A century has passed since the Syro Malabar hierarchy was erected. The liturgical dispute in this Church too is 100 years old! The difference between the liturgical dispute of the older times and the present one is that previously it was a dispute between the Syro Malabar hierarchy and Rome whereas the present one is multidimensional. Let me explain.

When the hierarchy was established in 1923, the bishops demanded in one voice for a liturgy taking into consideration their experience with the East Syrian/Chaldean and Latin liturgies and the pastoral needs of the time. But later, there developed two factions among the bishops – one standing for a total restoration of the East Syrian/Chaldean liturgy and the other, though favoured the restoration of the Chaldean liturgical tradition, wanted also its renewal for the faithful of the twentieth century. This conflict intensified after the erection of the diocese of Changanacherry as an archdiocese in 1956, jeopardizing the very hierarchical structure of the Church which eventually led to deeper liturgical disputes. This anomaly of hierarchical structure was rectified in 1992 when the Church was raised to the Major Archiepiscopal status, but the disputes continued.

Now, coming to your question, my experience with the erstwhile Syro Malabar Bishops’ Conference (SMBC) for about ten years and with the Syro Malabar Bishops’ Synod (SMBS) for another ten years was on the whole encouraging. I had the occasion to work under five Liturgy Commissions of the bishops as its secretary. Though I left the office of the secretary in 2003, I was privileged to continue as a member of the Central Liturgical Committee till 2022. Thus I worked very closely with the Episcopal Commissions for Liturgy and the Central Liturgical Committee for about 40 years.

Despite differences of opinion and disputes regarding the liturgical renewal, in earlier times the bishops were always careful to reach at some consensus on all issues discussed. The dispensations and the options in the celebration of Holy Mass and other liturgical practices are the direct consequences of their wisdom to apply the policy of consensus. I remember instances when the so-called ‘majority group’ in the Synod conceding to the demands of the ‘minority group’ for the sake of consensus. The disputes were almost always about issues concerning rubrics or matters affecting the pastoral life. But today, my impression is that the majority always prevails over the minority, ignoring even the legitimate pastoral requests of the latter.

The dispute over the Mass facing the altar/people is relatively a new one, a phenomenon that came to the limelight after the Vatican II. Till then the universal practice in the Church – both in the West and in the East – was Mass facing the East/Altar. Therefore, historically, it is wrong to argue that the practice of facing the people is an exclusive Western tradition.

The Mass facing the East/Altar was mainly based on the argument that one needs to pray turning towards the rising sun which symbolizes God, the Light of the World. It is undoubtedly a natural symbolism, but not a matter of faith. When it was not practically possible to construct the churches in the East-West direction, the devotees began to turn to the Cross which was said to be the ‘symbolic East’. Naturally, the celebrant and the people turned to one and the same direction during worship.

During and after Vatican II, the theology of the baptismal or common priesthood of the people of God received a new impetus. This led to the symbolism of ‘Mass around the Table of the Lord’ with a cross in its centre. Thus, coming around the cross/altar, the celebrant exercised his ministerial priesthood and the faithful their baptismal priesthood. For many, especially in the West, this was found to be a very meaningful symbolism and it got wide acceptance.

As a matter of fact, both practices – facing the East/Altar and coming around the Cross/Altar – are meaningful symbolisms. In my opinion, therefore, more than as a theological issue, it needs to be evaluated from a pastoral point of view.

Today the Church is living in an age of ‘synodality’. As regards the Syro Malabar Church, this is not a new idea. They had the practice of taking decisions concerning the Church in consultation with the laity. It was strictly followed in temporal matters. The bishops were generous enough to apply this principle even in the spiritual and pastoral matters considering the needs of the faithful. Therefore, when the Synod of Bishops took the decision in 1999 to implement the 50:50 formula, there was a hue and cry raised by a sizeable section of the clergy and the faithful. This led to a reconsideration of the decision taken by the Synod. Considering the resistance of the clergy and the faithful, the Synod held in November 2001 took a decision regarding the procedure to be followed in finalizing the liturgical texts. Accordingly, any decision on the liturgical changes was to be taken only after consulting the Central Liturgical Committee and the concerned committees in the dioceses. Sad to say, this decision of the Synod was not respected when it decided to re-introduce the 50:50 formula in 2021. This precipitated a crisis that was already in the air since 1999. Though some wise and experienced senior bishops of the Synod had warned about the possible negative impact of such a decision, they were not heeded to.

You ask me about the motive behind the 50:50 formula. As far as I know, this formula decided by the Synod and approved by Rome, has no foundation in liturgy, theology or history. As I have already pointed out, there are only two possible formulae – either fully facing the East/Altar or all coming around the Cross/Altar. The 50:50 formula is only a ‘compromise formula’ to pacify the two groups in the Church. As a renowned Eastern liturgy expert, Prof. Robert Taft S.J., told the Syro Malabar Bishops’ Synod held in Rome in 1996, when there are divergent opinions regarding a liturgical practice, provided it has nothing to do with faith or morals, a compromise formula may be a way out. And if that does not work, it is better to leave the matter to the diocesan bishop to decide. I too believe that the right solution was to continue the previous practice of leaving it as an option to be decided by the diocesan bishop considering the pastoral situation in his diocese. The bishops should have followed the age-old principle: ‘When a pastoral practice is functioning well, leave it alone.’

Is the present dispute an attempt to divert attention from the land sale dispute? Well, there are people who think so and they point out certain circumstantial evidences to justify their claim. However, I do not wish to speculate on it at this juncture.

I fully agree with the statement of Pope Francis, because unity in diversity is a universal norm today. The communion and unity in the Catholic Church despite diverse sui iuris Churches is a classical example thereof.

From the reports of the synod meetings, I understand that the bishops introduced the uniform mode of celebration with the intention of reaching at greater unity in the Church. At one stage, some of them naively believed that uniformity would bring about unity. But they were proved to be wrong.

I am of the opinion that the Holy Father in his letter and his video message did not enter into the merit of the issues involved, but rather he was pointing to the canonical right of the Synod to take decisions on the liturgy and implement them. Unfortunately, the bishops did not pay due attention to what the Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli told them intervening at the Synod of August 2021 that decided to implement the 50:50 formula. The Nuncio said: “In the present situation of your Church, the Holy Father’s desire for a ‘prompt implementation of the uniform mode of celebrating’ is an appeal to unity and not to cause division, and thus needs to be contextualized. Therefore, I encourage the Synod judiciously to evaluate the timeframe for a prudent process of implementation in order to safeguard the unity of your Church.” And he added: “In heeding the spirit of the Holy Father’s words, may you move forward together in such a manner as to conserve the communion of which you, dear Bishops, are custodians.”

This is the crux of the problem. In other words, was the Pope fully aware of the issues involved and the whole truth about it? I am afraid, he was not. Let me explain. In his first letter dated 03 July 2021, the Pope wrote that the unanimous decision taken by the Synod in 1999 was repeatedly endorsed by the bishops in subsequent years. In fact, there were over thirty synod sessions between 1999 and 2021. So far nobody could point out any synod meeting that ‘endorsed’ the decision of 1999. How did this factual error occur in the letter of the Holy Father? Who is behind this erroneous statement of the Pope? Even after repeated requests neither Rome nor the Synod has given an answer to these questions.

The Holy Father in his video message given on 07 November 2023 states that he took time to study all aspects of the issues involved. In this context, one is tend to raise the following queries.

When the Syro Malabar Church was raised to Major Archepiscopal status, the Pope had reserved to himself two rights of the Synod, namely the right to choose the bishops and the right to take decisions on the liturgy. The reason for this reservation, I understand, was due to differences of opinion among the bishops on various issues. Therefore, Rome considered that the time was not ripe to hand over these two rights to the Synod. Later, in 1998 the Synod was given the right to take decisions on the liturgy. A major decision the Synod took after obtaining this right was the unanimous approval of the uniform mode of celebration in 1999. Rome waited for another six years and then transferred the right to elect bishops in 2004. Since then the most important exercise of this right by the Synod was the election of the Major Archbishop in 2011.

Did the Synod rise to the expectations of Rome in exercising these two rights? It is a moot question. It is reported that during the Synod in August 2023, a secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature in Delhi, read out a letter from the Vatican underscoring the importance of the rights and duties of a sui iuris Church. There is a widespread impression that in order to forcefully implement the synod decision on the uniform mode of celebration the Synod surrendered its solemn right to the authority of Rome.

It is true that the Synod is adamantly refusing to reconsider its decision. The intransigent attitude of the bishops is reflected in the interventions of the August 2021 Synod as reported in the Synodal News of 2021. Many bishops argued that if the synod decision on 50:50 formula is reconsidered and any concession is made, it would ‘weaken’ the ‘authority’ of the Synod. It seems that the bishops were concerned more about the canonical power of the Synod rather than about reconciliation and peace in the Church. Some bishops, as reported in the Synodal News, considered the resistance to the synod decision as something that called for retribution.

The Church is said to be the conscience of the nation. Therefore, what is expected of the Church leadership is their moral and spiritual authority rather than the exercise of their power as stipulated in the Canon Law.

I agree that at present there is a clear polarized division in the Syro Malabar Church regarding the liturgical renewal, especially concerning the uniform mode of celebration.

It is true that I have great appreciation for the vision and contributions of Joseph Cardinal Parecattil in the field of Church renewal in general and the liturgical renewal in particular. At the same time, I have reservations with regard to certain practical steps he took in the process of their implementation. As Archbishop Cornelius Elanjikal of the Archdiocese of Verapoly once remarked, ‘Cardinal Parecattil who lived in the 20th century was a man who had the vision of a 21st century bishop.’

I have the impression that the Church is slowly moving towards more a conservative and retrogressive change despite the great expectations Pope Francis gave to the Church when he started his Apostolic Ministry calling the Vatican bureaucracy to mend its ways, shifting his residence from the Apostolic Palace to Santa Martha, constituting the Committee of nine Cardinals to revise the functioning of Vatican dicasteries, etc. Some of his initiatives were severely criticized even by some Cardinals and Bishops. Still I believe that Pope Francis has set in motion a trend that might eventually lead the Church to greater simplicity, synodality and concern for the poor and the marginalized. Consequently, the moral strength of the Church will have an upper hand over the power of Canon Law and the liturgical rubrics.