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.