Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Oct 30, '09, 8:49 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Fr. Rae’s remarks on Liturgy of Syro-Malabar Church (30.10.1953):

The Syro-Malabar rite is highly Latinized; it is a stumbling block for the unionistic work of the Church. The deformation of the Rite was done without the approval of the Holy See, which has the right and the duty of starting a true reform, taking into account temporal circumstances and necessary precautions……

It is true that the times are not yet ripe. The bishops are apparently indifferent to the reform; in their heart, rather hostile. The priests as much as the cultured laity, have no interest for it, because they do not know their rite!....

The liturgical movements seem to have been successful in the use of the vernacular in the liturgy……..Thus one or two months ago, the bishops crated a committee to study the problem of the liturgical language.

REMARKS ON LITURGICAL LANGUAGE:

1. To leave out, at least partially, Syriac as liturgical language, seems to me legitimate and it is not to provoke any change in the Rite or a dislike towards it… For the Malabars Syriac has already become a language that the scholars alone study. The priests, one must hope, understand something and even much of the texts of the Mass and the divine office; but those texts never vary; at Mass the epistle and gospel alone change every day…for the singers, they have been obliged to write Syriac in the alphabetical characters of Malayalam.

2. It seems to me that at least in the beginning, Syriac should be kept in the most important prayers and formulas of each office except perhaps for the burial.

3. But the use of the vernacular should not be granted unless the liturgical reform is achieved beforehand. This is very important. The present ritual translated into Malayalam would make known to every one that it hardly differs from the Roman Ritual. Then it is useless to translate the present texts…..

BUT IS THE LITURGICAL REFORM POSSIBLE? (YES ! HOW ? )

4. For the book of funeral, I made…some suggestions that (we) can decently correct the book: the corrections are not numerous…

5. The divine office only needs to be enlarged. The Temporal, according to the Chaldean Rite, is already kept as much as the number of hours, Vespers, Nocturn and Mattins.

6. On the contrary, in the Missal, the Temporal and the Sanctoral of the Roman Missal were introduced. If for the Sanctoral one could be tolerant for the time being, the Temporal according to the pure Chaldean Rite should be introduced by all means. ( Present Syro-Malabar Church calendar is filled with saints from latin lives of Saints who do not get even “Memoria” in Latin calendar!). [By the way, Mar Geevarghese (St George) is no more a Saint of the Latin Church!!]

7. Concerning the Ordinary of the Mass, it would be necessary to shift the consecration (to) within the anaphora….

8. Regarding the Ritual, which is to the great extent the business of the priests, they should learn everything anew and a ceremonial seems to be absolutely necessary. It is the most delicate point of the reform.

But after having spoken with several Malabar priests, I am convinced that the reform is not only indispensable but altogether possible (OIRSI No. 96, p. 280).

(REMARKS: PROGRESSIVE REFORM OF LITURGY):

1. In order to start the reform, one cannot wait till the bishops ask for it. Their liturgical and ascetical formation separated them so much from their rite that they cannot know it. “Ignoti nulla cupido ! “ No desire for things unknown!

2. The reform should be progressive, i.e. one liturgical book after another. First of all, the Pontifical, then the Missal, the Funerals; finally the Ritual. Perhaps (better) to start with the reform (of) the Divine Office in order to make the priests up-to-date.

I would suggest to entrust to V. Rev Fr. General of the Syrian Carmelites the translation of the three volumes of Bedjan and to ask him to finish the translation within a fixed time-limit, two or three years.

3. It seems necessary that the reformed liturgical books be imposed by Rome and prescribed to all. No bishop has sufficient authority to make the reform acceptable. Coming from Rome, the reform would be accepted and no strong opposition, it seems, could be feared.

By way of conclusion, there would be great advantage that Your Eminence during his travel shows himself inclined and even decided to undertake the liturgical reform. For the Pontifical, the thing is decided.

Discussions or consultations on particular points seem to me rather useless. Fr. Placid is the only one who knows the rite well (Cf Mannooramparampil, Syro-Malabar Qurbana’s Hist., Kottayam 1986, pp. 278-80).

Fr. A. Raes, SJ rightly remarks: “Syriac should be kept in the most important prayers and formulas” and “the use of vernacular should not be granted unless the liturgical reform is achieved beforehand”. Syro-Malabar Bishops neglected these two “important” guidelines, even after clear decree of Oriental Congregation, 20-1-1962: Malayalam is permitted for the whole Divine Liturgy, but Anaphoras must be printed in both Syriac and Malayalam; the celebrant can choose one or the other for celebration. “Catholic” Syro-Malabar Bishops disobeyed the directives of Holy see (Pope) about Qurbana and sowed the seeds of division among themselves ! Not a Syriac letter in Qurban-akramam of 1968!

Cardinal Parecattil, (Liturgy Ente Drishtiyil, p. 103-109), gives his version of the split in Syro-Malabar Bishops. They cry: pastoral need! What about pastoral care? Are they pastors or strangers, or “thieves and robbers”? They get foreign money and live like Paranki “Lordship”!! Not abba-Father!!

Lourdsamy (then Prefect of the Oriental Congregation) too played politics: Official text is the English Text approved by Oriental Congregation! Why English Text? Why not Malayalam or Hindi Text ?? What about Syriac original Text ? Damn it ! Lourdsamy’s trick !
  #17  
Old Oct 30, '09, 8:52 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Re: Syro-Malabar Liturgy.

LITURGY AND ITS REFORM-EXPLAINED.

As Archbishop Kandathil suggested, Bishop Parecattil asked solutions to their objections to reform: Placidachan replied on 14-11-1954 (Cf. Mannooramparampil, S.M. Qurbana’s History, Kottayam 1986, pp. 286-290).

“Many thanks for communicating to me the view said to be current there regarding the restoration of our Rite. Pardon me if I say that the arguments advanced are not new to me and that there are generalizations in Your Lordship’s statements.

[RITE AND JURISDICTION]

1. “It is said that since the Syrians abroad and in Kerala are not of the same community, it is not necessary that the same Rite and the same jurisdiction should be given them.

(Reply): Here there is mixing up of Rite with jurisdiction which is unfortunate and misleading. Rite and jurisdiction need not go together”.

[CHALDEAN RITE WAS IMPOSED UPON US?]

“Your Lordship says that the Chaldean Rite was imposed upon us by foreign colonists though we were having an indigenous Rite.

(Reply) This is a mere assertion with no foundation at all… I am sorry to see that Your Lordship is inclined to accept the Suddist myth which attributes the origin of the Chaldean Rite in Malabar to the foreign colonists”.

If the Chaldean Rite superseded an indigenous developed Rite we may now say to resuscitate the latter. But this resuscitation can be effected only if we posses some knowledge about the so-called indigenous developed Rite. In the absence of such a knowledge, we have to say, at least for practical purposes, that the Chaldean Rite is the only developed Rite the Malabar Church ever possessed. The supposed indigenous developed Rite exists only in the imagination of a few opportunists.

(Even Parecattil admits in “Liturgy Ente Drishtiyil” (p. 16) that “in fact there is no need of wasting time by arguing about the early liturgy of Malabar Church and its “thanima”. The historians have no unanimous, nor steady, opinion about it”. This is very true of Parecattil himself: “No one can deny that Chaldean rite happened to take root in Kerala by the efforts of priests and bishops who came with the colonists in 4thcentury” (p. 17); “If we look for sound tradition in liturgy, it is not enough to go up to 4th century when the Chaldean era started, but to the 1st century when the Church of Kerala began and to the Indian culture of that period. We may find nothing in that dark chapter; no need of finding it; we live in today’s Indian culture…. But we cant paint without a wall; it is the Chaldean liturgy which forms the basis of Syro-Malabar Rite; it is to be reformed (p. 18).

SOUND TRADITION: “Chaldean liturgy that came to Kerala in 4th century is not suited to our true tradition… It is foreign to people of this country. Syro-MalabarChurch’s roots go back to 1st century. As we said early (p. 37 ?), it is possible, St Thomas formed an Indian liturgy” (p. 215). See an opportunist’s fantasy !

“The Portuguese tried to abolish the really ancient Rite of Malabar and when they failed in that they mutilated it and hybridisized it and imposed upon us even by using physical force the present form of our Rite. This form of our present Rite backed by the Holy See clamours for justice and restoration.

I do not find any reason to say, as Your Lordship says, that the Chaldean Rite was imposed upon us. On the contrary, Your Lordship and the whole world know that the Portuguese illegally imposed the present illegal Rite upon us against our will and against the will of the Holy See. The will of the Holy See remains the same always” (OIRSI No. 96, p. 286f).

[“The imposition of Latin Church jurisdiction on the Church of Thomas Christians inSouth India led to their unhappy division into several Churches and caused tensions between the Latin Church and the Syro-Malabar Church. These inter – Church divisions and tensions – which in some cases still continue – have adversely affected the progress of mission in India and elsewhere” (LINEAMENTA for the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops of Asia; L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Ed. in English, 25-9-1996, p.8., col. 1). ]
  #18  
Old Oct 30, '09, 8:54 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Re: Syro-Malabar Liturgy.

[MEANING OF RESTORING THE RITE]

“When we speak of restoring the Rite the meaning is not that we may not have our local peculiarities. It is the structure of the Rite and homogeneity of its parts that matter and both of these are miserably done away with in the present form of our rite. Will any one say a mutilated form of the Latin Rite has to be used in Malabar by the Latins there…on the ground that they are not racially of Latin origin ?

[CHALDEANS CLAIM JURISDICTION OVER US ?]

2. The fear is expressed that the restoration of the Rite will make the Chaldeans claim jurisdiction over us as they were doing before, and that if this is allowed our progress will be impeded.

(Reply): Letter of CPF to Mar Louis on 25-9-1897 (EM 43: 126) says that the idea of the annexation to the Chaldean Patriarchate has been categorically rejected by the Pope, and, therefore, shall never be realized at all. “….unless our Metropolitan becomes a patriarch or an Archbishop (Major), he ought to juridically be under Patriarch or an Archbishop. This will incite the Chaldean claim. So we must give up our Latinized Rite and go back to the genuine form of our Rite so that our Church may have an autonomous position and that we may put a stop to all Chaldean claims, though vane they be.

Your Lordship knows that at least in theory we have a conditional right for a mission in our rite outside our territory. But even the goodly disposed say that it is not expedient to spread our Latinized Rite among new converts in a direct way as through a mission outside or territory (p. 288).

The Holy See is for the use of the vernacular provided our Rite is restored. This would mean the use of the vernacular of the place (missions) where the restored Rite is used… Is not this a bright future (Original or Typical Text in Syriac )

[ALL ARE AGAINST CHANGE OF VESTMENTS]

3. Your Lordship says that no one is against the use of the vernacular while all are against a change of the present liturgical vestments.

(Reply) : It is incorrect to say that all are against a change in liturgical vestments. I know a good many who are for such a change. Those who travel with open eyes through European countries where the Liturgical Movement is gaining strength can notice how the Latins are going back to the real ancient liturgical vestments which agree with the oriental ones! Shall we then keep to the unliturgical Latin vestments imposed upon us by the Portuguese? But in the Liturgical restoration of the Rite vestments are not very important. What is important is the structure of the Rite together with the homogeneity of its parts. (Even the Taksa of 1946 speaks of Kothina…Paina…)

[REPETITION OF ARGUMENTS]

4. Your Lordship repeats all the aforesaid arguments viz. we are not foreigners, our people know no Syriac, our clergy knows very little Syriac, the Chaldeans should have no jurisdiction over us. I have replied to all these except to the point regarding the Syriac language. (In 16th century lay people too knew Syriac).

(Reply): Do the faithful of the Latin Rite know Latin ? Do all Latin priests know Latin sufficiently?

It is really shameful that our clergy do not know Syriac sufficiently even though they daily use Syriac for all priestly functions. I heard some one say that because we are not Syrians, we need not learn Syriac! The Germans and many other do not discourage the study of their liturgical language which is Latin though they are not Latins… They all unanimously condemn the training our clergy gets.
  #19  
Old Oct 30, '09, 8:55 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Re: Syro-Malabar Liturgy.

[EVERYONE LIKES TONSURE AND ALL MINOR ORDERS]

5. Your Lordship says that everyone likes to continue to have the tonsure and other minor orders and that no one likes to give up their number.

(Reply): I flatly deny that expressions: everyone likes and no one likes. Your Lordship means to say that the use of the Latin pontificals is to be continued. H.H. Pope Pius XI solemnly decided that we should use the most ancient Chaldean Pontificals.

And His Holiness while pronouncing this decision uttered the memorable words that the Holy See does not want to Latinize but to catholicize. If we would be Catholicised we have to obey the decisions of the Roman Pontiffs (Our Bishops – both past and present - disobey the directives, even the Final Judgement in 1983, of Holy See!). Do our priests and laymen know of this decision and of its circumstances and implications? If they know, will they stand for things Latin? Shall we probe the depth of the loyalty of our Church to the See of Peter?

Since Your Lordship has written to me at the instance of His Grace the Archbishop as Your Lordship says towards the close of the letter, I would that His grace too comes to know of this my reply with its far reaching implications. If I have written anything amiss I ask pardon from both of you. One thing I can say boldly: I desire the progress of our Church from within and from without: I am fully convinced that the present form of our Rite is a real impediment to the real progress I have in mind; I desire to ward off Chaldean claims as much as I desire to see our Rite restored; the moment I see that the Holy See may be against my desires, I will unconditionally give them up; now I am fully convinced that I desire exactly what the Holy See desires”.

Abp Kandathil after reading Placidachan’s letter of 14-11-1954 and studying the draft copies of the new missal and pontifical, which were prepared at Rome and sent in 1955, gives his comments and suggestions, summed up in the conclusion, in the letter of 6-6-1955 printed in Ernakulam Missam 43 (1973) 163-171.

“We are deeply indebted to Your Eminence for the admirable zeal and enthusiasm…for the progress and welfare of our Rite. We deeply appreciate the paternal regard you have for us…who has done immense service to the Syro-Malabar church. May Your Eminence’s noble efforts produce abundant good results. I promise….our wholehearted support and cooperation in all your endeavours.

“We are very happy…about a timely and beneficial reformation in our liturgy. We note with joy that in the draft…there are so many points which will help our people greatly. Your Eminence has tried to make our liturgy more devotional and popular”.
  #20  
Old Oct 30, '09, 8:57 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Re: Syro-Malabar Liturgy.

[DOGS TAIL OUT OF A TUBE ! ]

Archbishop deals with vernacular language and short ceremonies and says: not only Mass but also Pontifical, Breviary and Ritual, as well as all Liturgical functions. About the language of the present Liturgy he repeats what Bishop of Trichur wrote in 1938 and Parecattil in 1954 to Rome. Placidachan’s explanations seemed like seeds on wayside, or like a dog’s tail in a tube. Archbishop says in 1955:

We are pure Indians…We have no connection with Syrians…”From the time of St Thomas, our people were having their liturgy in their own national language, except perhaps, some essential parts in Syriac, introduced by St Thomas. When the St Thomas Christians had no priests to perform their liturgical functions, persecution and such other adverse circumstances our people were only participating in the liturgical functions, performed by the Syrian priests who came to Malabar towards the middle of the IV century. Still our people remained pure Indians saying their prayers in their own tongue” (EM 43: 167).

What was the national language? Who was persecuting?

ANSWER: Archbishop seems to bite the bait of Southists that Knaithoma brought the Syriac liturgy here in 345 A.D. The first record of dependable date of Knaithoma, given by Dionysio SJ in 1578 is 825 A.D. Bishop of Trichur says: “The Syrian liturgy was imposed upon our ancestors by the fact that all the Bishops happened to be for centuries Syrians by birth or according to liturgy” (EM 45: 328. He holds Syrian colonists became extinct, or where by inter-marriage absorbed in the original Indian stock. So he rejects story of Knaithoma-Mass. Theories are made or stories created to serve some practical aim! They are only lame excuse for rejecting the “pure Chaldean Rite” and for keeping the “Syro-Malabar rite, as Syro-Malabar Bishops desired in 1938 !

Source- http://thenazrani.org/archives26.htm
  #21  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:00 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Syro Malabar Bishops Split on Liturgy

When did the Syro-Malabar split occur? What is its root cause? Going back to history one can pick up certain events: Syro-Malabar Bishops translated Roman Pontifical from Latin to Syriac and requested approval of Holy See for it. Pius XI on 1-12-1934 rejected it on the ground that it is a crime to promote Latinism among Orientals. Holy See wants to catholicize, not latinise; partial means are neither generous nor fruitful. So he decreed to make a liturgical commission for editing the Pontifical according to traditional usages. Text was ready in 1938, but not printed due to war; it was published in 1957 in Syriac. The Canonical Prayers of Priests published by CPF (Propaganda) in 1886, was reprinted on 6.1.1938; the Syro-Malabar Bishops did not want to use this Breviary of 3 volumes with all prayers for various seasons and feasts because it was too long! The Syro-Malabar Church’s spirituality based on liturgy is lost!

Trichur Bishop replies on 30.11.1938 to Cardinal Tisserant to the letter of 17.1.1938 from Oriental Congregation about the adoption of Chaldean Missal and Breviary by the Syro-Malabar clergy. The Syro-Malabar Rite is distinct from the Chaldean Rite and 3.5 centuries old. Historians and Roman Congregations recognized it as a distinct Rite. In fact in Trichur areas “Chaldean” means “Nestorian”, the pure Chaldean is looked upon as a strange and foreign Rite! The importance and necessity of maintaining at present the distinction between the schismatic and Catholic forms of Liturgy are not merely of missionary character. The legal position and security of several churches in the Trichur Diocese depend on the distinction between the pure Chaldean rite and the Syro-Malabar rite. (In this connection, we must bear in mind that the name “Chaldean” was given by Rome in 1553 to the Catholic Patriarch Sulaqa. Bishop Pazheparambil in 1912 speaks of Syro-Chaldaeo-Malabaric Mass, printed at Puthenpally).

Trichur Bishop insists on Syro-Malabar Rite because the Malabar Catholics are racially and ethnologically Indian; Syrian colonists may have come to Malabar, but they became extinct in course of time. That the Malabar Syrian Christians are real Syrians in blood, in traditions, or in culture is indignantly rejected by the whole community. In fact we are Syrians only in the sense in which the English and German Catholics are Latins. He suspects the influence of the Patriarch of Babylon in the proposal of adopting the Chaldean Pontifical, Missal and Breviary. May the Holy See be graciously pleased to reconsider the adoption of the Syriac translation of the Roman Pontifical with all necessary amendations and corrections. Syro-Malabar Bishops’ mentality static!

Letter of Syro-Malabar Bishops on 6.12.1938 to Cardinal Tisserant shows their disapproval of restoring Chaldean Missal and Breviary. If it be your mind that we should change our existing Missal and Breviary which have been in use for centuries, thus bringing about momentous changes in our Syro-Malabar rite, it would be a regretful surprise to us and to the flock entrusted to our care.

Syro-Malabar Bishops appointed in 1953 a liturgical committee to study if reform of Qurbana and divine office were needed. A sub-committee was formed for the reform of Qurbana, aimed to shorten, latinise and vernacularise. Fr Raes, SJ rejected the proposals of the sub-committee and requested Cardinal Tisserant to accept the suggestions of Placidachan.

Cardinal Tisserant, visiting Kerala in 1953, consulted the Syro-Malabar Bishops on restoring the Qurbana; then he appointed a liturgical commission in 1954 to restore Qurbana and informed Syro-Malabar Bishops about it and asked for their suggestions. They opposed the decision. The draft of Qurbana sent in 1955 to Syro-Malabar Bishops for comment was the Latin Text published by Bishop Pazheparambil in 1912 with minor changes. It had also the 2nd and 3rd Anaphoras in Latin version; ‘Ordo’ and Calendar. Archbishop Kandathil and other Bishops sent their observations to Rome. What was restored? East Syriac Liturgical Calendar, structure of 1st Anaphora, 2nd and 3rd Anaphoras, some Latin rubrics were modified. For Syro-Malabar Bishops reform means to shorten and to latinise! They want to say Mass and get good stipend: less time, more money! Pastoral need is Pastor’s need! Bishops never change! Bishops never obey! Bishops Rule!
  #22  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:04 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Holy See appoints latinised priests as Bishops

Holy See appoints latinised priests as Bishops and they stand for further latinisation: Roman Curia wants their submission only, Holy See had recourse to unholy policy to divide and rule; it made Chenganacherry an ecclesiastical province in par with Ernakulam. Power politics starts; liturgy becomes a means of using power. So the modified draft of Qurbana was more welcome to Syro-Malabar Bishops. Plenary Session of the Oriental Congregation in 1957 approved the modified text; it was approved by Pius XII on 26.6.1957 and by John XXIII in 1959. It is known as the Restored Qurbana of 1962.

Syro-Malabar Bishops were reluctant to study and put into practice liturgical books: Pontifical for Ordination; Ordo (Rubrics) for Qurbana, the variant parts (Propria) for Sundays and Feast days, etc. The Syriac Qurbana of Malabar was printed in Aluva in 1960 with changes made in reform. More than 90% of prayers were the same. Yet reformed Qurbana is labeled antiquated and Nestorian! Ignorance? Contempt?

Oriental Congregation on 20.1.1962 issued an Instruction on Reformed Rite of Eucharistic Sacrifice to all Bishops of Malabar Church. Unfortunately, Syro-Malabar bishops ignored the wise directives for new Qurbana:

1. Malayalam is permitted for the whole Divine Liturgy; but Anaphoras must be printed in both Syriac and Malayalam; celebrant can choose one or the other for celebration.
2. Leavened bread is prescribed for Qurbana; but unleavened bread is permitted.
3. In case the liturgical vestments of one’s own Rite are not available, those of other Catholic (Oriental) Rites can be used. In churches where the ‘proper’ vestments are not used, Bishop has to see to their use be restored.
4. Divine Eucharist is to be given to the faithful under both species, even in both solemn and most solemn Qurbana.
5. Use of sanctuary veil in Divine Liturgy be resumed in Raza; also in solemn Qurbana, if there is a custom.

Holy Prelates shall consult in their meetings about uniform celebration of Qurbana to be introduced in every church. Let them edit Lectionaries of O.T. readings, of Epistles and of Gospels.

Oriental Congregation made some suggestions for introducing new Qurbana:

1. Let those who were ordained before, say the old Qurbana
2. Start new Qurbana in seminaries, scholasticates and novitiates.

Instruct the faithful about the new Qurbana, Holy See’s desire to reform all oriental rites to their glory; roman Rite also will be reformed, as in the case of Holy Week.

Syro-Malabar Bishops prepared half Malayalam and half Syriac Qurban-akramam ! New Qurbana on 3.7.1962. Novelty and prestige! Many priests tried! Mockery of Qurbana! Why? Syro-Malabar Bishops wanted to show: they were right and the Holy See wass wrong; because it wanted reform and vernacular for the Syrians, while the Latins had no reform! Inferiority revenge! Proprias were not yet translated; it would make Qurbana longer!

“Restoring the old vestments like “Paina” for Mass will not in any way help our people. We live intermingled with Latins and very often priests of our rite officiate in churches of Latin rite and viceversa. Want of uniformity in vestments will cause much inconvenience to the priests of both Rites. There is nothing to gain by restoring the antiquated vestments. On the contrary our churches will have to suffer considerable financial loss if the present vestments are to be discarded. Besides, in a hot country like India, such vestments will cause much inconvenience during the divine worship” (Archbishop Kandathil on 6.6.55 to Cardinal Tisserant, 6:7-11). Gothic vestments are comfortable!
  #23  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:08 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default 1962 to 1988

Syro-Malabar Bishops were in a hurry to request the Oriental Congregation to shorten Qurbana (22.10.1962) and it was easily granted (3.12.1962) without sufficient time for experiment of new Qurbana. Naranath Branthan’s work! A long period of work to reform Qurbana for spiritual growth; after a short interval to practice it, it is manipulated and rejected! from 1934/53 to 1962: but aborted after 5 months by a decree. Mutilated Malayalam Qurbana of 15.8.1968 continued till July 1986! Final Judgement and Papal inauguration of Raza on 8.2.1986 was a bluff and mockery! It was the “definitive text” meant for all 3 forms but rejected by “majority” group of anti-Orientals! and by decree of 5.5.1988 !

General Instruction, n. 16: “Optional prayers are given in smaller letters. The asterisks indicate parts common to Raza and the solemn form of the Qurbana. Columns show the specific parts of Raza”. Syro-Malabar Bishops wanted the simple form of Qurbana for easy use. Lourduswamy, the then prefect of the Oriental Congregation, supporting the anti-Oriental lobby against Raza text made a split among Syro-Malabar Bishops in 1986 and encouraged petitions to Rome. Then he sent the definitive text and caused division! He was a known anti-Oriental. His parochialism divided even the Latin Church in Bangalore! and the Bangalore Cathedral was closed down on Christmas Day ! However, he was found fit for heading the Oriental Congregation by the Holy See of Rome!! It made split in Syro-Malabar Church. Oriental Congregation rejecting its own Final Judgement, “formulated a “via media” with the intent of putting together the spirit and the principles of liturgical reform on the one hand, and the pastoral need on the other” and issued Norms and Directives personally approved by the Pope on 30.4.1988. Further latinisation imposed! Yet, Raza “remains the basis of Syro-Malabar Eucharist Liturgy”!!

“Sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy….Hence in order to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that sweet and living love for sacred scripture to which the venerable tradition of Eastern and Western rites gives testimony” (SC No. 24). Hence, Latin Rite added a 2nd lesson on Sundays and feast days; added a longer reading as optional to the shorter one. But Syro-Malabar Bishops as blind leaders asked for cutting short both passages and readings: “When the prescribed passages are truly long, they can be reasonably shortened, so that at least 5 verses are read, and not much more than 10 verses (Request of Bishops granted on 3.12.1962). Directives of 5.5.1988, n. 54: “ Readings at Solemn and Simple Qurbana may be reduced to three or two, depending on the solemnity and occasion. The last reading is always the Gospel”. East Syriac spirituality is based on liturgy!
  #24  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:11 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default From 1989- The Nazrani hopes the Holy See is listening!

Experimental Text of Qurbana, approved on 3.4.1989 for simple and solemn forms, was to please anti-Oriental lobby: Oriental Congregation confirms the dispensations granted even from the Directive Norms of 5.5.1988 for pastoral reasons, “as and where a different custom is in vogue”, which evidently cannot be included in the Missal ! Why? What principles for reform? What motives for dispensations?

Liturgical scamp came up in the letter of Bishop Thoomkuzhy, Chairman of Seminary Commission, on 29.6.1989 to Rector of Vadavathoor Siminary: I ask you to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the Main Chapel of the Seminary, alternating between the two forms given below: 1) The Liturgy of the Word facing the congregation and the Liturgy of the Eucharist facing the altar 2) The entire liturgy facing the altar”. Where is honesty, the best policy? There was no custom of facing the people, even during the entire liturgy of the Word (n. 64). Qurbana of 1968 only permitted: Liturgy of the Word may be celebrated facing people (No. 5). Trade Union mentality and pressure tactics of anti-Oriental group! They abused it by celebrating the entire Qurbana looking at the people, as the Latins did, as Parecattil practiced!

Liturgy of the Marthoma Nazrani Church must remain faithful to traditional Syro-Oriental Liturgy, mainly in the celebration of Eucharistic Sacrifice according to norms of SC n. 5-6 and 12. Cardinal Rubin on 30.8.1980: “Fidelity to tradition implies the renunciation of every purely individual initiative and, it goes without saying, the refusal of every liturgical text that has not been approved or authenticated, in either experimental or definitive fashion, by the Episcopal Conference and the Holy See”.


Now see the mentality of Bishops appointed by Rome. Mar John Vadakkel, Bishop of Bijnor, appointed by the Holy See has the following to say in an interview to a weekly magazine:

"…. We are trying our level best to cope with the traditional Hindu way of living. In our prayers also we use a lot of Hindu prayers and even in the Mass we have our own way of arathi and so on. It is very pleasing to the Hindus. When they come and attend our Mass, they appreciate many things in it, because they see many things in common with Hinduism in our prayers and so on.”

The Nazrani hopes the Holy See is listening!

Source- http://thenazrani.org/issue.htm
  #25  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:17 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Re: Syro-Malabar Liturgy.

Apologize for the number of posts. Thanks to Google, these are some of the good coverage of the basic issues in liturgical problems in Syro Malabar Church i got. This is good read to those who wants to know how differences started in Syro Malabar Church on liturgy.

Most funny statement was from the Bishop appointed by Rome- Mar John Vadakkel, Bishop of Bijnor on liturgy. I don’t know how he can make such statements. Has he just got the name to sound as a Malabar Christian. Has he ever participated in liturgy in Malabar !!!!
  #26  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:47 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Origin of liturgical indiscipline and liturgical abuses in the syro-malabar church

Bishop Mar Sebastian Vayalil in his autobiography, Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, 1987, refers to reform of liturgy (p. 460-75). Corrected Text of our Qurbana (1774-1962) was approved by the Plenary session of the Oriental Congregation on 27.5.1957, and by Pius XII, 27.6.1957. The Nazrani Bishops were united to issue a common pastoral letter with due study. There were some differences in gestures at old prayers and caused some confusions for old priests who dared to say Reformed Qurbana, against the directives given by the Holy See on 20.1.1962. It caused some opposition against it; it's too long!

Central Liturgical Commission prepared a new Text in 1968 with substantial changes from the original, and unbecoming additions. It was given to the Holy See for approval. The Holy See approved it for experiment for three years. In spite of different opinions about it, the Bishops celebrated it (Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, page 470).

Later "short mass" and "Indian Mass" appeared without even the knowledge of the Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference and without the approval of the Holy See and came to usage in some dioceses and institutions.

It was against the spirit of SC-22, of Vatican II and of Syro-Malabar liturgy. Therefore, Mar Sebastian Vayalil of Pala opposed them (Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, page 471).

Cardinal Parecattil of Ernakulam favoured and fostered them in a cunning way: by avoiding discussion of liturgy in the Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference.

Bishop Mar Sebastian Vayalil demanded the liturgy to be discussed in Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference of 1974 August, 12 to 14th and insisted on it on 14th of August, 1974. Archbishop Mar Joseph Powathil of Changanacherry, Bishop Mar Abraham Mattam of Satna and Bishop Mar Perumattam of Ujjain supported it (Ninte Vazhikal Ethra Sundaram, page 472). So they were isolated and stamped as a separatist group, not yielding to Cardinal Parecattil.

Subcommittees were formed under a Bishop to draft Texts: Mar Pallickaparampil of Pala for Qurbana; Mar Powathil for Namaskaram; Mar Valloppilly of Thalassery for Pontifical; Mar Kunnassery of Kottayam for Sacraments; Mar Mankuzhikary of Ernakulam for Calendar. The Syro-Malabar Bishops Conference decided that no liturgical Text shall be published for use, even in private, without discussion and approval of Central Liturgical Commission and SMBC, and permission from the Holy See.

However, in spite of this, Cardinal Parecattil continued to use them on the pretext that the decision is for future liturgical books. Fr Abel produced a lot of liturgical books with previous imprimatur of Cardinal Parecattil! This situation and mentality of Cardinal Parecattil destroyed mutual trust and love! (The so-called “imprimatur” is foreign to Nazranis. It is only a Latin practice alien to the Orientals).
  #27  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:52 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Origin of liturgical indiscipline and liturgical abuses in the syro-malabar church - ii

A letter of Cardinal Philippe to Cardinal Parecattil dated 22.5.1979 points to the radical mistake in reform. The letter reads ".........Your Eminence is well aware of the abuses and arbitrary usages which, under the specious pretext of Conciliar reform, have lacerated the union of hearts and impoverished Divine worship, to the grave detriment of the unity and sanctity of the Church". It continues: "Under the circumstances, therefore, I would request Your Eminence to further, with united and concerted effort, the work of producing agreed and definitive texts of the Eucharistic Liturgy, the Divine Office and the Rituals, and to forward the texts so prepared to this Sacred Congregation".

This observation was the basic issue or reason for the meeting of Syro-Malabar Bishops in Rome in 1980, as Cardinal Rubin inaugurating the meeting said on 26.8.1980 and urged to reactivate the groups of experts and the Commissions which will have to complete the preparation of the new texts on the spot. Cardinal Rubin's concluding speech on 30.8.1980 contained the following points:

In discussing the manner of effecting the "revision, renewal, adaptation" of the Liturgy there emerged a diversity of opinions. The Syro-Malabar Hierarchy intends to maintain its identity as an Eastern-Rite Church in conformity with the Conciliar Decrees on the Eastern Churches, with its own distinctive Eastern liturgy, which goes upto the Apostolic times, without hybridisms, derived from other liturgies and without syncretisms from other religions. No one has contested the fact that the Church of the Thomas Christians is an Indian Church in every respect.

"I desire to recall the principle of 'appropriate and organic development'......." In every living organism there must coexist a power of assimilating new elements and a power of conservation, i.e. of remaining oneself, of maintaining the identity. This fidelity must be pre-supposed; otherwise, one simply undergoes a dilution, and not vital assimilation. This 'appropriate and organic development', therefore, implies the avoidance of both immobilism and instability. "I believe that in reconciling these two exigencies lies the key to the solution of the problem of revision, renewal and adaptation of the liturgy". Fidelity to the tradition implies the renunciation to every purely individual initiative and the refusal of every liturgical text that has not been approved or authenticated, in experimental or definitive fashion, by the Episcopal Conference and the Holy See of Rome. The dynamic character of the reform must be regulated according to principles enunciated in the Papal Documents, especially the "Evangelii nuntiandi" (n. 63), the "Catechesi tradendae", the "Dominicae cenae", and the "Inestimabile donum". Because the basic principles of such documents apply also to the Oriental Liturgies. Central Liturgical Commission was to present the new text before Christmas, 1980. "In the meantime, in order not to repeat the error of 1962, it will be necessary to prepare the clergy and the laity by means of an appropriate catechesis, to enable them to receive the revised text with favour, with intelligence and with real profit and so eliminate without difficulty the use of the not approved texts". Those Bishops who obeyed the Holy See followed this directive, and accepted the new Text of Raza Qurbana in 1986, as wise virgins welcomed the groom.
  #28  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:56 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Origin of liturgical indiscipline and liturgical abuses in the syro-malabar church- iii

Now, let us evaluate the conflict: Report on the state of liturgical reform in the Syro-Malabar church, given by the Oriental Congregation to Syro-Malabar Bishops, contains fundamental doctrinal principles for an authentic liturgical reform and comments on the so called "Indian Mass" and the "Indianised Mass" of Dharmaram College which were declared unacceptable on 12.8.1980.

Pope John Paul II addressed the Syro-Malabar Bishops on 28.8.1980 and gave fundamental principles for the Syro-Malabar liturgical reform. But 15 Syro-Malabar Bishops protested against the Roman meeting of Syro-Malabar Bishops in their memorandum of 3.9.1980! Is there any desire for unity in the Syro-Malabar Church?

Cardinal Parecattil criticised the speech of Cardinal Rubin in his letter dated 2nd December, 1980 to the Oriental Congregation entitled: "Evaluation of the meeting in Rome". Yet, the latinised, anti-orientals cry, Archbishop Powathil causes division!

Tug of war continues even today. SMBC in December 1980 gave 4 principles for the preparation of the draft Text, and appointed a sub-committee for preparing the Text of the Qurbana. Cardinal Parecattil writes to the Pope on 15.3.1981 that the "Chaldean" (?) liturgy is unacceptable! Draft Text of Qurbana was submitted to SMBC before 15.3.1981 for their opinion and suggestions, to be sent to Bishop Mar Kunnassery. It was also published in Sathyadeepam and Dukrana for comments of clergy and laity; 7,581 letters came in response. Sub-committee studied them.

Cardinal Rubin in his reply explains the long standing policy of Rome (26.5.1981). SMBC, after putting controversial points to vote, finalised the text on 2.6.1981. Malayalam and English versions of Qurbana were submitted to the Holy See on 3.10.1981 for approval. The Holy See set up a special liturgical committee in December 1981 to study the Qurbana text. It submitted the result to the Oriental Congregation in May, 1982. Other experts made further study of it. "Observations on the Order of the Holy Mass of the Syro-Malabar church, 1981" was issued on 1.3.1983.
  #29  
Old Oct 30, '09, 9:59 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Origin of liturgical indiscipline and liturgical abuses in the syro-malabar church- iv

Grouping of Bishops on “Observations” in 1983:

An Episcopal committee studied the document from Rome (July 1983) and Syro-Malabar Bishops decided to send their evaluation to Rome (13.8.1983). Those who welcomed the document sent “Observations on the Directives from the Holy See on the Qurbana Text” (16.8.1983). Others sent “A response to the Observations of S. Congregation for Oriental Churches”. As Bishop Mar Kundukulam suggested, SMBC (December 1983) asked CLC to prepare the Raza Qurbana Text. CLC appointed a sub-committee for Raza Qurbana (29.3.1984). It prepared a text and it was printed, but serious mistakes came; so it was rejected by CLC in September, 1984. Rumours spread: Fr Chavely and Fr Velliyan prepared text; Fr Aernat and Fr Kunianthodam printed it; Fr Silas cmi and others protested of deception (attimari). Original MS is missing or destroyed! One member said to his opponent: If I (you) were not a priest, I would have killed you (shot you dead)! See the liturgical spirit! Impasse in the reform of Liturgy! Deceived group decided: “There is no compromise on Liturgy”! Distrust and suspicion increased.

Raza Text of Episcopal Committee in 1985:

Yet draft text was printed again in November and on 3-4 December 1984. Syro-Malabar Bishops were asked to come to an agreement on Qurbana Text. Fr Thomas Mannoramparampil prepared a text in January 1985. On 6.2.1985 CLC rejected draft of November and asked the sub-committee to study the text of Fr. Thomas Mannoramparampil. A special Episcopal committee, appointed in March to prepare Qurbana Text, met in April in Ernakulam to find out the differences in making a text and in Kottayam to consult the sub-committee for Qurbana. CLC met on 24.5.1985 to give suggestions to the Episcopal committee on Qurbana Text. SMBC on 4.6.1985 approved 17 points as additional guidelines for preparing the Raza. Episcopal Committee approved the draft Text on 30.7.1985. So Raza Qurbana Text was not made by the Kottayam lobby!
  #30  
Old Oct 30, '09, 10:03 pm
lukathomas's Avatar
lukathomas lukathomas is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2009
Posts: 200
Religion: Catholic ( Syro Malabar Church)
Default Origin of liturgical indiscipline and liturgical abuses in the syro-malabar church-v

Final judgement of S. Congregation for Oriental Churches concerning the Order of Syro-Malabar Qurbana appeared on 24.7.1985. Raza Text was examined by Episcopal committee in August on the basis of new directives from the Holy See.

In September, Raza Text was printed and sent to all Syro-Malabar Bishops for study and suggestions, to be sent before October, 30. Only the Bishops of Pala, Satna and Kothamangalam sent observations on it. Episcopal Committee met on 2.11.1985 and approved the draft text of Qurbana. SMBC forwarded it on 8.11.1985 to the Holy See for approval. Holy See approved the Qurbana Text on 19.12.1985, and the decree of approval was given on 21.12.1985 to Archbishops and Bishops officially.

Chairman of the SMBC’s Commission for Liturgy, Archbishop Mar Powathil, wrote on 16.1.1986 to all the Bishops on implementing the newly approved Text of Qurbana, after Pope John Paul II inaugurated it on 8.2.1986. SMBC on 4.6.1986 resolved to use the new Text in all its forms. Syro-Malabar Bishops could send suggestions on the printing of the simple form of Qurbana before 30.9.1986.

Cardinal Parecatil wanted “the modernization of our liturgy in tune with the rapid industrialization and urbanization that is affecting human society” and “the composition of new anaphoras and other portions of the Qurbana, suiting Indian culture and linguistic patterns”. So he innovated the custom of looking at the people at Qurbana, since he became Cardinal, against general directives No. 5 in 1968-Text, and published liturgical books in Malayalam for experiment or private use, against SC-22. Liturgy was never discussed in SMBC. Distrust and disunion in liturgical matters spread.

Might is right; any means can be used for gain. A culprit is found or projected: “A member of your “sanior pars” (vivaramulla metranmar) is mainly responsible for making a split in the ranks of the Syro-Malabar hierarchy” he writes to the Holy See; he may be Bishop Mar Abraham Mattam who published the Hindi-English Text of Qurbana, (1970), that restored the original structure, violated in 1968-Qurbana, with Holy See’s consent. It was a bold step that saved the liturgy of Syro-Malabar Church.

We have to sit first, before stretching our legs! Fr Raes insisted on first-restoration of Syriac Text of liturgical books; then revision, and adaptation. Cardinal was impatient and jumped into liturgical innovations with “pro manuscripto” liturgical books, prepared by Fr Abel & Co., as he liked or wished!
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8257Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5022CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4346Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: FootStool
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3835SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3571Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3230Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3207Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Chast Forever
3139Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3049For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Thomas Choe



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:42 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.