The warning and ultimatum given by archbishop Cyril Vasil to the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly is devoid of a synodal church and the face of Pope Francis.
The synod and the ecclesial authorities urgently need to ask what we have made of the church, and what we have gained? The eucharist celebrated is going to be ‘in remembrance’ of a victory of arrogance, pride, greed and competitive spirit.
Most shocking and disappointing in the manner involvement of Archbishop Cyril Vasil in implementing the ‘synod’ approved form of the celebration of mass was that there was no Francis approach at all. The synodal approach we try to learn, discuss, and practice these days is totally missing in the letter from him dated 17th August 2023.
Listening, in the synodal path, is not a collection of opinions; it is listening to anger, disappointment, frustration, of a people who are called rebellious, who are satanised by other 34 dioceses which are ‘‘faithful’ and 'obedient' people. Whom did archbishop Vasil listen to, whom did he hear? Who flocked near him? What do his pictures say when he posed with the MTNS , and with police, holding sacrament in hand? Was he not aware of the heinous activities of MTNS? Perhaps not. but his secretary would be aware. If the Archbishop was not willing for conversations what higher merit they had for meetings the papal delegate which other lay faithful didn't have?
What would have cost him if he initiated a conversation with the diocese at least for one hour. A person who came to solve the issue was not ready to study the issue, how would he have arrived at a reconciling phase? A delegate of the Pope unfortunately fell to become a mouthpiece of the predominant powers in the synod. It is a sad state of affairs that the decisions or actions of the 'papal offices' are available to the social media groups much in advance.
The reluctance of Archbishop Cyril Vasil to show the authorizing letter adds to suspicions. Surely he has a letter of mandate. But why is he not willing to show? Let us say he has shown it to the synod. But, considering the seriousness of the issue involving a diocese, it is reasonable that the letter be shown to the people concerned in the archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly.
Concerning the carrying of the eucharist, did the crowd know that he was carrying the sacrament as to blame them now for insulting the eucharist. As the situation was already tense, it was not a place where the eucharist could receive 'due reverence' and adoration. Was he taking the eucharist as a protecting shield so that people may not harm him? Afterall what did he really want to do in the basilica? Just a visit? It could be avoided. Wanted to adore there, bringing 'Jesus' to the basilica? Did he want to offer mass? Would it not be another adamant show of power in a place where a disastrous event happened in December and remained closed for eight months. Would it not be creating a situation that would lack reverence to the sacrament, and eucharist being used to show power?
The crowd may be accused of insulting Archbishop Vasil as a human person. but the advisers of his are totally responsible for the insults he faced as an apostolic delegate from their improper management of the situation.
I fail to understand how the spirit and vision of Vatican II is present in the proposed liturgy of Syro Malabar Church. I often ask myself, why it was not possible, though there were excellent gifted people there in the church, to find new ways to incorporate the eastern christian mystical aspects in their liturgy that would involve the people of today. What is lacking is a religious imagination that would creatively find ways to carry the 'lives' of today's world; sorrows and joys. Instead, this ongoing quarrel has filled bitterness and drained all life energies from people. Is there Christ experienced and made visible in any of these claimed successful liturgical renewal. The whole outcome of the uniformity appears to be bringing Ernakulam-Angamaly archdiocese to its knees.
It is evident that these issues have a lot of historical root of ego-class, scornful attitudes, humiliation based on socio economic status ... healing of those hurts cannot be done by a solution in liturgy alone. Are the shepherds ready to take up a renewal phase of repentance and reconciliation among themselves? Otherwise, even after the liturgy issue is resolved. there will be new issues created for maintaining authority, domination and power. Conflicts are to be maintained for that purpose. By bringing a conclusion for liturgical disputes, have the synod solved the age old problems in the syro malabar church? To preserve ego, and greed, new conflicts will be created in order to rule and show power.
Unless ongoing dialogues are initiated we may not have any solution at all, and this scandalous fight will be on for many years. There need to be occasions of interactions among the people of these different dioceses. The injuries they have received over the years can be healed only from fraternal interactions. Shamefully, and with sincere repentance, we need to acknowledge that it is the filthy ego of our authorities that created, nurtured and intensified these issues for decades. Ultimately the main thing that is forgotten is the value of Christ himself. I have asked myself often, which has been important, the glory of orientalism or the value of the kingdom made present in our midst in our time. What Gospel the society has read from the 'church activities' these years.
Has the synod established itself as an authentic authority, holy, righteous, and just? How does it stand just in the case of the selling of land in which the major archbishop is facing court cases. However canonical rightness can be claimed, the legal wrongness is before the public.
Here 'all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God,' not because of the liturgy, but because of the very silence on the unchristian attitudes of those who exercised imperial power. This sin is upon authorities, priests, religious authorities, lay leaders, and super-spiritual church loving channels. If they did not see something was wrong in the modality of approach the leadership was following, all need to start from Christ. Because we have not understood what Jesus taught. The synod and the delegate continue to speak the language of arrogance and domination demanding submission. Is there no Christian way other than this style of authority? When the authority does not represent Christ and his nature, to whom is obedience demanded. Is that obedience virtuous when the authority exercices its power in arrogance. Christian obedience is valuable only when the authority resembles the good shepherd. Much was spoken about the obedience of Christ, and the humble submission of Mary. Their faithfulness was to a ‘holy’ will. How much of this ‘uniformity’ contains a ‘holy’ will? Who are these ‘rebels,’ ‘those not obeying the pope,’ ‘those against the church’? Once they were your friends, they were their students, they were your teachers and collaborators. Were they evil people? They were crushed and strangulated, and you were silent. Was that silence seeing the glory of God in the style of approach of the heads of the church, or you feared their displeasure? If they surrender/ submit themselves lifeless and voiceless, as they are isolated, condemned, weakened, and threatened, is that what you like to call peace and unity?
Whenever you celebrate the eucharist it will be a remembrance of a victory of arrogance, pride, greed and competitive spirit. So, once again, what have we made of the church, and what have we gained?
..........................................
The disputes happening about liturgy is not about our interest in deeper experience of God, or in realizing communion with God. The tension is caused because we want to be kings and rulers. Then liturgy becomes a language of that rule. Is there a place for Jesus and his love? Liturgy is to bring us into close touch with our identity in God much deeper than any of our patrimonial radical traditions. That identity, primarily, is the image of Christ. Does our liturgy take us, our living reality, crises, complexities, sorrows, joys, celebrations, into that Christ image that we may be remolded?
It is safe and glorious to practice liturgy within a church compound centering on the throne. is liturgy a closed exercise within the walls of the church, does liturgy stop as the celebration is over? is liturgy centred on and about the 'decisive body'? if yes, with no concern we can formulate, continue, and maintain LITURGIES. but if it must involve the life of the faithful, the involvement of the faithful is significant. A decisive body that is blind to how people live, think, behave and change cannot think of liturgical adaptations that can facilitate people for a meaningful conversation with God. When that path is closed, liturgy ends as a symbol, an ideology, a power-based tool.
Rigidity of the law blinds one against truth and justice. One might find all safety in the laws of the church, but if the powerful use the law as an iron rod of their power, it defeats the purpose of the law. The offices, laws, authorities exist because there is church which is primarily a communion. Thrones and powers emerge from and exist for the sake of the church. It is not in the other way as though the communion is realized when all others stand with the laws and offices. Is the communion, experience of Christ bound to liturgy, canon law, doctrines, and traditions? No, instead they find their meaning in Christ. A Christ who is restricted in the 'withinness' of them is not the fullness of life, bread of life, or the life-giving waters. When we close him to our constraints we are draining the church of life, communion and love.
To rebuild the broken altars, first we need to rediscover Christ.
The Church is not within church compounds. The church is an extended body of its members, brought in communion by the grace given to them. The priesthood and sacrifice in the church must be primarily understood as a virtue, not as a cult. A priesthood and sacrifice that do not communicate beyond the church structure still maintain a cult not a lifegiving existence and sacrifice. A priest who is unwilling to go out practices dangerous rituals. because he reduces the sacrifice into a mere ritual.
The one who worships is Christ (having his members in his Body the church). He is the real altar. A consecrated altar is for the sake of the church. It does not become an exclusive centre of Divine presence. Wherever the faithful are, there is the church. Any teaching on the eucharist and the eucharistic adoration will have an emphasis on communion on three dimensions; Jesus' communion with the Father, the communion that Jesus established by reconciling the world with the Father, and the communion of humanity. Having the absence of any of these and making a ritual of sacrifice is a lie, a worship of hypocrisy. Adherence to an authority necessarily does not bring about this communion. Without sincere desire for communion it is a bread ritual, and cruelty to the body of Christ. Our divisions, based on rites, language, casts, regions, are evidence for our lack of sensitivity to the meaning of Eucharist. How long can we fool ourselves calling them the beauty of the church? In contrast, we resist those diversities that can really enhance a community. There is clear enthronement of our pride and ego where there is no place for Christ at all. How nicely we speak of order and particulars of liturgy and the canon at the risk of what is really important - the gospel values, life-witness, fraternity, mercy, ultimately Christ himself. The 'gathering' in his name is not assembling alone, it is unity in love and in the Holy spirit. Neglecting that, whose memory are we celebrating or claiming to be celebrating? We believe in the real presence, not in the magical presence as though Christ can be forcefully brought to the altar having all our hypocrisies well maintained. Of course, it is very special, significant and incomparable presence, but not an exclusive presence. The teaching on the real presence is an answer to a question 'what type of presence is there in the eucharist?' Is it symbolic as in a crucifix? No it is real. Is it simply based on /depended on our faith? No it is true and always. It is substantial, for the whole Christ is present. But we cannot limit this presence into its species.
The Holy Trinity does not have to wait for a time to enter in. Jesus is also not waiting for the 'two or three' to gather in his name so that he can come in as though an outsider coming from inside. Christ, the Word, is present as a person and in grace in every person. That belonging is made visible and reality when we come together. As different members in the body of Christ, each member is a continuation of the other, and together we experience the body of Christ.
