November 20, 2008
Syro-Malabar Catholics Frustrated With Vatican Offices
NEW DELHI (ICNS): A senior bishop of the Syro-Malabar Church (SMC) says Catholics of his Oriental rite have "lost all faith and hope" of getting justice from Vatican offices.
"Our Church ... (has) patiently waited for justice from the Holy See for the last 42 years, after the Second Vatican Council," Bishop Gregory Karotemprel of Rajkot told a theological seminar in New Delhi, UCA News reported.
The Nov. 14-15 seminar titled "Ecclesial mission of Syro-Malabar Church" addressed various issues including the Church's demand for jurisdiction outside Kerala, the southern Indian state where it is based.
Bishop Karotemprel says his Church has appealed to the Vatican several times for nationwide jurisdiction, especially after it was made sui juris (self governing) 15 years ago.
"But to our great disgust and agony, not even a single line of reply, either positive or negative, was received by the Bishops' Synod," noted the 75-year-old Carmelite of Mary Immaculate prelate, who monitored pastoral care for SMC migrants until a year ago.
The synod, the Church's highest authority, has the power to create dioceses and appoint bishops, in consultation with the pope, but only in Kerala.
The Vatican's silence, Bishop Karotemprel says, creates "an abominable situation" with repercussions such as questioning the credibility of the Holy See.
He accused some Latin-rite bishops of influencing Vatican congregations and the Apostolic Nunciature in New Delhi to block the SMC's "just" right to India-wide jurisdiction.
Bishop Karotemprel says SMC Catholics can no longer tolerate Latin bishops' "ecclesiastical colonization of India" and have "lost all faith and hope" that the Vatican and the nunciature will "ever do justice to their cause." He points out Latin prelates head the important Vatican positions and their people fill other offices in the Vatican congregations.
Nonetheless, he maintains the Vatican alone can find "an equitable and just solution" to the "insoluble disputes" between India's Latin and SMC Churches.
The SMC prelate says his people also wonder whether the Vatican's "culpable silence" requires "another law to implement what is right and just."
In his analysis, "a negative written reply" from the Vatican would negate its own teachings, while a positive reply would "invite very strong opposition" from the Latin Church. Such "games" need "a final whistle," he added.
Bishop Karotemprel regrets the Vatican's new demand that two-thirds of Latin-rite bishops in India should agree to grant SMC nationwide jurisdiction. Since most Latin prelates oppose the demand, the Vatican stand amounts to "absurd" ecclesiastical jurisprudence, he explained.
The SMC prelate remarked that the Church champions truth and justice but "totally denies" those values in "its internal administration."
SMC migrants in Latin dioceses know their just and juridical rights, and "are totally fed up" with the Vatican attitude, Bishop Karotemprel stated.
However, in concluding he recalled that his 2,000-year-old Church "never got separated from the See of Peter" and pledged "filial love and obedience to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI."
Describing the pope as the "ultimate dispenser of truth and justice in the Church," he urged SMC Catholics to remain "hopeful."
The Latin rite accounts for 128 of India's 160 dioceses. The SMC has 26 dioceses in India, including 10 outside Kerala, to which 3.5 million of India's 17 million Catholics belong. It also has one diocese for North America, based in Chicago, the United States.
Latin rite follows the Roman liturgy introduced by European missioners in the 15th century.
The SMC is the larger of the two Oriental-rite Churches in India, both of which follow Syrian Church traditions and trace their origins to Saint Thomas the Apostle. The smaller Syro-Malankara Church, also based in Kerala, has six dioceses.
Until the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), India's Oriental-rite Churches were confined to Kerala. The council set up SMC dioceses outside Kerala, but placed them in ecclesiastical provinces headed by Latin-rite archdioceses.
The Vatican made the SMC self-governing in 1992 but retained the right to decide on administrative matters for its dioceses outside Kerala.
Translation, we like Eastern Catholicism in India as long as it doesn't threaten the latin tradition brought inby the colonial days.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Update
Hi
I haven't been on in ahwile to update this thing but I have not abandoned it. I will be back on here soon enough to post stuff of some kind. In other news, my transfer to the Ukrainian church is complete : ) so it is official now .
-edited, sorry typo.
I haven't been on in ahwile to update this thing but I have not abandoned it. I will be back on here soon enough to post stuff of some kind. In other news, my transfer to the Ukrainian church is complete : ) so it is official now .
-edited, sorry typo.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Voting
With the election comming up, I felt I needed to comment on it.
I have noticed this from many of my peers and others, that there is an attitude that we must vote for the "lesser of two evils" and that not voting is the equivalent of giving the election to the greater evil. I contend that voting is neither necessary and that voting for the lesser of two evils is unacceptable.
For my first point, voting in general. How can something that has, until recent times, been unavalible to the people be a requirement? Even in the United States, only property owning men could initially vote. They clearly did not see as necessary for everyone to vote. From a Catholic point of view, the Church has constantly throughout her history been supportive of Monarchies where voting for the leader of the nation was out of the question (or if it was voting, it was like the Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy itself, done by the nobility or cardinals). So how can it be necessary to vote?
Next the lesser of two evils arguement. What exactly makes the lesser evil a good idea to vote for? Just because he is supposedly pro life (you know not including his support of EMBYRONIC stem cells, and unjust war)? No, because McCain can't change anything once he is elected, at best he can keep the status quo, at worst he can nominate a new judge that will be a hidden pro infanticide justice. There are plenty of third party choices (that btw if the 40% of the population that is Catholic voted for ) could be viable candidates if given support.
This leads to my next point, if we beleive in Objective moral values, then how can we even possibly dream of supporting something like a neo-republic/representitve democracy. Where truth is put to a vote and whoever is in the majority can impose their will upon everyone else. Rather then the potential tyranny of one man, we are given the tyranny of the majority. Its not much different, except that a monarchy at least recognizes that its power comes from God so even if he is a bad monarch, he is still going have this ingrained into his person if he has been raised from birth for the position. The people ,on the contrary, change their flavor of the month. Every four or eight years we change our minds. Monarchy, on the contrary is a stable regime that conserves the state and nurtures it so that it can organically develop. It prides itself on its traditions and values and looks towards its God-given ruler for guidance and stability. In these unstable times one would think that we would desire this in our country. Rather we instead are after "change", whatever that means. I can tell you what I beleive it means, and I beleive it means that we want to further weaken our standing in the world. That we want to further degenerate as a society, and that we would rather elect corrupt politicians who waste our money rather then look into the future and realize that the America everyone talks about, hasn't existed for a long time now.
As for me, I do not beleive I will vote. There is no candidate on the ballot in this state that I could even hold my nose and support. Perhaps I could move to Louisiana and vote for Ron Paul (whom is the candiate for the Louisiana tax payers party or something, probably without his consent).
I have noticed this from many of my peers and others, that there is an attitude that we must vote for the "lesser of two evils" and that not voting is the equivalent of giving the election to the greater evil. I contend that voting is neither necessary and that voting for the lesser of two evils is unacceptable.
For my first point, voting in general. How can something that has, until recent times, been unavalible to the people be a requirement? Even in the United States, only property owning men could initially vote. They clearly did not see as necessary for everyone to vote. From a Catholic point of view, the Church has constantly throughout her history been supportive of Monarchies where voting for the leader of the nation was out of the question (or if it was voting, it was like the Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy itself, done by the nobility or cardinals). So how can it be necessary to vote?
Next the lesser of two evils arguement. What exactly makes the lesser evil a good idea to vote for? Just because he is supposedly pro life (you know not including his support of EMBYRONIC stem cells, and unjust war)? No, because McCain can't change anything once he is elected, at best he can keep the status quo, at worst he can nominate a new judge that will be a hidden pro infanticide justice. There are plenty of third party choices (that btw if the 40% of the population that is Catholic voted for ) could be viable candidates if given support.
This leads to my next point, if we beleive in Objective moral values, then how can we even possibly dream of supporting something like a neo-republic/representitve democracy. Where truth is put to a vote and whoever is in the majority can impose their will upon everyone else. Rather then the potential tyranny of one man, we are given the tyranny of the majority. Its not much different, except that a monarchy at least recognizes that its power comes from God so even if he is a bad monarch, he is still going have this ingrained into his person if he has been raised from birth for the position. The people ,on the contrary, change their flavor of the month. Every four or eight years we change our minds. Monarchy, on the contrary is a stable regime that conserves the state and nurtures it so that it can organically develop. It prides itself on its traditions and values and looks towards its God-given ruler for guidance and stability. In these unstable times one would think that we would desire this in our country. Rather we instead are after "change", whatever that means. I can tell you what I beleive it means, and I beleive it means that we want to further weaken our standing in the world. That we want to further degenerate as a society, and that we would rather elect corrupt politicians who waste our money rather then look into the future and realize that the America everyone talks about, hasn't existed for a long time now.
As for me, I do not beleive I will vote. There is no candidate on the ballot in this state that I could even hold my nose and support. Perhaps I could move to Louisiana and vote for Ron Paul (whom is the candiate for the Louisiana tax payers party or something, probably without his consent).
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Prayer Intentions
Please pray for Monsignor Miller of the Richmond Diocese. He is my old pastor and has been diagnosed with some sort of cancer.
Also please include in your prayers a Fr. Charles of the Romanian Sui Irus church.
Also please include in your prayers a Fr. Charles of the Romanian Sui Irus church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blessed Constantine XI
Mar Isaac of Syria
St. Gregory Palamas
