Synod Qurbana and the CMI congregation

Synod Qurbana and CMI congregation

My young friend, established journalist Mr Jipson John (an SH alumnus) asks me regarding the CMI position on the liturgical controversy in the Syro-Malabar Church. This gives me an opportunity to share my reflection on the issue once again:

1.      That there has been a raucous dispute in Syro-Malabar Church on account of the Holy Eucharist (Qurbana), a symbol and means of Christian unity, is beyond doubt.

2.     As the first indigenous religious order of the Indian and Syro-Malabar Church, I feel that the CMI congregation has failed to tread the path shown by its co-founder St. Kuriakos Chavara, who in such junctures during his lifetime, took a very pro-active leadership to bring about reconciliation through mediation and dialogue. The leadership kept a politically correct silence of convenience, and never emerged as a leader of peace and harmony (in spite of promptings from the 'less equals' in the congregation).

3.     The issue of Syro-Malabar or any liturgy within the church is to be looked at from the angle of its nature and purpose.

3.1.So, a first question in this regard will be: is the holy eucharist a means for an end, the means for an end, or the end itself?

Not really basing on any dogma, but from a common sense Christian perception, I consider it as the most potent communitarian means for God experience for a believer.

As such, it is a means, it is not an end – the end should be God-experience in Christ.

3.2. The second question, which is already partly answered in the first case, is about the purpose of the Holy Eucharist.  To me, it is meant to provide God-experience in Christ to the believer.

3.3. A third question could be regarding the source of this tradition in the Church – the church derives its mandate from the symbolic act of Jesus at the last supper, his command to ‘do this in memory of me’ (Lk 22:19, I Cor 11:24), coupled with the inspirational statements regarding ‘consuming the body & blood of Christ’ (Jn 6:47-57) – which makes assimilation of the person of Jesus into the believers' existence on the planet (making Christ part of one’s life) as a condition for life (eternal) in Christ.  This to my mind, not very infrequently, had been reduced to a very carnal way of interpretation bordering cannibalism, while admitting that some instances of visions and experiences vouching for this aspect of the sacrament have been reported.  While it had its origin in Jesus’ teaching and practice, the present form has become more of a ritual and less of a celebration of faith. The present-day formulae have been a product of evolution, and were arrived at from various traditions, and in various stages. And the present controversy indeed points to another stage in the evolution of liturgy.

3.3.1.      I am not yet sure as to what my lessons in liturgy had taught me about these aspects of my reflection.  I do recall, that way back in 1983, an introduction by the well-known liturgiologist Rev. Dr Pathikulangarato Syro-Malabar liturgy which brought home to me its symbolic richness, helped me to participate and celebrate the eucharistic liturgy more meaningfully.  I did feel that some of those symbolisms tended to be infusing symbolism into every act, post factum, and appeared to have been manufactured to prove a point.  In my very limited pastoral opportunities, I have tried to make the liturgy meaningful to the people by introducing to them the meaning of the various symbols and rituals of the celebration.

3.3.2.     Having been introduced to the experimental liturgy called ‘bharateeya puja’ from my younger days as an altar server, I found the effort inspirational and making the liturgy communicative with the ‘dominant’ Hindu culture as well. And I learnt with regret that this experiment had been banned by the ‘official church’. 

4.      Now coming to my stand, as a catholic priest of Syro-Malabar church and belonging to the CMI religious congregation:

4.1. The church’s position/thinking about rites as something you are born with is outright anachronistic, unchristian and ritualistic – not befitting Christ, who had made an unambiguous statement regarding ritualism in faith: ‘…an hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.’ Jn 4:21

4.2. There is a contradiction in this convention because, someone who is newly joining the Christian faith has all the freedom to choose the tradition of Christianity to follow – Latin, Syrian, Chaldean, Ethiopian or whatever else, while the one who is already in the Church, who finds one’s liturgical celebrations too ritualistic, atavistic, anachronistic, not conversing with one’s ethos, is denied the freedom to continue to be in the Church, on account of the rigid rules regarding adherence to one’s ritualistic tradition.

4.3. This is easily the way in which the Church is made casteist – similar to someone born in a given caste not being able to change one’s caste, even by any amount of Sanskritisation efforts. 

4.4. This high-handed caste mentality still persists with the majority of Syro-malabar faithful, claiming a hollow Brahminical caste tradition to their faith community, (and a similar Jewish tradition clubbed with it!) and exhibiting marked discrimination to all else, including to those who belonged to Latin rite, and especially, to those who were baptised into the Church since the late 19^th century from the so-called dalit communities, giving them the false hope of equality.

4.4.1.     Conversely, I have sensed a sort of caste-like discrimination by the Roman (Latin) church towards Syrian church, on a global as well as national platform, by sidelining and suppressing them and their aspirations in many ways.

4.5. Specifically to the question of the ‘synodal liturgy’, my thoughts are as follows:

4.5.1.     The Synod is considered the highest authority in the church, and a decision by the same, within the democratic framework of majority (absolute or relative, I am not sure) rule, is to be accepted by all concerned. And thus, the decision, said to be by the majority of the bishops/synod, is to be accepted by all.

4.5.2.     In this decision, there appears to be hardly any issue of faith and morals – though the decision and process thereof indeed imply several issues of Christian ethics. Hence as such, there needn’t be an opposition, despite the discomfort or dislike. 

4.5.3.     The protests appear to me as genuine from the angle of the theologically sound Christian anti-ritualism, with several models of culturally integrated mass forms easily accommodated in the tribal belt of North India, and in the African continent.

4.6. The Synod, especially the bishops, could have been more Christian by considering how best the purpose(s) of liturgy could be served by accommodating the aspirations of divergent groups.

4.7. The ways and means employed to express the discomfort or cultural alienation experienced by a large number of priests, religious and lay faithful, appear to be not befitting Christian followers.

4.8. Following the logic of #4.5.2, as there is hardly any question of faith and morals involved, but only a mode and means of experiencing God in Christ is in question, the Church leadership, after the model of the good shepherd (having the smell of the sheep) could have easily accommodated the very simple demand of a difference in the ritual posture by a vast number of the Christians of Syro-Malabar Church of Ernakulam, and still persuaded them to follow the officially approved mode by the Synod.

4.9. When comparing the acts of commission and omission by the protesting Christians of Ernakulam and by the suppressing or imposing Christians (the Bishops) who wield the majority in Synod, both appear sinful, though the sinfulness of the latter appears to be more mortal, being people with greater responsibility in the ‘way of Christ’ who tend to present a facade of self-righteousness and are thereby perpetrating an anti-Christian style of functioning.

4.10.                     Interestingly, the so-called Synodal Liturgy has proven that there is no section of this text/liturgy which is untouchable, as sufficient alterations (additions and deletions) have been introduced, changing what was felt to be redundant in several instances, including in the most central Gehanda (eucharistic) prayers.

4.11.                     The questions often raised are those of ‘communion’ and ‘unity’ – however, in this case, as most of the educated people understand, it is more a question of ‘uniformity’.  If the logic is followed,  we should also think seriously about why we should have many rites instead of one Roman rite.

4.12.                     A whole section of the separated in the Kerala Catholic church was given the freedom to rejoin the Catholic church in the early 20^th century, even permitting the married clergy, if so warranted, to establish harmony and reconciliation (Syro-Malankara Church).  This is indicative of the possibility of accommodativeness in the Church for reconciliation and harmony, which could very well be applied in this case as well. 

4.13.                     The Latin church, while retaining its unity, accommodates four or more variants of the central eucharistic prayers, which are not seen as a threat to the unity of the Church.

4.14.                     I think it is more important to let the people participate in a liturgy they find more meaningful in their lives than imposing a uniform model purportedly to establish unity.  Why should a variance in celebration be treated as a threat to unity, rather than an increase in the diversity of the celebration of faith in the Church?

4.15.                     I feel surprised to see Pope Francis, the radical disciple who is welcoming those who have been otherwise seen as morally errant, or deprived, is using almost the language of the Roman emperors to dictate terms to a bunch of faithful who feel their tradition of over 50 years has been set aside to reimpose an unpalatable archaic and unfamiliar Chaldean code, which they are neither interested in nor found to be contributing to the fundamentals of their faith life.

4.16.                     This is either because he has not listened to the issues of both parties, or perhaps, he thinks ‘obedience’ (after the Lord Jesus Christ’s model) is the means for unity rather than dialogue and accommodation.

4.17.                     To my thinking, this is another way in which clericalism, legalism, authoritarianism, ritualism, pharisaism, and chaldeanism are being reinforced in the Church.

4.18.                     As a student of social science, I feel this phenomenon requires a thorough comparative and empirical study with set parameters regarding the attainment of the purposes of the eucharistic liturgy, say over a period of a year or two, and see how the empirical sciences can contribute better to make a more reasonable and holy decision making. 

4.19. The effort at re-establishing a museum theology as foundational for liturgy is like laying an axe to inculturation and incarnational theology, where liturgy made the word assume flesh in a given cultural context - local (as it could be in Kochi), linguistic (as it is happening even today, but without reference to the genius of the culture), indigenous as it ought to be with such communities etc. It is high time that the Church thought about creating a united Indian liturgy, with locally adaptable variants, where the celebration of the mystery of faith in Christ is communicated and experienced in the given cultural context.  We are going back to the future, and getting enslaved by the Roman Western categories while asserting ourselves to be Indians and Orientals. 

PS: Trouble Makers: My response

Very good! Indeed Christian - Holy Roman Empire! Legal, Authoritarian, Threatening... while I still, personally, would be obedient! I hope Jesus the 'troublemaker' would come again, once again for an exception, with his whip - and crack down on the shibboleths! If I am to be whipped by him, I will receive that too happily.