Resolving the Syro-Malabar Crisis - An Appeal to the Holy Father

To The Beloved Holy Father of the Church on Earth, from a few clerical members of the Carmelites of Mary Immaculate (CMI)

cc: Major Archbishop Raphael Thattil, Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli - Apostolic Nuncio to India

Beloved Father, greetings and peace from the Church in India!

We would like to bring once again to your attention that we are deeply concerned for the Church to remain core to the message and person of Christ.  Though these matters have been brought to your attention from various sections, however, we are prompted to reiterate them and our concerns. 

As it has been communicated to us, you have pointed out that issues of liturgy have to be sorted out amicably at the level of the sui juris church itself.  The changes introduced in the Liturgy in the past few decades are indicative that this can be done and that there is no such absolute untouchability to the text or the rubrics, than what is beneficial to the celebrating faith community as decided by the synod (in a synodal spirit; not necessarily by mere majority). 

We are all for the unity of the Church, and those of us who had been in the practice of celebrating the Eucharistic Liturgy ad populum for the past many decades, have not felt any lack of unity, when we had to celebrate the Eucharist in the Chaldean way when the celebrating context was such.  We have never felt that such uniformity is required to maintain Christian unity.  If that were the case, we would not feel unity with the Holy Father or the very many neighbouring church communities who celebrate the mass in the Latin rite. 

We feel that the test of accepting a form of the ritual should also take into consideration how that communicates with the community of the faithful concerned. The Latin rite liturgical form adapted for children gives us the confidence that in the Church, such flexibilities are possible.  In this case, some matters appearing very trivial and highly ritualistic are raised as matters affecting unity, howsoever rich in symbolism they are purported to be - a) turning towards the altar and away from the people; b) having a separate table (Bema) for the liturgy of the word!

When the Holy Father sets a Christian example in trying to reach out to people considered to be in 'sin' - e.g.,  those in same-sex marriage or partnerships, those who are not married as per church regulations - to threaten almost 600000 people including their validly ordained priests with the medievalist and unchristlike excommunication threat, for the simple reason of not following the synodal decision of celebrating the Eucharist ad orientam, appears appallingly against the Spirit of Christ. 

There has been a clever manipulation bordering sentimentality of two principles of Catholic Christian life - (i) communion with the Church and (ii) obedience (including, obedience to the Holy Father). We feel the apparent intolerance to differences/diversity and blind adherence to ritual vestiges of an archaic tradition is a graver danger than the insistence on a tradition that has taken root in this region over the past six decades or more - with the majority of the present-day priests and the faithful having been born into it, and trained in it, and accustomed to it.  

Our humble requests to the Holy Father are: 

1. Permit the variant of the Eucharistic Liturgy as practised in the Ernakulam region as a valid Eucharistic celebration, till further consensus is reached on the issue. 

2. Instruct the synod and the episcopal leadership to avoid unchristian threatening language in eliciting compliance from the believing community. 

Looking forward to your paternal intervention, 

Your sons in Our Lord, 

1. 

2. 

Resolving the Syro-Malabar Ritualistic Rift

On one of my rare evening meditations, on the feast St Anthony of Padua, the great preacher and critique of clergy of his times, the gospel presented to me was the death of Jesus.  Mtt 26:47 ff. where I read, 'then Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, gave up his life (50). And behold, the veil of the temple was torn into two parts, from top to bottom...'(51). 

Isn't this gospel narration of the tearing away of the curtain of the temple signifying the demarcation between the holy of holies from the rest of the temple a pointer to the new phase in God-human, God-world relationship where such separation was not warranted; where God was no longer the punishing unapproachable God who wouldn't let anyone come near him, whose special presence was to be separated by a veil, lest those who approached it - human or animal - would be burnt to death, but rather, a God who dwells amidst people, with God's reign being established here (Lk 17:21)? 

I feel one of the consistent agendas of Jesus was to liberate people from slavery to rituals, but we are here literally being enslaved by ritualism, and behaving in an unchristlike fashion to preserve them or to challenge them.  Psalms (74: 4-11) of today's vespers aptly fit my meditation on Syro-Malabar Church of Ernakulam: 

O God, why have you rejected us forever?
4 Your foes roared in the place where you met with us;

5 They behaved like men wielding axes
    to cut through a thicket of trees.  

6 They smashed all the carved paneling
    with their axes and hatchets.
7 They burned your sanctuary to the ground;
    they defiled the dwelling place of your Name.
 8 They said in their hearts, “We will crush them completely!”
    They burned every place where God was worshipped in the land.    

9 no prophets are left,
    and none of us knows how long this will be.

10 How long will the enemy mock you, God?
    Will the foe revile your name forever?    

11 Why do you hold back your hand, your right hand?    Take it from the folds of your garment and destroy them.  They set up their standards as signs. We are given no signs from God...

Christ must be laughing at the incorrigible human nature which always wants a  'golden calf' to satisfy its aspirations, which in the Catholic Church, especially in the Syro Malabar church, has taken the mould of the elaborate ritual symbolic of the thanksgiving and self-effacing meal Jesus celebrated.  We have succeeded in making it a magical formula with grand narratives being written on the real presence,  and the magnificent and bombastic theories like 'transubstantiation'. 

I hope he repeats his act of cleansing the temple at least once more - whipping these bigoted leaders who perpetuate ritualism and fight over it totally against the spirit of Christ. 'Woe to you for making them twice the sons (or daughters - on this account also there is an effort to maintain gender justice) of hell that you yourselves are for the sake of your traditions?' (Matt 23:15).  (This doesn't imply any hatred towards these leaders - but just a figurative way of presenting a hope of being led in the Christ way, genuinely fearing that the present mode is away from it). 

• Why is this unchristian adherence to the details of the rituals? 
• While rite itself is built on the thesis of diversity, why is another addition to diversity not tolerated? 
• Is the (so-called) apostolic heritage the only valid basis for a valid liturgy? 
• Is it the purpose of the liturgy to lead people to God, and if that is not served, can't new modes be envisaged? 
• Is uniformity in celebration of the Eucharist to be the most distinguishing feature of a Christian community? What about Christ's compassion, forgiveness, inclusiveness, and self-suffering?  If the liturgical outcomes are not on these lines, aren't we treading a faultline? 
• Does a threat of excommunication for not adhering to a norm passed by the majority befit the Church of Christ? 

While the present understanding of God's revelation guides the Church to seek to understand God's presence and revelation through other cultures in dialogue, here, for the sake of establishing uniformity in the ritualistic celebration of the Lord's supper where the authority figure shows himself as the servant and washes the feet, our Church leadership wields the threat of excommunication to those who refuse to adhere to the ritualistic details. 

While till late it was the conventional catholic sentiment of obedience to the Holy Father which was utilised as the tool for bringing in compliance, now that the Holy Father himself has declared that such matters are to be decided at the local church level; and it has been amply proven that there is no such 'untouchability' in the details of the rituals by the drastic editing which took place in the last phase, isn't it the right time to allow flexibilities while mandating that the official version remains what is passed by the Synod? 

It is the scripture which insisted that 'obedience is greater than sacrifice' (I Sam 15:22 ) and it was the Master's example to sacrifice one's self in obedience to God's will (Lk 22:42).  This is indeed laudable and all Christians can arrive at an easy solution by obeying what is decided by the majority of the Synod. 

However, the question still remains about its 'christianness' and the very idea that rituals are the core of our Christian existence and adherence to the rubrics a great Christian virtue, appears totally in contradiction with the spirit of Christ's liberating gospel. 

His insistence that God is to be worshipped in spirit and truth and not necessarily on this mountain or that (Gerizim or Jerusalem - Jn 4:20-24) is amply indicative of his liberal stand towards issues.  This may be juxtaposed with his statement on the faithfulness in small things and that not even an iota of the law will be changed (Mtt 5:17).  But almost in the same breath, he cautions that our 'righteousness should surpass that of the Pharisees' (Mtt 5:20).  The big picture Christ tries to present appears hanging in favour of liberating humans from slavish adherence to ritualistic religion, where all such means should serve to build up the reign of God, not a reign of high handed superiority, suppression of dissenting voices, but a reign of justice, peace and joy in the holy spirit.  It is worth the while to examine if either of the parties, in their fanatical adherence to their version of this means, is contributing towards the larger and primary purpose. 

Can't the leadership facilitate a consensus formula? 

1. The officially recognized form of celebration of the Syro-Malabar mass will be the one approved by the Synod. 

2. Where there are strong sentiments against the new format, especially regarding the aspect of where the celebrant should face - the people or the altar - freedom be given to the local community to discuss and decide on the basis of a majority (preferably, consensus) decision to have regular masses in the parish ad populum or ad orientam

3. In any case, the mass considered to be the Sunday Mass be celebrated in the approved form of the Synod. 

4. It would be good that the Eucharistic celebration as part of Sunday Catechesis of the Young be also celebrated in this fashion. 

I hope by now the more involved and intelligent members of the Church might have put forward similar or better solutions before all concerned. I wish I were given an audience by the new Major Arch Bishop.  I would definitely make an effort this time, hoping to share these views as a concerned member and ordained minister of the Church.