RITES - CULTURE - POWER - POLITICS and CASTE

Syro Malabar Church - Identity Crisis or Identity Politics? 

A healthy culture, ... is open and welcoming by its very nature; indeed, “a culture without universal values is not truly a culture”. (FT 146)

Being proud of one's culture - is a much-stressed aspect of social life.  It is cultivated and traded for rights in today's identity politics.  Retaining or grabbing power is often its dynamics. To many, the cultural-tradition rhetoric of Syro Malabar - Indo-Chaldean - Thomas Christians of Keralam (and beyond), appears to be coloured and contaminated with power politics, legalism and parochialism. 

I feel it is desirable to know one's culture - I would say, one should know one's culture, or what is given or accepted as one's culture. But it is very composite a phenomenon, an experience, though not often perceived thus.  As rightly pointed out by Amartya Sen, and perhaps, by several others, we are the sum and more of our multiple identities, and our culture, at a given point of time, is also a combination of various influences, various cultures. 

I am a Malayalee Indian Christian from Kerala state (born, brought up and living there), of Syro Malabar Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, ordained in the religious order of CMI.  Today, I have to specifically mention my affiliation to the arch diocese of Ernakulam as well as. Besides, I am also a trained social worker, a social work educator, an academic administrator, a nature enthusiast by passion, and hence concerned about diversity and conservation. 

Now, there is a kind of 'schism' (division) in the Syro-Malabar Church supposed to be a homogenous community in Keralam. However, this almost 'caste-like' homogeneity (it was indeed very casteist in nature) is no longer thus, as Syro Malabar Church was given opportunities of 'evangelising cultures' beyond Keralam from 1960s.  Even before that, by 19th century, under certain constraints, apparently more out of expediency, the church had begun to step out of its casteist cast and reach out to dalit communities, though the caste-based segregation continued well into the second half of 20th century.  Though practically (or technically) it is not there now, still, the vestiges are very clear in the mentality of the majority of Syro Malabar Christians of Kerala origin.  Positive steps in this direction often smack of condescendence and paternalism, rather than egalitarian and liberating Christian outlook or empowerment. 

Peace and Reconciliation in Syro Malabar Eucharistic Liturgy

Back to 'schism' - it is about Holy Eucharist which is considered central to the Christian life of Catholics, chiefly about its ritualistic details. 

It is funny, rather ironic, to realise that a fight, a division, an acrimonious and vituperative blame game, is happening in the name of a 'means of unity and peace'.  The rite of the Holy Eucharist under reference has reference to peace, reconciliation, forgiveness etc. several times, spread through the one-hour long ritual. 

The ritual begins with a wish for peace and good will to all, followed by remembering God's holiness in heaven, naturally to permeate the realms of God's earth and God's people, with specific reminder of the need for reconciliation and forgiveness. 

There are 3 specific occasions of peace salutations  

(i) Before the 'gospel proclamation', where Gospel is conceived as Jesus himself proclaiming the good news in the midst of the congregation, and the celebrant greets the congregation 'peace be with you', implying Jesus be with you, with the response 'with you and with your spirit'.  

(ii) As the rite progresses to the 'gehanta' (roughly translatable as eucharistic prayers), there is an explicit act of greeting in peace (Kiss of Peace?), where the congregation greets each other with the symbol of peace implying forgiveness and reconciliation before progressing further with the commemoration of the 'salvific mysteries'.  

(iii) Then towards the end, as the congregation prepares for 'communion' with a prolonged 'reconciliation service', it is assumed that it has done all that is required for reconciliation and peace, and with that 'confidence' it calls upon God as the father (of all) in the words Jesus taught. And it is followed by greetings of peace, which indicates total reconciliation with God, with fellow beings (human and others, including the planet as well, I presume).  

The offertory ritual itself contains segments of reconciliation symbolised by washing of hands (cleansing minds of sin), where the celebrant prays for the grace to enter into the mysteries 'with hearts washed and purified, and conscience that has been made clean' (of sinfulness). Then the liturgy prays for peace on earth, through the intercession of those who have already gone before in 'the way' Through the koosappa (a prayer offered in low voice) before the second gehanta, the priest prays: Lord, liberate me from all unholiness, wickedness, jealousy, malevolence, hatred...in order to celebrate. Generate in us mutual love and unity...

While the congregation bursts out in praise of the trinitarian Creator for creative and salvific act, the celebrant fervently recalls God's holiness and one's own and human wickedness and ends a koosappa thus: Praised be your mercy that has reconciled the heaven with earth (heavenly dweller with earthly dwellers). It is about a unity beyond the planet, but it would be a hollow unity, if there was deliberate fight and animosity among the earthly dwellers - and more so, if the strife is on the means of this unity and its modality - a real contradiction!

The long chain of the gehantas ends with Epiclesis, which is immediately followed by an elaborate rite(s) of reconciliation.  And the first beautiful prayer (again, a koosappa) is about the very natural possibility of strife among the humans and the deliberate resolution to overcome it.  It is a prayer to Jesus our peace (Eph. 2:14), who is to reconcile heaven and earth! It prays specifically for putting an end to divisive tendencies, followed by act of contrition and resolution to establish reconciliation among the various realms of human relationships, culminating in reconciliation and the confidence to call upon God, Our Parent!

Then we have the rite of communion - where God who appeared in Jesus becomes united with the believer, physically entering each of the believers in the symbol of the consecrated host, sacramentally uniting God and human, heaven and earth! 

This offer of communion with God, is given with a sort of a challenge, when the priest proclaims: 'The Holy bread is for the Holy' and the congregation (the Church) responds - praised be God, who alone is holy, but ventures to receive God, accepting one's lack of holiness and also taking up the challenge that every believer is called to be holy, and also trusting that with God within, s/he is one step closer to the ideal of holiness (goodness), one measure deeper in goodness. 

The Hypocrisy of Diversity Mantra

I feel it ironical and a real big hypocrisy, that it is on the structure, especially regarding a symbolic posture of the direction in which the celebrant should posit oneself, that such a stupendous sacrament is reduced to a scandalous sacrilege. And in all the opposing (I wouldn't say contradictory) positions, conveniently setting aside the primary purpose of the celebration - of 'communion' with all in Christ, or union with Christ as means for communion with the creation. 

Other than the bare minimum Theology required for qualifying for priestly orders, I have not explored that realm - so, the understanding of the eucharistic liturgy presented above, is a personalised one. This may be erroneous from a Liturgiological or Theological view. For more than quarter of a century, I have celebrated liturgy with this sort of understanding, it has helped me to offer liturgy rather meaningfully, and several people had responded to me saying that the celebration made sense.  

Now the Church and its hierarchical priesthood is able to devise a theology for anything and everything, as it would fit their purpose, usually of consolidating power and making any questions raised against such power-mongering silenced. The theology thus conceived is not necessarily elevating, but it is the tradition; and a theology, a God-perspective, if found or seen in any other angle, is not acceptable. Aren't we getting back to the Judaic Pharisaism which Jesus had condemned out and out? 

The church keeps on muttering the mantra of 'diversity' to establish the great heritage of the 21 odd rites. These are supposedly directly handed down from the apostles. Whether they communicate today with the people of God is appears to be secondary.  The purpose appears more of maintaining the tradition, than creating opportunity for the people of God to gain Christ experience. There is either an obsession or a compulsion that God experience in Christ through the Eucharistic celebration for those who have happened to be born into a particular tradition should happen precisely by adherence to that tradition. 

And the argument of maintenance of tradition may fit only as those who guide the destinies of the Church find it fit - whether it is the Pope or Roman Curias or individual Church Synods...  Thus, mass ad orientem was the tradition in the Latin rite till the middle of last century; and even the present prescription intends that, except that it instructs the celebrating priest to turn to the people at 6 points of the eucharistic liturgy, while making the provision for the priest to be on the side of the people facing the altar or facing the altar and the people simultaneously. 

Now, I am not sure if the Syro-Malabar or Syro-Chaldean liturgiology insists on a tradition of a eucharistic celebration ad orientem (which is very often impossible, unless the church building are rebuilt in many cases), or is advocating only a celebration ad apsem (in which case, the freedom of Latin rite to make it possible to face both the altar and the people becomes possible), or if it insists on a tradition ad sanctum (facing the sanctuary, attributed the symbolism of heaven, God's dwelling). 

By synodal majoritarian decision, several changes have been introduced into the existing liturgical text in use since the 80s. It has revised, corrected, cut short on traditional prayers, endorsed existing prayers borrowed from other traditions, inserted new items (e.g., St. Joseph being remembered - I used to do that since my ordination), even decided that the traditional mode of turning always towards the sanctuary/altar/east can be changed.  Then we understand that it is only a matter of administrative system, and its acceptance, rather than that of any particular unchangeable theology or liturgiology or tradition.  It is more a matter of democracy, interpreted as majoritarian decision making.  If that be the case, it is always possible for the synod to be flexible and Christian in this matter, and approve a variant, accommodating the sentiments of a sizeable section of the Church. And perhaps, continuing the effort in a conciliatory fashion for a uniform celebration. 

The Church father, St. Augustine's famous dictum aptly fits to guide our thinking in this regard: 'in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, et in omnibus caritas' - as pointed out by several learned men and women in this regard, we already have great deal of unity (uniformity) regarding the mass and the text; the matter is only regarding turning towards the people which can have its own rich and vibrant symbolism, while the traditional semitic-judaic ritualistic symbolism is substituted.  In this debate, we conveniently forget that the whole debate is about the commemoration of the sacrifice of Jesus, who had to undergo the same on account of his teachings and stance, which also included doing away with adherence to ritualistic practices in preference to human needs and lives. 

He was consistently challenging any ritualism that would not immediately converse with everyday life of people.  Thus, he dared to break Sabbath rules to heal, to justify the innocent action of plucking ripened corns to eat by the disciples on the Sabbath day, and promoting the freedom of worshipping beyond prescribed locations - Gerizim or Jerusalem - in spirit and truth.  He drove out from the Temple those who traded in rituals for power and money.  But he chose not to forsake the assemblies of the faithful by being there at the synagogues of Sabbaths 'as was his practice'. 

All the same, he insisted on not forsaking 'the law' of the Lord - basically of love and service. The Synod could very well, in a truly Christian fashion approve and accommodate a few cultural adaptations to make the celebration more effective in communicating Christ and his good news to the participants. The Latin Church has taken such freedom, e.g., special liturgy for the children. 

Apparently, the sole purpose seems to be museological, rather than theological - to keep the tradition intact.  This I consider a museum theology.  There is nothing wrong in preserving the ancient tradition intact, but insisting that this is the only way to be followed for the greater goal of God experience in Christ appears antithetical for Christianity, if not anti-Christ. 

Personally, I would prefer a theology that speaks of the celebration of Christian fellowship in the spirit of the Lord's supper, permeated with his word, raising the hearts of those gathered 'around' the table of the word and the Lord's supper, and experiencing the promise of the Lord to be in the midst of two or more gathered in his name (Mtt 18:20).  However, I would rather submit to the majoritarian (not necessarily democratic) decision in this regard, for it is not really impossible to raise our hearts to God together with the author and perfector of our in faith (Heb 12:2) who endured cross despising its shame! But, what a contradiction - behold,  we have our shepherd coming with police protection to his flock and his Church to impose a tradition. If he was convinced of the Christian rightness in this regard, ideally, he should have come and dared to die at the hands of those Christians, who would again be rendering themselves unchristian, anti-christ, and anti-eucharist if they had thus reacted. 

Rather than stick on to my desired pattern of Eucharistic celebration, I would rather accept the imposed rubrics, that we all turn to the altar or the sanctuary or the East, and not face each other (primarily, celebrating priest facing the congregation of the faithful); but still continue to use the platforms in the Church to argue and demand for, to experiment with other modes of celebration.  And persuade fellow Christians to follow the path of giving up one's (self) righteous stance, one's logical theology, one's feel-good-experiences, and thus be closer to Christ's sacrifice in spirit, rather than be in the track of channel debaters or political haranguers.  

I hope I don't become a heretic or Lutheran, because I endorse what Martin Luther said to the Lutherans in this regard: "Here [in Wittenberg] we retain the vestments, altar, and candles until they are used up or we are pleased to make a change. But we do not oppose anyone who would do otherwise. In the true mass, however, of real Christians, the altar should not remain where it is, and the priest should always face the people as Christ doubtlessly did in the Last Supper."    [Lund, Eric (2002). Documents from the Historia of Lutheranism, 1517-1750. Fortress Press. p. 130.]

Almost a century ago, when a group of Syrian Christians who had split away from the communion of Catholic Church, showed the willingness to come back, the Church showed great flexibility to accommodate the altogether different rite they had been practising for almost 3 centuries under the influence of Antiochean Orthodox Church, retain the very same liturgy and if necessary, permit married clergy as well.  A painful division was bridged by painstaking efforts and great readiness to accommodate a variant.  Here, no such variance is in discussion, but a mere decision regarding where teh celebrant would face - and the liturgy fundmentalists feel that insistence on the ritual as more important than the accommodativeness demanded by unity! 

In the middle east, now accommodation of a very fundamental (?) or traditional practice of observing Sabbath (better, the Lord's day - the third commandment) is easily accomplished by both SMC and Latin Church.  The 'Lord's day obligation (!) can be fulfilled on any of the four days, viz., Thursday/Saturday (vigil mass) or Friday/Sunday!! That is indeed right and fitting - for 'Sabbath was made for (hu)mans, and not the other way about'.  So such variance or accommodations are possible - but the issue of a celebrant facing the people is not possible - a non-negotiatble, making it apparently the most important feature of Eucharistic celebration!

Interestingly, I observe that a very important theological statement on the sacrifice has been deliberately or conveniently 'sacrificed' in the renewed liturgical text - in the third gehanta, the section on the kenotic sacrifice Jesus made: അങ്ങയോടുള്ള സമാനത നിലനിർത്തേണ്ട (I read it as: മുറുകെ പിടിക്കേണ്ട) കാര്യമായി പരിഗണിക്കാതെ, അവിടന്ന് സ്വയം ശൂന്യനാക്കി - that he did not consider equality with God to be a matter that should be held on to, and emptied himself.  It is the sacrifice of even the most significant moral good of being 'equal to God'  that is being celebrated. And here we are stuck to our small egos and traditions as to the direction the celebrant should face!! 

I marvel, when I am told that our modern day radical liberal Pope is insisting on this uniformity - a holy father who advocates embracing the abortionists and the people who miss out on Church laws on the sanctity and inviolability of marriage, who advocates open arms to welcome all sorts of diversities, who appears not averse to thinking about women in Christian priesthood,  thus making the Church really a Church after the mind of Christ 'who had not come to seek the righteous', finds a slight variant of the Syro-Malabar Eucharistic liturgy intolerable, and using authoritarian language to express the same.  I am appalled! - so, it is the church (human) conventions and laws that are of greater significance than 'faith and morals'.  In this matter, the shepherds (the major ones) are exempted from the counsel to be 'those with scent of the sheep'

A post script in this regard: 

Rites as 'sanctified' casteism in the Church

In India, we are generally born into a casteist society.  Gradually, Christians have accommodated that by willingly making entries in the government related documentations, when asked for caste, they willingly make entries like Syrian Christians, Latin Christians, Roman Catholic Syrian Christian, CSI etc. Now Church creates some very special provisions for a 'variant' of caste system in the Church. 

The variant-intolerant SMC is comfortably accommodating the pure caste of Knanya Catholics, giving them separate dioceses, and all other casteist privileges! This purely anti-Christian casteist (in the sense of Gal 3:28; 5:6; 6:15) variant is tolerated, but a variant now over 6 decades, to which most of the present-day generation are accustomed to, which has hardly anything with faith or morals, is not tolerated! Note: I have nothing against my Knanya brothers and sisters or their dioceses.  I have good friends and co-workers among them.  I am only struck by the contradiction in the Church position when issue of variant is discussed regarding a relatively minor matter of where the priest celebrant faces!! The height of 'ridiculosity'.

Once you are born into a particular rite, you cannot change it - and Church (as usual with its 'unchristian' expertise in creating dogmas, rules and rubrics to bind people's lives - antichristian as they tend to enslave, rather than 'proclaim liberation' to the captives) has created a complex set of rules to bind the faithful with this. So once your parents happened to be in a particular rite, you are condemned to be in that, whether you feel comfortable with it or not. Yes, you may quit the Church, you may become 'born-again Christian', but no - in the Catholic Church you have to stick on with this label.  I have come across dozens of well-meaning Syro-Malabar rite Christians in Delhi, in Mumbai, in the United States, in Qatar remaining active with their Latin parish, and not doing any 'ghar vapsi'  when a Syro Malabar parish emerges. One of them was made a Chevalier last year, and the Syro Malabar bishop was also there for the felicitation (ideal openness, if not expediency!). Fortunately, they are not being excommunicated by the Church - neither Latin nor Syro-Malabar!

In Keralam, Syro-Malabar (or this recent rechristening of Syro-Chaldean), is a privileged or high-caste position. You go to the North of India, where there are any number of dioceses with hardly any Christian community, but amidst the numerous such dioceses and bishops, you  are treated as a stranger, if not a pariah, because of your Syro-Malabar status. And in the universal Church, it is indeed a low caste position, with a Latin Rome dictating these archaic-archaeological norms, based on their Greco-Roman-White-Caucasian racist philosophy and theology.  

They dare not try to apply those profound categories evolved in the Indian sub-continent be used for announcing the good news of God's care for humans and the planet! Nor do they  let others try! With a richer and profound spiritual tradition in the sub-continent, with a very systematic language, our diversity theology, does not permit incarnation of Christ in the cultural context and categories of this vast land, with greater diversity and vaster population than the whole of Catholic Europe and America put together.  The experiments to make Christ of the Indian soil felt were all torpedoed  by this domineering Catholic casteism and racism. 

When it comes to Latin rite, these privileges are easily introduced, with the African tribal elements or North Indian tribal elements given a free entry into the liturgical celebrations, which was never a tradition in the puritanical western culture. But these variants are only peripheral, perhaps, and the core appears to be only that of turning towards the sanctuary/altar or that of the celebrant and the congregation facing each other!!!

I have really felt odd and totally out of place, in the North Indian context, where the traditional liturgical vestments and literal translation of the archaic Chaldean liturgy of Syro Malabar Church is used in the celebration with the new converts, making them an alien community in their context, and making the celebration more an exhibition of pomposity and ritualism. 

Casteist Archaeology or Vibrant Theology?

While preserving ancient tradition intact, and not losing the linguistic and cultural traditions, are important in themselves, for celebrating Christian faith for reinforcing Christ's teaching and Christ's personal presence amidst the believing community, freedom to go beyond the traditions and find newer modes of experiencing the same, experimenting newer ways is a must. For that, there needs to be a liberation of the Church from the stranglehold of power-mongering and power-mongers in the Church, who require civil police to celebrate the ritual; It calls for much beyond 'turning to the sanctuary/east/altar or turning to the people', it requires turning to Christ crucified, Christ who challenged us to serve, Christ who forgave, Christ who taught the greatness of the smallness.  It has to be our Catechism, and not our discoveries and inventions of the properties of God (how dare we!!) and of the innumerable laws governing the power structure of the Church. 

Attachment: It would be worth the while to have a look at how some of the Syro-Malabar Christians responded to the efforts at establishing ritualistic hegemony on them on the pretext of right to evangelise and right to minister to the faithful in the tradition of a particular sui juris church.