Abp Kuriakose Bharanikulangara
Faridabad

In a letter issued by the Bombay archbishop there is this sentence: “The key word is invited. They are not forced to take pastoral care from the Syro-Malabar bishops. Anyone who puts pressure on them could go against the letter and spirit of the Pope.” There is a reference in it to Faridabad diocese too. Why do think the archbishop has written this letter now?

In general, that letter of the Cardinal seems to be a misinterpretation of the instruction given to Faridabad and also of the letter given by the Holy Father to the whole Indian episcopate. The fact that the letter came after the instruction does not mean that all the precedent legal regulations are abrogated. The Instruction speaks about baptism, confirmation and marriage. Secondly, the Instruction is a guideline on how to deal with a particular situation that originated or evolved after the inception of a new Oriental diocese in a multi-ritual context. That is a decision of the Holy See and so is still right and valid. In the letter of the Pope that key word is mentioned positively. The letter did not go to the details, because it is said the details are in the instructions given to Faridabad. Following those instructions, actually this problem was solved in Faridabad. And now I try to understand the letter of the Cardinal in the spirit of the Holy Father’s recent letter. One simply follows and practices it. This is the context of the term “invited”; invited means it is not “invited” to freedom but to the obligation to practice faith in one’s own ecclesial tradition and rite. In the instruction given to Faridabad, it is written in second paragraph “in the first place” “…there is a duty to follow one’s own rite in so far as possible.” (when the Pope says in the first place that is the most important and the first priority given). He is calling for each one’s obligation to practice his own rite. It is mentioned ‘in the first place’ each Christian faithful is supposed to follow his own rite. It is not an “invitation” for freedom. It is an invitation to follow the rite.

The cardinal says, anyone who attempts “to put pressure on them would go against the Pope.” So your stand could be interpreted as going against the Pope’s letter? 

In the matter of practicing the faith, there can be absolutely no force, neither from Oriental bishops nor from the Latin bishops; to practice the faith of a Catholic faithful in a particular Church one should feel free. That is the spirit of the Letter of the Holy Father and I am not against it.

What should do they follow? 

They can absolutely follow what they wish. They do not abandon their belongingness to or identity of Syro-Malabar Church. Also, “they do not wish to pass over to the Latin Church.” Rather, they decide “to exercise their right to participate in the liturgical functions of any sui iuris Church” (Instruction para 3).

Cardinal asks: do we need to take permission from the Oriental Church?

The Syro-Malabar faithful, once they practice in the Latin rite, they can follow the same. But for three sacraments, baptism, confirmation and marriage, they should get a kind of authorization or delegation from the Oriental Church (cfr. Instruction para 5). It is clearly mentioned in the Letter of the Pope, but in the Cardinal’s letter “confirmation” is skipped.

He says, the permission is to be obtained for baptism only?

These three sacraments are clearly mentioned in the Pope’s directive. So I don’t know why he is skipping that. Baptism, confirmation and marriage are clearly mentioned there and it is a question of permission/ delegation. This delegation is not the same as the delegation of any marriage in the Oriental or Latin Church. That means, if another priest is coming to bless the marriage in the parish, the parish priest has to give him a delegation. It is a practice that is prevalent everywhere. Here the delegation is required, because the subject belongs to the SyroMalabar Church.

So, if the people are of the Oriental Church or of the SyroMalabar Church, for the three sacraments you need to get permission, Isn’t it?

Yes, permission or delegation is needed. They can have the marriage in Latin rite or in the Oriental rite, but they need to get permission/delegation from the “legitimate” oriental pastor.

You said that the Christian faithful of the Syro-Malabar Church or Oriental Church is some way free. There should not be compulsion either from the Latins or from the Orientals. What does that mean?

It means if the Syro-Malabar faithful wants to be a member of the Latin parish, he or she is free to become one. In Delhi, some people are under the Latin parish. They are free to be in a Latin parish or Oriental parish. By becoming member of a Latin parish, they don’t “become” Latin. They don’t belong to the Latin Church, but they belong to the Latin parish. “The Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church emphasizes that the custom of receiving the sacraments in a given sui iuris Church does not imply ascription to it (CIC c.112, 2). (Cfr. Instruction para 3).

Can they become trustees in those parishes?

They can take up any responsibility since they have exercised their freedom. The Instruction states that “they can remain fully involved in the life and activities of the parish of the Latin Church” (Instruction para 4).

Is it only with regard to the three sacraments that they need to contact their own Church?

Yes, they need to contact the oriental Church/pastor, meaning they need to get permission/ delegation. They can have the sacrament administered in the Latin rite. It is so flexible. People’s decision is the most important aspect; that is the spirit of the letter. Whether they are Latin or Syrian (law) the most supreme law is the salvation of souls (can. 1752). One should not go to the extreme saying that you have salvation of the souls only in the Latin rite or in the Oriental rite. Some people become fanatical about it and say, “No, no, you should receive all sacraments in this rite. Only then you can be saved. If you receive sacraments in another sui iuris Church, it is not valid.” This is the old conventional concept of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and that Ecclesia some interpret as sui iuris Church. This is an outdated notion of the Church and salvation. The letter or the Canon Law or the Second Vatican Council envisage that a faithful can stay in their rite/Church and become member of a different sui iuris Church’s parish.

Can one change the rite/ Church?

There is a provision for option/choice of changing the rite formally and definitively. I have come across about twelve people who say that they have nobody in Kerala and their places are surrounded by the Latin rite. So they wanted to change formally and definitively, over to the Latin rite (CCEO ca, 32). They have that freedom.

Can an ordinary person do that?

If both bishops from Latin and Syro-Malabar agree, anyone can formally change the rite now. Earlier we had to get Rome’s assent, but now the Latin and Oriental bishops have reached an agreement on it (ca, 32,2). I can receive them, and I have no objection to send them out. There is no need of going to Rome. We never interfered in their personal decisions.

That means the ultimate decision is of the faithful?

Sure, that is the real spirit of the Holy Father’s letter. The real decision is up to the faithful. Out of respect for the oriental Churches, the Holy Father granted special acknowledgement to practice these three sacraments from the mother rite.

There is a little difference of opinion between the Oriental bishops as well as the Cardinal. How do you plan to resolve it? 

We have reached this point after a long dialogue and discussion with in the CBCI. With the help of Special Commission for Evangelization and long discussions, the issue was resolved. Once Faridabad was created by the Holy See, there were some issues, which was only to be expected. We had formed an ad hoc Inter-ritual committee. There were some differences over this matter, but we sat together and found out a solution in the spirit of Holy Father’s letter. Cardinal Oswald also gave his opinion. I think, with mutual dialogue and cooperation, such problems can be solved. But we need, as the Instruction calls for, “to understand the delicate situation of such persons and to facilitate the tranquil and serene prosecution of their life of faith (para 4).

Do you think this is only an issue that can be solved by mutual dialogue and discussion?

Exactly! But each one should give up extreme positions like salvation is possible only through my way of thinking. Then where is freedom there? The freedom of the faithful to practice their faith should be given to them. We do not force people either to be in the Latin Church or to be in the Oriental Church.