Technically under the wrong diocese?

[Thomas48]

As I was reading I stumbled across the interesting fact below that arose in a Knanaya Forum. Does this below statement not flat out state that wherever the Syro Malabar Church extends the Knanaya Metropolitan will have jurisdiction over his people? What I am getting to is that, doesn’t this decree mean that the Knanaya People in North America should be under Kottayam Archdiocese not the Chicago Syro Malabar Diocese?

"On 29 April 1955, Pope Pius XII extended the jurisdiction of the Syro- Malabar Church to a larger territory comprising the whole of Kerala State and beyond. Then the eparchy of Kottayam was given jurisdiction over all the Southists within the entire extended territory by decree number 1812/48 dated 29 April 1955, issued by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

 

[malphono]

Not exactly. Remember that the jurisdiction of the Syro-Malabar Church is limited to Kerala and certain parts of neighboring states. When the territory of Kottayam was first established, it was territorial, just like any other diocese. Now, when Kottayam’s jurisdiction was “extended” it meant extended beyond that original territorial jurisdiction. IOW, it became co-extensive with the Syro-Malabar Church in general within India.

Keep in mind that, as is the case with all the Oriental and Eastern Churches in union with Rome, a diocese for the Syro-Malabar Church in the diaspora can only be established by Rome, and while its Ordinary is a member of the Synod, the Synod has no jurisdiction in the diaspora beyond liturgical matters. Taken all together, it means that Kottayam has no jurisdiction in the diaspora whatsoever. Only specific action by Rome to the contrary can change that.

 

[Thomas48]

Not exactly. Remember that the jurisdiction of the Syro-Malabar Church is limited to Kerala and certain parts of neighboring states. When the territory of Kottayam was first established, it was territorial, just like any other diocese. Now, when Kottayam’s jurisdiction was “extended” it meant extended beyond that original territorial jurisdiction. IOW, it became co-extensive with the Syro-Malabar Church in general within India.

Keep in mind that, as is the case with all the Oriental and Eastern Churches in union with Rome, a diocese for the Syro-Malabar Church in the diaspora can only be established by Rome, and while its Ordinary is a member of the Synod, the Synod has no jurisdiction in the diaspora beyond liturgical matters. Taken all together, it means that Kottayam has no jurisdiction in the diaspora whatsoever. Only specific action by Rome to the contrary can change that.

Oh I see thank you for pointing that out I guess I spoke to soon but I did have a hunch that the full jurisdiction might be a factor of this. I’m curious though lets say that the Syro Malabar Church did have full jurisdiction and control of there Chicago Diocese would this prompt that the Kottayam Metropolitan now has right over his flock in the United States? Because from what I’ve understand the 1955 Decree does not only stop with the extension in 1955 but all to continue.

Also once again take into mind that Kottayam Diocese is the only Metropolitan Diocese that has full jurisdiction over the entire Syro Malabar territory, the other Metropolitan Diocese are limited to there proper regions. Is that not another reason to prompt a Knanaya Sui Juris? In all but proper writ it seems that the Knanaya Catholics have their own autonomous church. The current situation gives a look of a complete Church within a Church parallel.

 

[malphono]

Oh I see thank you for pointing that out I guess I spoke to soon but I did have a hunch that the full jurisdiction might be a factor of this. I’m curious though lets say that the Syro Malabar Church did have full jurisdiction and control of there Chicago Diocese would this prompt that the Kottayam Metropolitan now has right over his flock in the United States? Because from what I’ve understand the 1955 Decree does not only stop with the extension in 1955 but all to continue.

It’s strictly hypothetical, if course, but since Kottayam’s jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the Syro-Malabar Church in general, I would imagine so.

Also once again take into mind that Kottayam Diocese is the only Metropolitan Diocese that has full jurisdiction over the entire Syro Malabar territory, the other Metropolitan Diocese are limited to there proper regions. Is that not another reason to prompt a Knanaya Sui Juris? In all but proper writ it seems that the Knanaya Catholics have their own autonomous church. The current situation gives a look of a complete Church within a Church parallel.

As I’ve said in other threads, while I understand the rationale behind Kottayam, and while I have nothing against the Knanaya wanting to maintain their culture and customs, I cannot see a justification for a separate Church.

 

[Thomas48]

It’s strictly hypothetical, if course, but since Kottayam’s jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the Syro-Malabar Church in general, I would imagine so.

As I’ve said in other threads, while I understand the rationale behind Kottayam, and while I have nothing against the Knanaya wanting to maintain their culture and customs, I cannot see a justification for a separate Church.

Thats good to know but I’m curious to why Rome even has control over the diaspora diocese of the Eastern Churches. No disrespect meant here but is it maybe because the Latin Church isn’t ready to share that much territory? Still having those Pre- Vatican Council Ideals? Or is there a valid reason to this?

Honestly speaking if said problems in the North America had not arose I would never have even thought of the idea of an independant Knanaya Catholic Church. I think I can say that most Knanaya Catholics have this same mentallity but this idea of seperation only arose because of the gradual strife between the twenty Knanaya Churches and the St. Thomas Diocese. For example when Rome and the Syro Malabar Church say things like the Chicago Diocese can never see a Knanaya priest as bishop or even auxiliary bishop even though our diocese is for both Syro Malabar People and Knananites, that will make people frustrated and question the measure of equality in the diocese.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thats good to know but I’m curious to why Rome even has control over the diaspora diocese of the Eastern Churches. No disrespect meant here but is it maybe because the Latin Church isn’t ready to share that much territory? Still having those Pre- Vatican Council Ideals? Or is there a valid reason to this?

Honestly speaking if said problems in the North America had not arose I would never have even thought of the idea of an independant Knanaya Catholic Church. I think I can say that most Knanaya Catholics have this same mentallity but this idea of seperation only arose because of the gradual strife between the twenty Knanaya Churches and the St. Thomas Diocese. For example when Rome and the Syro Malabar Church say things like the Chicago Diocese can never see a Knanaya priest as bishop or even auxiliary bishop even though our diocese is for both Syro Malabar People and Knananites, that will make people frustrated and question the measure of equality in the diocese.

Thomas - in what way did “Rome and the Syro Malabar Church” supposedly say this? I’m sure what is meant is, that any bishop would be not “Knanaya” but effectively bishop for Syro Malabar, not only Knanaya.

 

[Thomas48]

Thomas - in what way did “Rome and the Syro Malabar Church” supposedly say this? I’m sure what is meant is, that any bishop would be not “Knanaya” but effectively bishop for Syro Malabar, not only Knanaya.

I wish that were the case SyroMalankara, Im not sure if you had followed my “should this be permitted” thread but at one point last year where there was a question of a Knanaya Auxulliary Bishop. It had gotten to a point where they had narrowed it down to two U.S Knanaya priests. It turns out though that Rome declined this request, their reasoning being that a Knanaya priest cannot reach hierachial status in the Chicago Diocese.

I remember I posted this point in my previous thread and Aramis had theorized that Rome gave this reply because the diocese is still young and having a Knanaya auxilliary/co adjutor would split the diocese in two. That seems some what reasonable to me but a Knanaya priest not being able to take the seat of Mar Angadiath at his possible retirement, that is without reason and shows inequality.

 

[SyroMalankara]

That would only make sense if Rome or the Syro-Malabar Synod refused a “co-adjucator”. An auxiliary has no jurisdiction. These involve details of inner workings that many bishops, most priests, let alone layman have knowledge. How can you possibly know what Rome or Syro-Malabar stated with detail? Just sounds like rumor. Like the Mar Ahatallah “drowning” of the 1600s.

 

[malphono]

That would only make sense if Rome or the Syro-Malabar Synod refused a “co-adjucator”. An auxiliary has no jurisdiction.

I’m confused about the reference to a co-adjutor, but it’s true that an auxiliary bishop has no episcopal jurisdiction in his own right. It often happens, though, that an auxiliary bishop is named Vicar General.

 

[Thomas48]

That would only make sense if Rome or the Syro-Malabar Synod refused a “co-adjucator”. An auxiliary has no jurisdiction. These involve details of inner workings that many bishops, most priests, let alone layman have knowledge. How can you possibly know what Rome or Syro-Malabar stated with detail? Just sounds like rumor. Like the Mar Ahatallah “drowning” of the 1600s.

When being in such a close-knit community one becomes very close with the priests and they often give you the inside scoop especially if that priest is the Knanaya Vicar General . Information spreads very quickly because our priests get invited to community parties and often share what they know, the hot topic is more than likely the situation of Knanaya Catholics in the U.S. And forgive me for my ignorance I’m not sure which one exactly but they had been deliberating either a co adjutor or an auxiliary.

 

[SyroMalankara]

When being in such a close-knit community one becomes very close with the priests and they often give you the inside scoop especially if that priest is the Knanaya Vicar General . Information spreads very quickly because our priests get invited to community parties and often share what they know, the hot topic is more than likely the situation of Knanaya Catholics in the U.S. And forgive me for my ignorance I’m not sure which one exactly but they had been deliberating either a co adjutor or an auxiliary.

Priests are fallen too. Sometimes an individual, as kind as he is, can feel slighted to not have been chosen and convey an unintended message. I know many of our people are into spinning conspiracy theories, from first hand experience.

 

[Thomas48]

Priests are fallen too. Sometimes an individual, as kind as he is, can feel slighted to not have been chosen and convey an unintended message. I know many of our people are into spinning conspiracy theories, from first hand experience.

I pray that is not the case at all, perhaps yes, laymen may spread rumors and or conspiracy theories but priests of any community we must trust to live their life according to the teachings of the bible and follow their vocation while upholding all commandments and values of the Church. One such high as a Vicar General I am sure would be fruitfully following these guidelines and doing his duty.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I pray that is not the case at all, perhaps yes, laymen may spread rumors and or conspiracy theories but priests of any community we must trust to live their life according to the teachings of the bible and follow their vocation while upholding all commandments and values of the Church. One such high as a Vicar General I am sure would be fruitfully following these guidelines and doing his duty.

I don’t deny that HE is, I wonder about those who hear bits and pieces through the grapevine though.

 

[daffyjoe]

hello thomas48,
Don’t know how you always comes with the racist question insulting yourself!!!
regards