FAITH SHARING SERIES                        #10 

And you will know the truth,

and the very truth will make you free. (Jn 8:32) 

“Love your Church by Knowing your Church” (Card. Tisserant)

“Go forth and be Witnesses” 

Chapter 1 (contd) 

Liturgy of Mar Thoma Nazranis of India

The great Suppression and painful Rebirth 

Historical Background (contd)  

Re-emergence of Mar Thoma Nazrani Identity and effort to purify the altered Liturgy of the Nazranis.

In our last discussion (FSS #9), we saw the painful process by which a semblance of identity was being regained by the ancient Mar Thoma Nazrani Church of India, but with  a much truncated size and “cut-down to the bone” spirituality. Though two Vicariates were erected for the Nazranis, they were both headed by two Latin bishops, with one of them being quite antagonistic towards Nazrani sentiments. Serious efforts were going on for re-unification of the separated brethren, of “Puthen Coor” faction to their mother community. Towards this goal, under the leadership of Nidhirikkal Mani Kathnar and others, “Pazhayakoor” and “Puthencoor” groups got together to form an association called “Jathikya Sangham” with its base at Kottayam. The Jathikya Sangham acquired a large area of landed property in Kottayam, for the purpose of starting joint institutions for English education and higher learning for all Nazranis. Note that until almost that time, the Varappuzha Carmelite Bishops had banned the “Pazhayakoor” Nazrani laymen from learning English language, while the “Puthencoor” brethren were already pursuing their English studies with the help of Protestant missionaries, so also were the Hindus and others. (During that time, a group of   young boys under the leadership of Thoma Kurialacherry (later Bishop) had started attending private English tuition, at Champakkulam, by using the services of a Brahmin teacher. The vicar of Kalloorkad church reported this matter to the Archbishop of Varappuzha, who immediately issued an order stopping that effort. At least two of those youngsters, Nanthikatt Varkeychan and Illipparampil Chacko, went to Trivandrum, away from Varapuzha jurisdiction, to further their English studies. Later, Thoma Kurialacherry, who was called the “Little Angel” by his colleagues, was selected for Seminary studies in Rome.)

Nidhirikkal Mani Kathanar and his leadership of the Nazranis were not to the liking of Bishop Lavigne. Against his own objections, Lavigne had appointed Mani Kathnar as his Vicar General, only because he was ordered to do so by Rome. To escape the influence of the “Jathikya Sangham”, Lavigne decided to shift the seat of the Diocese out of Kottayam town. Kuravilangad was the obvious choice being the traditional center of the Nazranis and also their stronghold. But, fearing the influence of the local Nidhirikkal Mani Kathnar, the Bishop selected Changanacherry, and moved the diocese to that town, in 1891. And the name of the Vicariate was changed to Changanacherry. The bishop managed to transfer Mani Kathnar from Vicar General to Vicar of Kuravilangad, Marth Mariam Church, where he died a heart-broken man in 1904, at the age of 63. Again, to preempt Mani Kathnar and his “Jathikya Sangham”, the Bishop started St Berchmans College High School, at Changanacherry in 1891, offering English education. Bishop Medlycott also started St. Thomas College High School at Trichur, at the same time. Under the influence of   Lavigne and as advised by the Papal Nuncio Antonio Agliardi, the Holy See issued a directive to the Catholics to withdraw from the Jathikya Sangham. Thus the Catholics gave up all their stakes including investments in the Jathikya Sangham. The Puthercoor group went ahead with the plan, by themselves. MD Seminary School system is the result of their effort. With this, the influence of the Catholics in Kottayam was much adversely affected .

While Medlycott did not antagonize the Nazranis of his diocese, Lavigne’s steps, at all levels, were very unpopular with the Nazranis. The angry faithful sent many petitions to Rome requesting his removal. Bishop Lavigne went to Rome to visit the Mar Papa, and never came back. With the erection of one more new Vicariate, Ernakulam in 1896, the Nazranis now had three Suriyani Vicariates, Trichur, Ernakulam and Changanacherry. Bishop Medlycott resigned in 1896. When John Menachery, Louis Pazheparampil and Mathew Makil were ordained as Vicar(s) Apostolic (Bishops) of Trichur, Ernakulam and Changanacherry, in 1897, the 300 year struggle of the Nazranis to have their own East Syriac Bishop(s) finally bore fruit.

Dawn of a New Era

With the appointment of the three new Nazrani bishops, a new era had started for the Nazrani Church of Mar Thoma. All the three new bishops were Nazrani Kathnars. While John Menachery was a priest of Trichur, Louis Pazheparambil was from Pulincoonnu in Kuttanad. Pazheparambil was one of the seven priests who were expelled from the Carmelite order of monastery by Archbishop Leonardo Mellano of Varappuzha, in  1875, for writing and sending a petition to Mar Papa requesting appointment of native bishops for the Church. These seven priests, who came to be called  “Seven Sorrows”, were subjected to much mental persecution by the Varappuzha authorities. Mathew Makil who became the new bishop of Chnaganacherry belonged to the “Southist” faction of Kottayam. In a very wise move and with great vision, Rome had appointed Makil to head the Nazrani diocese of Changanacherry, which would have brought about a better integration of the “Southists” into the mainline. Unfortunately, the short-sighted “Northists” of Changanacherry could not appreciate this, and objected to the appointment of a “Southist” to head their diocese. Due to their non-cooperation, it became difficult for Makil to function effectively at Changanacherry. Because of this development, Rome had to erect another (non-territorial) Vicariate at Kottayam, in 1910, exclusively for the “Southists”, and transferred Mar Makil to Kottayam as its first bishop. In his place Thoma Kurialacherry was appointed as the bishop of Changanacherry 1910.

Though Mar Thoma Nazrani Church had emerged out of the shadows, it was a far cry from the glorious days prior to sixteenth century. By now the geographical area of this apostolic Church was cut down from “All India” jurisdiction, to a small area in Travanacore and Cochin, between the two rivers of Bharathapuzha in the North and Pampa in the South. This great, Eastern Aramaic Church had almost completely been transformed into a Latin subordinate entity. The Portuguese Jesuits, ardent Scholars as they were, made great theological and ecclesiological changes to the Nazrani Church to get it in line with the Latin canons and theology. The strong point of the Italian Carmelites, who followed the Jesuits, were their spirituality and faith life, based almost entirely on pious exercises and devotions And they ensured that they passed on that way of faith life to the Nazranis, in a very effective manner. The souls of Dom Menezes and other early Jesuits would gleefully be smiling in their graves, to see the great fruitfulness of their efforts.

 By now, the only catechesis that the Nazranis received, children and adults alike, were a large set of prayers, which they learnt by heart, and a system of pious exercises and devotions which formed the back bone of their faith life. The Nazranis had, by now, become ignorant of their East Syriac spirituality and theology. Immediately following the “Synod” of Udayamperoor, the struggle of the Nazranis was to maintain the purity of their liturgical regime and East Syriac heritage. Slowly, their struggle lost focus and its aim got shifted to having their own native bishops.  Devotions to many European saints and festivities had become quite popular and common. All the priests  underwent training and formation fully under Latin ways, in Latin seminaries, and could not appreciate anything different or better. Generations after generations passed by without any formation based on their true East Syriac heritage. Thanks to the slow indoctrination, all the Nazranis: the faithful, clergy and even the bishops came to think that “to be Catholic” meant “to be  Roman (Latin) Catholic”. “Law of Thoma”, was removed even from memory. Once the Syro Malabar Church obtained a hierarchy of their own native bishops, it appeared that they had no more higher levels to climb. Fortunately, by this time, the Holy See realized that the Eastern Churches, more so the Malabar Nazranis had become almost completely  Latinized and were on the verge of losing their Eastern heritage. This put the “Catholicity” of the Universal Church on a question mark. Consequently, the Holy See wanted to start a process thru which to re-introduce and re-invigorate the Eastern liturgical celebrations. The Church believes that it is thru the sacramental and liturgical celebrations that any Church expresses its faith. In 1931, the Oriental Congregation of the Holy See asked all the four Syro Malabar bishops (Trichur, Ernakulam, Kottayam and Changanacherry) to recommend a procedure and submit a draft text to  re-introduce the Pontifical (administration of Sacraments by the Bishops, including Holy Orders and Confirmation), according to their East Syriac (Chaldean) heritage. But the Syro Malabar bishops did not share the view of the Holy See. They met together and made a unanimous representation to Rome, stating that the Syro Malabar Church would be happy to have the “Latin” Pontifical and liturgy. And they requested the Holy See to have the Latin texts be fully translated into Suriyani language and the same be introduced as the liturgical text of the Malabar Nazrani Church. The Plenary Council at Oriental Congregation, who considered this request of the Malabar bishops in 1934, could not arrive at a decision. They referred this matter to the Mar Papa, Pius XI, for his directive.

After prayerful and careful consideration of the issue, the Mar Papa (Pius XI) directed: “It is not the wish of the Church that all Churches and Christians be “Latin Catholic”, but, we wish that  every Church and Christian to be “Catholic”. It is only when each and every particular Church bears witness to their particular heritage, the Universal Church truly becomes Catholic. The request of the Syro Malabar Bishops to introduce Latin Liturgy in the garb of Suriyani language is not agreed to. Steps are to be taken immediately to renew and re-introduce, the original East Syriac Liturgy, which is your true patrimony.”

Since no positive action was forthcoming from the Syro Malabar hierarchy, the Holy See appointed a commission to renew and re-introduce the Holy Qurbana, Pontifical and Liturgy of the Hours. The Malabar hierarchy, at first did not give much  support to this effort of the Holy See. But, in time, some of the bishops came forward to support this initiative. The Commission re-introduced all the three Anaphoras of Syro Malabar (East Syrian) Church, including the two Anaphoras which were banned by the “Synod” of Udayamperoor. (Anaphoras of (1) Addai and Mari, (2) Theodore and (3) Nestorius) After obtaining much feed back from the bishops and expert opinion of many scholars(*1), the report of the Commission was examined by the full Committee of the Oriental Congregation. The texts of the Liturgy of the three Anaphoras were submitted to and approved by Mar Papa Pius XII, on June 26^th, 1957 and also by Mar Papa John XXIII in 1959. It was this liturgy (of Addai and Mari) which was prepared by a body of experts in  Eastern Theology and Liturgy and as approved by two Mar Papas, which was introduced on July 3^rd, 1962, thru a joint Pastoral letter of all the bishops of Syro Malabar Church. The joint Pastoral Letter stated: “ The ancient Chaldean Suriyani rites of liturgical celebrations (of Syro Malabar Church), underwent many changes (for the worse), under the interference of the foreign bishops. In order to re-introduce and to find and maintain the ancient purity of our liturgy, the Holy See took great pains to prepare and present us with this text. Every Christian faithful of our Church has a solemn duty to fully and respectfully understand and accept the meaning, relevance and applicability of these steps and effectively participate.’

The Joint Pastoral Letter, however did not result in joint support to the renewed Liturgy. Soon, two opposing opinions gave rise to two factions;

(a) One group of dioceses, a minority in number, supporting the efforts of the Oriental Congregation of the Holy See in its efforts, and also to fully implement the call of the Church Fathers of Vatican II, vide “ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM”  calling upon all the Eastern Churches to “retrace and return to their roots and to return  to their liturgical rite, their established way of life and ancestral traditions which they originally had, before they were led astray by outside elements”, was in favor of re-introducing the ancient and rich East Syriac (Chaldean) liturgy.

(b) However the other group of dioceses, a majority number, thought that going back, fully to the original liturgy was too cumbersome. They wanted the Holy Qurbana should be shorter, comparable to the Latin Mass. Similarly this group also wanted to follow many features of the renewed Latin liturgy, like the celebrant facing the congregation, kneeling during “Institution Narrative” etc.

This led to the formation of two opposing ideologies. The faithful and many of the clergy; who received very little catechesis and/or inadequate formation took sides based on attachment/opposition to personalities. Note that this was an era when liberalism in society was gaining much ground. Universal adult franchise had become an established principle in political decision making. Authorities began taking important decisions solely based on public support and not on “what is right and what is wrong”. A shorter version of the Holy Qurbana, was introduced as an “experimental measure for two years”, in 1968. This also led to more forms of Holy Qurbana, without any mandate: (“Indian Mass” and “Indianized Mass”) with additions of prayers from Hindu scriptures and Hindu symbolisms. But, in spite of all these differences, a semblance of unity was shown in 1972, when all the Bishops jointly under the leadership of Mar Joseph Cardinal Parekkattil, Archbishop of Ernakulam, appealed to the Govt of India to issue a Postal Stamp to commemorate the 19^th Centenary Celebration of the Martyrdom of Mar Thoma, the Apostle of India. The Symbol that the Bishops selected, which the Govt. of India gladly used in the Potage Stamp issued on July 3^rd, 1972 was the “Mar Thoma Sleeva”. It was a great symbol of unity among the Mar Thoma Nazranis, at that time.

Postage Stamp Issued by Govt of India in 1972

But it did not take long for differences to reappear. The Mar Thoma Sleeva which was a great symbol of unity of all the Syro Malabar Nazranis and their dioceses, in 1972, was slowly made out to be a symbol of disunity. The parties concerned used this ancient sign to ferment much ill will and hatred of one another and even against senior Bishops. As of now, the Mar Thoma Sleeva has come to occupy the not so coveted a position as the most “Dividing Issue” in the Nazrani Psyche of the two opposing groups. We will discuss “Mar Thoma Sleeva” in detail, and dispassionately, in a later chapter.  

(*1)  The Syro Malabar Church did not have any noteworthy scholars, at that time, in the fields of Liturgy and Eastern Theology, barring the singular exception of Rev Fr Placid T.O.C.D. Fr. Cyril Korlovsky and Mgr (later Card) Eugene Tisserrant were among the many scholars who advised the Oriental congregation in the preparation of the Texts. The Malabar Church did not possess any resource material which would have guided the bishops, clergy and faithful in anything concerning their East Syriac heritage, as all such documents were collected and burned, consequent to the “Synod” of Udayamperoor.

 

(Ch 1  Liturgy-Historical Background: to continue: Faith Sharing Series #11)