An attempt to resolve the Syro-Malabar Church’s liturgy dispute failed after dissident priests and laity in the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly rejected it.
After circulating an uncompromising letter demanding that all priests exclusively celebrate the “uniform rite” of the Holy Qurbana, the Syro-Malabar liturgy, the Church’s head Major Archbishop Raphael Thattil and Bishop Bosco Puthur, apostolic administrator of Ernakulam-Angamaly, issued a statement on 21 June requiring instead that they celebrate the uniform rite at least once on Sundays and holy days of obligation.
The original letter from Thattil and Puthur on 6 June had threatened excommunication for priests who did not adopt the uniform rite, in which the Liturgy of the Word is celebrated versus populum and the Liturgy of the Eucharist ad orientem. Parishes in Ernakulam-Angamaly have refused to give up the entirely versus populum liturgy since the Church’s synod mandated the uniform rite in 2021.
Online meetings of the synod on 14 and 19 June produced the statement requiring a minimum celebration of the uniform rite in all churches, seminaries and religious houses for “catechetical purposes”. The synod required priests to accept this by the Feast of St Thomas on 3 July, or to face excommunication as under the previous letter.
The priests’ organisation Athirooptha Samrakshana Samithi rejected this instruction.
“Despite assurances, the post-synodal note talks of implementing the uniform mass in the entire archdiocese,” it said in a statement. “This is a severe betrayal by the major archbishop and the apostolic administrator towards the archdiocese.”
It said that “instead of a problem-solving formula, the statement would be inciting conflict in parishes. Therefore, priests, religious members, and laity are rejecting this post-synodal note.” Around 400 priests have signed a petition to the Dicastery for Legislative Text to revoke the synod’s excommunication threat.
“We don’t accept this,” said Riju Kanjookaran, spokesperson for the lay-led Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency. He told The Tablet that parishes wanted the bishops to withdraw the 9 June circular. “We will not accept anything short of this.”
During the synod’s deliberations, five bishops issued a joint message to Major Archbishop Thattil questioning the legality of the threat of excommunication.
The signatories to the note – Archbishop Kuriakose Bharanikulangara of Faridabad, his auxiliary Bishop Jose Puthenveettil, Bishop Jose Chittooparambil of Rajkot, Bishop Ephrem Nariculam of Chanda and Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath of Mandya – questioned why the ultimatum was issued before the synod had met.
“To our great dismay, such a serious circular was issued without seeking the opinion of the scheduled online synod,” they said.
The bishops said that Pope Francis had reminded Thattil that “yours is a sui iuris Church and the problem should be solved by yourselves in the synod”.
“We, as members of the synod, had the responsibility given by the Holy Father to look at this issue collectively and come up with a viable solution. How is it possible that such a serious decision that would have derived from the synod, was already prepared in advance before the synod?”
They continued: “The big question is who has masterminded the whole process? Should we the members of the synod remain simply silent spectators? Does the Major Archbishop as father and head of the Church have any space in such decision-making? Or are he and the synodal fathers mere witnesses?” Thattil was, they suggested “under great pressure from certain corners”.
“You seem to be getting no space or only little space to put into action, the direction given by the Holy Father and the amicable way you want to resolve this issue.”
They said that “like all synodal fathers, we too are really concerned about finding a peaceful and amicable solution to the crisis. We feel that in the light of the recent circular, the whole archdiocese is going to be in a turmoil and that is going to affect each all in the archdiocese including our own family members. So, we feel in our conscience to express these concerns.”
Threats of excommunication do not belong in the Eastern Church’s tradition, they said. “Ecclesiastical sanctions should be proportionate to the violation,” they wrote. “Where is the place for the medicinal character of ecclesiastical punishment which the Oriental code [of canon law] is famous for?”
They added: “Can we as shepherds impose on our faithful something that will weigh on their conscience for a matter of not following a mere rubric, which is not part of the faith and morals? Can we claim to be good pastors after the model of the Lord who is the Good Shepherd?
“The resistance regarding the implementation of the rubric, in no way, we justify. Still, what we feel is that we have to take a benevolent approach in implementing it. Wherever possible, it should be implemented, but taking the priests and people into confidence.”
They said they had previously warned of “disaster” if the Church did not approach liturgy disputes with sufficient sensitivity.
“Many senior bishops and all of us the undersigned had cautioned strongly and repeatedly about the danger in reviving the 1999 synodal decision without making statutory consultation with the priests, the religious and the laity. We had highlighted that uniformity should not be at the cost of unity.”
They expressed “strong dissent on any move to excommunicate those who do not celebrate the uniform mode” and urged Thattil “to reconsider the matter and not to create a division in the Church”.