I've had the pleasure of getting to know a Syro-Malabar community (Chicago area) and to attend a few Qurbana. The "young" people spoke at length about this problem of restoring their liturgy to their pre-Latinization roots. So here the "rad trads" also think that the last three hundred years define their liturgy. I am appalled at the lack of charity in the dispute and find it ironic that Pope Francis backs the more traditional liturgy.
I don't think "traditional" is proper lens for the analysis. Rather, Pope Francis favors the "majority" liturgy. It's the minority liturgy--and the dissenting faction that won't just get in line--that he intends to suppress.
"Two decades later, the bishops decided to seek a decisive papal intervention"
Umm...who on God's green earth thought that the way to find a peaceful resolution that would be widely accepted was to seek an intervention from the most divisive and authoritarian pope in probably over a century? Worked out about how I would expect...
I don’t think the temperament of the Pope would have made much of a difference. When you have to get a higher authority involved, no one is going to be happy because we’re all sinners and everyone is at fault here. What the hell is going on in that diocese that has its priests burning effigies?? You got waaaaay deeper problems than liturgical form.
"But after the restored liturgy was launched [in 1986], some clergy were unenthusiastic about the new text, and hung on to celebrating in the form they were used to. "
This statement is problematic, and is hiding a key fact which can shed light into this crisis.
The fact is that the restored Rasa liturgy of 1986 was not decreed for use in simple and solemn forms. The liturgy for simple and solemn forms was promulgated 3 years later, in 1989.
So back in 1986, if there was no directive from the episcopate to use the restored text for public worship, it is wrong to use the words "some clergy ... hung on to celebrating in the form they were used to".
Also, who were those bishops? The article seems to allude that it was Joseph Parecattil. However, he was in the retirement home that time, and had passed away in 1987.
In fact, most bishops of the Syro Malabar Church, including then Archbishop of Ernakulam, Mar Antony Cardinal Padiyara, did not entertain the text of Rasa Qurbana for public worship.
So how did it happen that this text was adopted into some dioceses, without the episcopate giving the nod ? And there lies the real story of how the liturgical division surfaced in the first place. This crucial fact seems to be missing in many stories one can find on web.
Yet another fact is the reformed Qurbana of 1968, based on the Second Vatican Council. That could be the very first liturgy in the universal Church, promulgated based on the Council. From that point, the Church also began the celebration of mysteries in her mother tongue. The text was adopted widely in all dioceses. The versus populum was introduced into all dioceses shortly afterwards. The wide adoption of the Council's reforms was never a scandal. Beginning 1980s, it was the reversal of those reforms, directed by the Oriental Congregation, that led to the confusion and chaos today. New bishops appointed after 1968, were in favor of restoring the ancient rites. This was in contrast with the views of bishops who had attended the Council, and especially Mar Joseph Cardinal Parecattil, who fostered the teachings of Second Vatican Council into the very breath of this Church.
Although they were helpless, most priests and people resisted Oriental Congregation's reversal of Second Vatican Council's reforms. Today, the cause is desperate. The liturgical reforms from Council are on the deathbed today for this ancient Church. The Council Fathers of Syro Malabar Church would not have even imagined such a state for this Church.
Yes, indeed. I see that you have put a great effort to separate wheat from the chaff with regard to the information on the recent events.
I had sent a letter to clergy early this year, laying out the background on the current crisis. That's a different view from what is presented in your article (with regard to the events in the 1980s).
I've had the pleasure of getting to know a Syro-Malabar community (Chicago area) and to attend a few Qurbana. The "young" people spoke at length about this problem of restoring their liturgy to their pre-Latinization roots. So here the "rad trads" also think that the last three hundred years define their liturgy. I am appalled at the lack of charity in the dispute and find it ironic that Pope Francis backs the more traditional liturgy.
I don't think "traditional" is proper lens for the analysis. Rather, Pope Francis favors the "majority" liturgy. It's the minority liturgy--and the dissenting faction that won't just get in line--that he intends to suppress.
Great article.
"Two decades later, the bishops decided to seek a decisive papal intervention"
Umm...who on God's green earth thought that the way to find a peaceful resolution that would be widely accepted was to seek an intervention from the most divisive and authoritarian pope in probably over a century? Worked out about how I would expect...
I don’t think the temperament of the Pope would have made much of a difference. When you have to get a higher authority involved, no one is going to be happy because we’re all sinners and everyone is at fault here. What the hell is going on in that diocese that has its priests burning effigies?? You got waaaaay deeper problems than liturgical form.
"A few weeks later, activists burned effigies of Cardinal Sandri and Cardinal Alencherry"
I feel better knowing we haven't made it to this point yet.
"But after the restored liturgy was launched [in 1986], some clergy were unenthusiastic about the new text, and hung on to celebrating in the form they were used to. "
This statement is problematic, and is hiding a key fact which can shed light into this crisis.
The fact is that the restored Rasa liturgy of 1986 was not decreed for use in simple and solemn forms. The liturgy for simple and solemn forms was promulgated 3 years later, in 1989.
So back in 1986, if there was no directive from the episcopate to use the restored text for public worship, it is wrong to use the words "some clergy ... hung on to celebrating in the form they were used to".
Also, who were those bishops? The article seems to allude that it was Joseph Parecattil. However, he was in the retirement home that time, and had passed away in 1987.
In fact, most bishops of the Syro Malabar Church, including then Archbishop of Ernakulam, Mar Antony Cardinal Padiyara, did not entertain the text of Rasa Qurbana for public worship.
So how did it happen that this text was adopted into some dioceses, without the episcopate giving the nod ? And there lies the real story of how the liturgical division surfaced in the first place. This crucial fact seems to be missing in many stories one can find on web.
Yet another fact is the reformed Qurbana of 1968, based on the Second Vatican Council. That could be the very first liturgy in the universal Church, promulgated based on the Council. From that point, the Church also began the celebration of mysteries in her mother tongue. The text was adopted widely in all dioceses. The versus populum was introduced into all dioceses shortly afterwards. The wide adoption of the Council's reforms was never a scandal. Beginning 1980s, it was the reversal of those reforms, directed by the Oriental Congregation, that led to the confusion and chaos today. New bishops appointed after 1968, were in favor of restoring the ancient rites. This was in contrast with the views of bishops who had attended the Council, and especially Mar Joseph Cardinal Parecattil, who fostered the teachings of Second Vatican Council into the very breath of this Church.
Although they were helpless, most priests and people resisted Oriental Congregation's reversal of Second Vatican Council's reforms. Today, the cause is desperate. The liturgical reforms from Council are on the deathbed today for this ancient Church. The Council Fathers of Syro Malabar Church would not have even imagined such a state for this Church.
These are very interesting points. It seems that what happened in the 1980s could almost be an article in itself.
Yes, indeed. I see that you have put a great effort to separate wheat from the chaff with regard to the information on the recent events.
I had sent a letter to clergy early this year, laying out the background on the current crisis. That's a different view from what is presented in your article (with regard to the events in the 1980s).
Link is below (available for 7 days).
https://we.tl/t-XjhQ1lLVvZ
Wow. Praying for unity in heart (if not necessarily in liturgy) for everyone!