A Response to Fr. Mathew Vattamattam’s Writing of 28 August 2023

Msgr Antony Nariculam

Recently I happened to come across a writing in the social media by Rev. Fr. Mathew Vattamattam, CMF, the Superior General of the Claretian Congregation, dated 28 August 2023, on the liturgical issue in the Syro Malabar Church. The title of the paper is “Looking at the Liturgy Conflict of Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese.” I read it with great interest as I personally knew Fr. Mathew as a religious who discerns matters affecting the Church judiciously and with genuine concern. His evaluation of issues is generally objective and without bias. But in the paper under review, I am compelled to make a few observations as I believe that a few important pieces of information are necessary to comprehend better, or more correctly, the liturgical issue that is troubling the Syro Malabar Church in general and the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly in particular.
Observations of Fr. Mathew
Fr. Mathew rightly observes that the conflict on the liturgy has created a great wound in the heart of the Syro Malabar Church and it continues to bleed. According to him, in this issue what could have been taken by a pin cannot be now taken by a spade as things were allowed to grow out of proportion. One reason for this tragic situation is ‘collective inability to hold honest conversations’, he writes. At the same time, he admits that the issue is very simple and not centrally connected to the tenets of the Catholic faith. He also notes that this conflict is an apt situation for the practice of discernment in the Syro Malabar Church. Therefore, this is “a good opportunity to learn the art of discernment as a Church community and make the radical option to listen to the voice of the Spirit of Christ.” Since any individual or group can err in their decisions, Fr. Mathew suggests that “a collective introspection would be in place at this juncture of the liturgical issue.” Hence his question, ‘are the objections of the priests, religious and laity of Ernakulam-Angamaly reasonable enough to persuade the hierarchy to revisit the decision already taken?’ is very relevant.
In this background, let me make a few observations as a footnote to the paper of Fr. Mathew Vattamattam.

Process of “Decision-making” and “Decision-taking
Fr. Mathew makes a distinction between “decision-making” and “decision-taking” processes. The ‘decision-making’ time is one of dialogue and consultation whereas the ‘decision-taking’ stage is of implementation. The crux of the issue lies here. The all-important objection of Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese, as also of many other dioceses, is that a proper dialogue and consultation was not made during the ‘decision-making’ process. It was not done either prior to the 1999 or 2020 synodal decision regarding the uniform mode of celebration of the Holy Mass. In fact, the process followed by the bishops was against the norms stipulated by the synod itself as clearly stated by the bishops in November 2001. According to these norms, the Central Liturgical Committee and the diocesan liturgical committees were to be consulted at the ‘decision-making’ stage. But this process was ignored by the synod.

A Final Ruling is binding on All
Fr. Mathew admits that the bishops can make mistakes by taking hasty decisions or their decision could be an untimely one. But once the Supreme Pontiff gives a final ruling it should be binding on all.
Admitting that the final ruling of the Holy Father is binding on all, there are a few points which we need to bear in mind as Fr. Mathew does not refer to them.
a) Normally, when the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches issues a decree approving a liturgical text, it is simply implemented by the Church sui iuris concerned. In our case, the decree was approved on 09 June 2021. The mode of its implementation, including a decision on the uniform mode of celebration, was to be taken by the synod in August 2021 as already announced by the Major Archbishop in the synod of January 2021. In between, on 03 July 2021, the Pope writes a letter to the Syro Malabar Church exhorting to implement the decision of the synod on the uniform mode of celebration promptly. How come that the Pope writes such a letter even before the synod took a formal decision on its implementation? Besides, there was a factual error in the letter of the Pope. According to his letter, the unanimous decision regarding the uniform mode of celebration taken in 1999 was “repeatedly endorsed in subsequent years”. Between 1999 and 2021 there were 37 synodal sessions. An examination of the decisions of these synodal sessions proves that the 1999 decision was never endorsed in any of the subsequent synods as stated in the letter of the Pope! Sad to note that this letter of the Pope with a factual error was made use of by the Major Archbishop to avoid any discussion on the uniform mode of celebration in the synod of August 2021 that decided to implement it on 28 November 2021.
b) The November 2001 synod had taken the following decision regarding the procedure to be adopted in finalizing the liturgical texts and in introducing them for use. Accordingly, “the Commission for Liturgy presents to the synod the text prepared by the Central Liturgical Committee (CLC), the synod makes a preliminary discussion of the text, the Commission sends the text with modifications if any to the eparchies for suggestions, the Commission studies the suggestions with the help of CLC and presents the text to the synod, the synod discusses and gives final approval to the text.” But when the text of the Holy Mass underwent this process, the rubric on the uniform mode of celebration was purposefully hidden from all the committees concerned, including the special committee of bishops entrusted with the task of giving final touches!
c) Since Fr. Mathew has expressed his reservation about the appropriateness of hasty decisions, it is relevant to recall what the Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli told the bishops while he addressed them during the On line synod held in August 2021 that took the decision to implement the uniform mode of celebration. He said that the synodality is the form that realizes the participation of all the people of God. Referring to Pope Francis he noted that ‘the synod process begins by listening to the people of God.’ In the present context of the Syro Malabar Church, he continued, the Holy Father’s desire for a prompt implementation of the uniform mode of celebration ‘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 prudent process of implementation in order to safeguard the unity of your Church.” Ignoring the timeframe, the synod decided to implement it ‘promptly’ referring to the letter of the Holy Father.

Implementation in 34 out of 35 Dioceses
Fr. Mathew presumes that the 34 dioceses which have already implemented the synodal decision and enjoy ‘unity, peace and joy.’ It appears to me that his presumption is far from the truth. All who subscribe to this impression are invited to make a survey of these dioceses and find out for themselves the real situation and the struggles they are undergoing.

Pope Francis and Archbishop Antony Kariyil
Fr. Mathew makes a reference to the Papal Audience granted to the Metropolitan Vicar Archbishop Antony Kariyil and this writer. It is true that after listening to Archbishop Kariyil, the Pope did not make any commitment. Rather he directed us to meet the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri. However, the Pope promised that he would call Cardinal Sandri on the same day. In fact, when we met Cardinal Sandri on the following day, the Cardinal showed us a sheet of paper on which he had scribbled what the Pope had told him. After the meeting with the Cardinal, he was kind enough to issue a letter granting permission to Archbishop Kariyil to apply canon 1538 of the Eastern Code of Canons. In the light of this permission, Archbishop Kariyil issued a circular to the Archdiocese granting dispensation from the synodal decision. In this connection Fr. Mathew asks: “Which spirit moved Archbishop Kariyil and Fr. Nariculam to misunderstand the advice of the Holy See and misinterpret canon 1538 by granting an invalid wholesale exemption to the entire Archdiocese?”
As far as I understand, there was neither any misunderstanding nor misinterpretation of canon 1538 on the part of Archbishop Kariyil. What prompted the Archbishop to give “wholesale exemption to the entire Archdiocese” was to avoid an impending pastoral catastrophe in the Archdiocese. In fact, his decision was in the light of the letter of Cardinal Sandri which stated as follows: “In virtue of your office as Vicar of the Major Archbishop for the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, Your Grace can apply the faculty of dispensation for those cases, which, in your prudential judgment, would result in grave consequences with the entry into force on 28 November 2021 of the synodal decision concerning the Holy Qurbana.” This letter was given by Cardinal Sandri on 26 November 2021 and the Archbishop’s circular was published on 27 November. Since almost all parishes had the same issues, which Archbishop Kariyil already knew well, he was applying his ‘prudential judgment’ to avoid ‘grave consequences’ on 28 November 2021. But later, employing the same prudential judgment he fixed a time limit for the dispensation in the whole Archdiocese. But the Major Archbishop and the synod were in no mood to endorse this prudent decision taken by Archbishop Kariyil which aggravated the situation further.
It is a tragedy that the Syro-Malabar church in recent years is mired in scandal after scandals. The responsibility for such a tragic situation, I am sorry to say, is brought about by the leadership itself. The Synod cannot wash its hands of its responsibility. The first and foremost error is exactly what Fr. Vattamattam says “Collective Inability to Hold Honest Conversations.” The Synod failed to make a distinction between authority and the person in authority and the Synod held a view that the major archbishop did not make moral error in the land sale dispute which was shocking to the general public and the archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly. The Synod dug up an unresolved and contentious matter from history and made a decision to impose uniformity and this was seen as ploy to distract the attention from the land sale issue and to punish the whistle-blowers of the land sale problem. To err is human, but to settle errors take a divine wisdom.