text. It submitted the result to the Oriental Congregation in May, 1982. Other experts made further study of it. “Observations on the Order of the Holy Mass of the Syro-Malabar church, 1981” was issued on 1.3.1983.
 
Grouping of Bishops on “Observations” in 1983:

An Episcopal committee studied the document from Rome (July 1983) and Syro-Malabar Bishops decided to send their evaluation to Rome (13.8.1983). Those who welcomed the document sent “Observations on the Directives from the Holy See on the Qurbana Text” (16.8.1983). Others sent “A response to the Observations of S. Congregation for Oriental Churches”. As Bishop Mar Kundukulam suggested, SMBC (December 1983) asked CLC to prepare the Raza Qurbana Text. CLC appointed a sub-committee for Raza Qurbana (29.3.1984). It prepared a text and it was printed, but serious mistakes came; so it was rejected by CLC in September, 1984. Rumours spread: Fr Chavely and Fr Velliyan prepared text; Fr Aernat and Fr Kunianthodam printed it; Fr Silas cmi and others protested of deception (attimari). Original MS is missing or destroyed! One member said to his opponent: If I (you) were not a priest, I would have killed you (shot you dead)! See the liturgical spirit! Impasse in the reform of Liturgy! Deceived group decided: “There is no compromise on Liturgy”! Distrust and suspicion increased.

Raza Text of Episcopal Committee in 1985:

Yet draft text was printed again in November and on 3-4 December 1984. Syro-Malabar Bishops were asked to come to an agreement on Qurbana Text. Fr Thomas Mannoramparampil prepared a text in January 1985. On 6.2.1985 CLC rejected draft of November and asked the sub-committee to study the text of Fr. Thomas Mannoramparampil. A special Episcopal committee, appointed in March to prepare Qurbana Text, met in April in Ernakulam to find out the differences in making a text and in Kottayam to consult the sub-committee for Qurbana. CLC met on 24.5.1985 to give suggestions to the Episcopal committee on Qurbana Text. SMBC on 4.6.1985 approved 17 points as additional guidelines for preparing the Raza. Episcopal Committee approved the draft Text on 30.7.1985. So Raza Qurbana Text was not made by the Kottayam lobby!
 
Final judgement of S. Congregation for Oriental Churches concerning the Order of Syro-Malabar Qurbana appeared on 24.7.1985. Raza Text was examined by Episcopal committee in August on the basis of new directives from the Holy See.

In September, Raza Text was printed and sent to all Syro-Malabar Bishops for study and suggestions, to be sent before October, 30. Only the Bishops of Pala, Satna and Kothamangalam sent observations on it. Episcopal Committee met on 2.11.1985 and approved the draft text of Qurbana. SMBC forwarded it on 8.11.1985 to the Holy See for approval. Holy See approved the Qurbana Text on 19.12.1985, and the decree of approval was given on 21.12.1985 to Archbishops and Bishops officially.

Chairman of the SMBC’s Commission for Liturgy, Archbishop Mar Powathil, wrote on 16.1.1986 to all the Bishops on implementing the newly approved Text of Qurbana, after Pope John Paul II inaugurated it on 8.2.1986. SMBC on 4.6.1986 resolved to use the new Text in all its forms. Syro-Malabar Bishops could send suggestions on the printing of the simple form of Qurbana before 30.9.1986.

Cardinal Parecatil wanted “the modernization of our liturgy in tune with the rapid industrialization and urbanization that is affecting human society” and “the composition of new anaphoras and other portions of the Qurbana, suiting Indian culture and linguistic patterns”. So he innovated the custom of looking at the people at Qurbana, since he became Cardinal, against general directives No. 5 in 1968-Text, and published liturgical books in Malayalam for experiment or private use, against SC-22. Liturgy was never discussed in SMBC. Distrust and disunion in liturgical matters spread.

Might is right; any means can be used for gain. A culprit is found or projected: “A member of your “sanior pars” (vivaramulla metranmar) is mainly responsible for making a split in the ranks of the Syro-Malabar hierarchy” he writes to the Holy See; he may be Bishop Mar Abraham Mattam who published the Hindi-English Text of Qurbana, (1970), that restored the original structure, violated in 1968-Qurbana, with Holy See’s consent. It was a bold step that saved the liturgy of Syro-Malabar Church.

We have to sit first, before stretching our legs! Fr Raes insisted on first-restoration of Syriac Text of liturgical books; then revision, and adaptation. Cardinal was impatient and jumped into liturgical innovations with “pro manuscripto” liturgical books, prepared by Fr Abel & Co., as he liked or wished!
 
Recent developments:

Now there is liturgical chaos and division in the Syro-Malabar church, distrust and disunion among Syro-Malabar Bishops, accusing and calumniating leaflets among clergy and laity.

Vibhuti Monday restored when Mar Manathodath was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Ernakulam, reverted back to “Ash Wednesday” when Mar Varkey was appointed Major Archbishop! **Even today, there are priests in the Archdiocese of Ernakulam who wear the latin vestments! **

And generally most of them use the hymns and prayers of the old 1968 Qurbana! It is to foster the invalid 1968 Qurbana that they have now printed and published a highly mutilated Qurbana Text “for the use of laity”, incorporating the hymns of 1968 Qurbana!

At present this mutilated Text “for the use of laity” is available in all personal parishes and Qurbana centres in the Archdioceses of Delhi, Bangalore and other cities.

Other liturgical abuses in the present day Syro-Malabar Church include:

• Priests encouraging the choir to replace hymns in the Taksa with album/cinematic devotional songs in the name of variety
• Altering/omitting prayers at will by the celebrant
• Dividing prayers between the celebrant and the faithful which in actual are strictly to be recited by the former only
• Exchange of fruits, vegetables etc in the name of offertory and that too in the middle of the Qurbana
• Celebrant compelling faithful to kneel down during the Institution Narrative, and not during the appropriate time as given in the Taksa, and singing Yeshuve natha… at its completion
• Deploying girls as altar servers during Holy Qurbana in most of the missions, when in reality there is no dearth for boys. Surch practices are foreign to the Orientals in general and Nazranis in particular.

Ignorance of Syriac and intolerance of diversity and variety in opinions, practices, rites and theologies are the root causes of conflict and division in the Church and among the Nazranis, regarding Qurbana. For example, the “qanona” of Our Father was not distinct in 1962, and in small letters in 1968, but broken in 1986 and 1989! “Holy, holy, holy are you, our Father in heaven; for heaven and earth are full of the grandeur of your glory; angels and men cry out to you: holy, holy, holy are you”.
 
Ignorance of pastors is the main problem. Very few bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church really know their liturgy. Most of our Bishops cannot celebrate liturgy in Syriac because of their ignorance of the language and this is typical of its hierarchy and pastors. Even liturgical scholars are no exception to this. There is a tendency towards syncretism and paganisation in the name of adaptation and contextualisation. Christianity must avoid every form of syncretism, which would set Christian rites side by side with rites or customs that are too closely associated with the pagan religions.

Liturgical adaptation is to be a historical and natural evolution associated with evangelization. It cannot be a fabrication in a class room or academic circle. The liturgy of the Thomas Christians is an Indianized version of the East Syriac liturgy. It is not the liturgical texts and prayers that need radical change, but the life style of the people who celebrate liturgy. Sitting on the floor will not make us Indian men of prayer. Wearing saffron clothes will not make us Indian Christian monks. Practising Yoga will not make us Indian Christian mystics.

The interior life will naturally flow into external manifestations. But mere externalities, rubrical liberalism, will not make us internally spiritual, Christian and Indian. What is known as the danger of tribal compartmentalization has no place in liturgical adaptation. Often the unity of the faith is at a risk. Liturgy is not an adaptation of any culture, but a divine-human dialogue, between God and his people; God speaks to his people and Christ proclaims his gospel; people respond to God by song and prayer (SC 33). Salvation-history is the ultimate basis of liturgy. God’s Word, spoken and incarnate, is the centre of liturgy: a memorial, an anamnesis of the salvific events; biblical dimension is essential in sacramental-liturgical celebration.

“Let us retain the original as far as possible, and effect changes or additions in a manner fitting to our rite. New forms should organically and harmoniously follow with the existing ones” wrote Bishop Mar Vayalil on 26-8-70 to Card. Parecattil, Chairman of the Syro-Malabar Liturgical Committee.

He insisted that “the liturgical revision should not go against the source texts of our theological and spiritual heritage”.

SC 23 was often violated by the CLC under Card. Parecattil, eg. in propria of Qurbana in 1968, and Qudasakal (Sacraments), as Bishop Mar Vayalil admits: I don’t say that the way the liturgical revision has been accomplished is completely wrong” ! Oriental Congregation has at times pointed out the “innovations” that are not “Indianisations” but “latinisations” and superficial modern westernisations.

The protestant malady of Latin world (that destroyed the very concept of rite, symbol, mystery, sacrament) has crept into the latinised section of the Syro-Malabar Church. They think in terms of Latin West and still boast of Indian theological perspectives. The contradictions in the Syro-Malabar liturgical renewal are the consequences of a Church which has lost its identity.
 
Role of Deacons in Qurbana is different from that in Latin Mass: to read Gospel, to preach homily, to prepare, etc. Latins have no prayer for faithful after communion; so they sing any pious song; Syro-Latins too do so and omit the fine prayers of Qurbana! When Latins left out Maniple, Syro-Latins threw away Zande, due to their similarity! Stole is more important (convenient) for Latins than Chausible; Syro-Latins too do so! What symbolism? They ask! No liturgical catechesis!

Un-denied self or uncontrolled ego of selfish leaders is either projected or wounded by any partial, one-sided or narrow-minded, compromising decisions for unity in liturgical matters:
  1. Malayalam Qurbana on 20.5.1968, torpedoed in August.
  2. Raza-Qurbana on 29.3.1984, torpedoed in September
  3. Celebration of Raza on 8.2.1986: “dissenting note” of Parecattil, Liturgy Ente Drishtiyil….p. 220, 246f.
  4. Celebration of all three forms of Qurbana on 4.6.1986, torpedoed by Fr Silas cmi in July; Fr A. Narikulam and Bishop Thoomkuzhy, even by the Prefect of Oriental congregation, Cardinal Lourdswamy by decrees of 5.5.1988 and 3.4.1989.
  5. Bema in Vadavathoor, placed after Syro-Malabar Bishops Synod in 1996 and removed after Syro-Malabar Bishops Synod in June 1997.
And finally, the 50/50 formula of Major Archbishop Varkey Vithayathil torpedoed by himself without practicing it! The Major Archbishop himself could not implement it even in his private chapel! Where is Christian faith and its practice? What a pity?

The problems of Mar Thoma Nazranis began with the arrival of foreign colonialists. They are gone. But their by-products create trouble now. Today’s problems are the creation of past four hundred years. We may need another four centuries to reach the real solution.

The dreams of Mar Kariyattil and Mar Paremmakal will one day be realised. The prayers and sufferings of Kudakkachira Anthony Kathanar and Mar Thondanatt will not go unnoticed before God’s presence. Our forefathers struggled hard to preserve our identity. But, today, many try to destroy our faith, our identity, our Indianised Syriac Christian spirituality, our Church itself. Let us rise up as one man to resist this challenge.

Let us use every means at our disposal to prove the stupidity, ignorance, un-Indian and westernized aberrations of latinized and latinizing pseudo-Syro-Malabarians. Let us be worthy children of our forefathers. Our enemies have authority; but we have faith. They have money; but we have convictions. They are in high positions; but we are Mar Thoma Nazranis!
 
There is no limit to the harm done to our Church by the anti-Indian, anti-Nazrani propagandists. But truth alone will win at the end. We have a clear cut mission, nay a prophetic vision and mission. We have a good fight in our hands. It will be an on going one.

It will go on till our prophetic mission is accomplished. Let us keep our true faith with courage, conviction and prayer. Let us keep our identity with all possible means. Remember the long struggle of our forefathers. It took nearly four centuries to convince the Holy See. Then it was all too late. But better late than never. History is repeating itself in our case.** In centuries gone our anti-Oriental, latinizing agents were outside; they were foreigners. But today, they are inside; they are our “false-brethren” in the words of St Paul.**

But one day we will win them over. One has to be patient, alert and active. **One day the Mar Thoma Nazranis of India will all come together to walk along the path of Mar Kariyattil, Mar Paremmakal, Kudakkachira, Thondanatt, Nidhiri, Podipara and so on! **

Source- thenazrani.org/archives24.htm
 
Boby012- “Also some people from thrissur-cochin side told me that the travancore side is trying to use Syriac for the entire qurbana…is that true ?”

This is wrong. Don’t buy what ever you hear especially from Cochin- Thrishur areas. This is not because you cant trust people there. The people there might have heard some propaganda unleashed by the latin Syro Malabar priests.

The entire Syro Malabar Qurbana of Addai and Mari in Kerala and outside was only changed from Syriac language in to local language Malayalam only in 1962.

The Cochin- Thrishur side which makes some 20-25 % of Syro Malabar population has been ruled by Bishops who first supported the Indian Mass. This link has a picture of the Indian Mass. traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A216rcHinduMass.html

Mar Parekattil of the Ernakulam diocese was the problem maker in Syro Malabar Church. Rome ripped this off and then these Ernakulam became spokesmen of Latin qurbana. Since 1962- the liturgy was further latinised and new practices were introduced in these region. The present Thrishur Bishop is some one who has been trained in Syro Malabar background and he may change Thrishur to her genuine traditions. Its too early to make such statements.

Ernakulam diocese is a hopeless case. There are many Ernakulam priests who supports the above so called Indian Mass.Mar Parekattil of the Ernakulam diocese was the founder of this so called Indian Mass with sex postures and dances.

Syriac Qurbana is still celebrated in churches in Travancore on different occasions. This is because further latinisation from 1962 was very limited in Travancore. There were also Bishops in some of the Travancore diocese who were more genuie to the liturgical tradtions such as Mar Vayalil of Palai and Mar Powathil of Chanaganashery and Kanjirapally.
 
Acha, Thanks for the links. Its quite amazing hard work the priests of Syro Malabar eparchy of Chicago does for the faithful in USA. Hope that Syro Malabar Arizona Mission would be vigilant in maintaining the Oriental nature of our Church.
 
the only way thats left to us now is 4 someone to engineer a split between the pro syriac and pro latin group{ekm} its time we went back to our roots and stop this latinization.
 
i also wish to tell the syro malabar church is probably the only syriac church in kerala that is disregarding our rich heritage and tradition, i hope we go back to the days during the times of our ancestors or else yet another split looks eminent any syro malabar catholic who has read our history would want revert to our traditional rituals we are not slaves of the latins,i hope we use mediums like the internet to get every syro malabar catholic to know our history
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top