This statement inclines me to think that ethnic pride is at work in this conflict.
syromalabarfaithfuls.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-is-marthoma-cross.html
In all 22 Catholic Churches the bishop has the right to decide what goes up or is taken down in a church. It is not the right of the faithful or even the pastor. The problem here is that the crucifix is not very common in most of the Catholic Church. Less than half of the Catholic Church actually uses a crucifix. It’s more common in the Greek, Russian and Latin Churches. Not so in the other Catholic Churches.
My problem would be that a cross without the body of Christ smacks to me of walking into a Protestant Church. I thought that each Catholic church must have a Traditional Crucifix present in the area of the altar at all Masses??? I feel very uncomfortable going to Mass at a Catholic Church which has only a “cross” present.In all 22 Catholic Churches the bishop has the right to decide what goes up or is taken down in a church. It is not the right of the faithful or even the pastor. The problem here is that the crucifix is not very common in most of the Catholic Church. Less than half of the Catholic Church actually uses a crucifix. It’s more common in the Greek, Russian and Latin Churches. Not so in the other Catholic Churches.
Whether it’s ethnic or not. The truth is that this Church does use the Mar Thoma cross. It seems as though this particular group of parishioners are of a different ethnic group and have adopted the crucifix. But they cannot adopt the crucifix, simply because it’s part of their ethnic culture, unless it’s approved by the bishop, any more than Roman Catholics can adopt an icon instead of a crucifix unless it’s approved by the bishop.
To suggest that people leave the parish and that they not donate is contrary to charity and to obedience. On a number of counts:
We have to be very careful with the advice that we give. It can violate Church law and it can do irreperable harm to the universal Church.
- Canon law grants the bishops the right to freeze the assets of any parish or institution in his diocese. The bishop has not violated the law. If the laity stops giving, because the bishop enforces the law, who is wrong?
- Canon law says that each Catholic Church is autonomous, even though all 22 are in full communion with the Vicar of Christ and governed by him, they are sui juris, meaning that they have a right to have their own laws. How can we denounce a bishop who says that a crucifix in a church is against the law, when it actually is against the law for that Church? Are we now going to rewrite the laws for all the Catholic Churches?
- To suggest that these people leave this parish is to suggest that they leave their Church. Is there another Syro Malabar parish in the area? If there isn’t, their only option would be to go to a Roman Catholic Church; but that’s not their Church. The Church does not want people switching from one Church to another, because we must do everything we can to preserve the Oriental Churches, since their numbers are so small. To encourage them to leave is to work against their continued existence. Their existence is essential to the universal Church. We would no longer be the Catholic Church without them. We would be the Roman Catholic Church, a remnant of the whole Church, which is much bigger than Roman Catholic.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Yep, different cultures can make a person feel a bit lost. Here’s a video of a Malankara Syrian Catholic wedding. Unfortunately, the audio has been replaced with a music sound track, but even with it I think I would have still felt at sea. You can see a cross, without a corpus, at the 5:15 mark.
Canon law allows him to freeze the assets of any parish, because theologically a bishop is the Church and the pastor is an extension of the bishop. By right all properties that belong to a diocese belong to the bishop. This is in both civil and canon law.
well many things about another Rite or another culture would seem strange to you and me, but since sources tell us this is the accepted tradition in their rite, who are we to butt in?
Most Catholic Churches do not have a corpus on the cross. As I said, it’s more common among the Russians, Romans and Greeks than it is in the other Catholic Churches. We had this custom long before Protestantism.
Hello Br. JR,Canon law allows him to freeze the assets of any parish, because theologically a bishop is the Church and the pastor is an extension of the bishop. By right all properties that belong to a diocese belong to the bishop. This is in both civil and canon law.
All that a bishop has to do is to overrule the canon, which he can do for just cause. So that when a bishop closes a parish he does not owe money to the parish. He keeps the assets of that parish, if there are any or in the case of a merger, the assets and debts are transferred to the parish the absorbs the closed parish. This law is what allows bishops to sell parish properties without the permission of the parish administrator.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I have to recant part of this statement. I asked a friend who is a Canon Lawyer and he said that there is glitch in the law. The parish is a juridical person. However, all diocesan properties belong to the diocese and the bishop is the sole proprietor. What we’re not sure is whether this includes money. This is the glitch. When a bishop closes or merges a parish, the has the authority to do with the property and all of the assets as he wishes. He can pass them on to the receiving parish, if there is a merger or if there is no merger, everything becomes the property of the diocese, for which the bishop is the only legal representative. The question about finances is an interesting one.Canon law allows him to freeze the assets of any parish, because theologically a bishop is the Church and the pastor is an extension of the bishop. By right all properties that belong to a diocese belong to the bishop. This is in both civil and canon law.
All that a bishop has to do is to overrule the canon, which he can do for just cause. So that when a bishop closes a parish he does not owe money to the parish. He keeps the assets of that parish, if there are any or in the case of a merger, the assets and debts are transferred to the parish the absorbs the closed parish. This law is what allows bishops to sell parish properties without the permission of the parish administrator.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Hi Jr. In my limited experience (no I am not being sarcastic), but only saying what I have experienced. Every Catholic Church I have attended has a Crucifix with the corpus in the vicinity of the altar, particularly during Mass. This has been so since I was knee high to a grasshopper.Most Catholic Churches do not have a corpus on the cross. As I said, it’s more common among the Russians, Romans and Greeks than it is in the other Catholic Churches. We had this custom long before Protestantism.
Even in the Roman Church there were religious orders that were not allowed to have crucifixes in their chapels. Franciscans were one of them. The crucifix was introduced after Vatican II. We had a plain wooden cross or the San Damiano icon.
Fraternally,
Br. Jay OSF
Tradition. 
I understand the Church under discussion is of a different rite???With all due respect Brother but you better check your sources. The crucifix was in the Church a lot longer than just Vatican II. In the Catholic encyclopaedia it states the following:Most Catholic Churches do not have a corpus on the cross. As I said, it’s more common among the Russians, Romans and Greeks than it is in the other Catholic Churches. We had this custom long before Protestantism.
Even in the Roman Church there were religious orders that were not allowed to have crucifixes in their chapels. Franciscans were one of them. The crucifix was introduced after Vatican II. We had a plain wooden cross or the San Damiano icon.
Fraternally,
Br. Jay OSF
It scares me that religious orders were not allowed to have crucifixes in their chapels as that is one of the central aspects of our faith and to some would constitute as a betrayal of the Faith.
Furthermore, how can a crucifix be against the Church Law when the GIRM specifically commands it and for a Bishop who has nothing better to do than ban a crucifix in a parish is most wrong.
Dude, they aren’t Roman Catholic. They are an Eastern Catholic Church. The GIRM is called the General Instruction of the Roman Missal for a reason, because it applies to Roman Catholics, not Eastern Catholics.
erm…Canadianguy, I think Br. JR was referring to his order, not to the Roman Catholic Church.
I should have made myself clearer by starting out saying that there are 22 Catholic Churches. You and I belong to one of the 22., the Roman Catholic Church. Aside from the Roma Catholic Church, the Russians and the Greeks also use the corpus on the cross.Hi Jr. In my limited experience (no I am not being sarcastic), but only saying what I have experienced. Every Catholic Church I have attended has a Crucifix with the corpus in the vicinity of the altar, particularly during Mass. This has been so since I was knee high to a grasshopper.
The crucifix has been around the Roman Church for a very long time, not in the universal Catholic Church. There are some Catholic Churches that have never used it. We’re talking about the 22 Churches that make up the Universal Catholic Church of which the Roman Catholic Church is 1 out of 22.
Several religious orders were not allowed to have a crucifix in their chapels or to wear one. The Carhusians, Franciscans, Trappists, Basilians and some provinces of Carmelites. The founders tuaght that the empty cross is an invitation to the religoius to embrace the cross and take his turn on the cross as Christ did.
Don’t forget that they are a different Church. They are not Roman Catholics. They are truly Catholics, but their laws are somewhat different. All bishops have the authority to impose the laws of the thier Church. A Roman bishop can impose the Roman law. A Syriac bishop can impose the syriac law, a Melchite bishop can impose the Melchite law and if any of these laws says “no crucifix” the bishop has the right to impose it. He has the right to penalize those who do not follow his orders. In many of the other Catholic Churches statues are frowned upon. They use icons and plain crosses or very ornate crosses without a corpus. Some have crosses with several bars, but no Jesus on them. I believe that the Russians and the Greeks do have a Jesus on their cross.
The GIRM was not written for the Universal Church. It was only written for Roman Catholic secular priests and for parish priests in the Roman Catholic Church. It is has no legal authority in any of the other Catholic Churches. They are not bound to it. Look at the inatitials very closely
Br. JR,In all 22 Catholic Churches the bishop has the right to decide what goes up or is taken down in a church. It is not the right of the faithful or even the pastor. The problem here is that the crucifix is not very common in most of the Catholic Church. Less than half of the Catholic Church actually uses a crucifix. It’s more common in the Greek, Russian and Latin Churches. Not so in the other Catholic Churches.
Whether it’s ethnic or not. The truth is that this Church does use the Mar Thoma cross. It seems as though this particular group of parishioners are of a different ethnic group and have adopted the crucifix. But they cannot adopt the crucifix, simply because it’s part of their ethnic culture, unless it’s approved by the bishop, any more than Roman Catholics can adopt an icon instead of a crucifix unless it’s approved by the bishop.
To suggest that people leave the parish and that they not donate is contrary to charity and to obedience. On a number of counts:
We have to be very careful with the advice that we give. It can violate Church law and it can do irreperable harm to the universal Church.
- Canon law grants the bishops the right to freeze the assets of any parish or institution in his diocese. The bishop has not violated the law. If the laity stops giving, because the bishop enforces the law, who is wrong?
- Canon law says that each Catholic Church is autonomous, even though all 22 are in full communion with the Vicar of Christ and governed by him, they are sui juris, meaning that they have a right to have their own laws. How can we denounce a bishop who says that a crucifix in a church is against the law, when it actually is against the law for that Church? Are we now going to rewrite the laws for all the Catholic Churches?
- To suggest that these people leave this parish is to suggest that they leave their Church. Is there another Syro Malabar parish in the area? If there isn’t, their only option would be to go to a Roman Catholic Church; but that’s not their Church. The Church does not want people switching from one Church to another, because we must do everything we can to preserve the Oriental Churches, since their numbers are so small. To encourage them to leave is to work against their continued existence. Their existence is essential to the universal Church. We would no longer be the Catholic Church without them. We would be the Roman Catholic Church, a remnant of the whole Church, which is much bigger than Roman Catholic.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF