|
| |
CHAPTER III
ECCLESIASTICAL IDENTITY OF
THE KNANAYA COMMUNITY
3.1: INTRODUCTION
Fr. Kurian the Cor-Episcopa to the Chingavanam Knanaya Bhadrasanam once
commented, “Neither Mar Kunnacherry, nor Mar Clemese, nor even the Roman Pope
makes a non-knanite, a knanite or a knanite, a non-knanite.” This comment refers
to the unalterable nature of the knanite-hood. This chapter is an exposition of
the membership and nature of the Knanaya community and its relation to the
church, more concretely to the Knanaya Catholic church. It tries to examine
various concepts like a knanite, Knanaya Community, Catholic Church and Knanaya
Catholic Church / community. Finally an analysis is done on the relationship
between these two realities, namely, Knanaya community and Knanaya Catholic
Church/Community.
[NB. In this chapter Community refers to Knanaya Community and Church to the
Knanaya Catholic Church.]
3.2: A KNANITE
Many writers of the community are of the opinion that the Knanites are those who
are born of Knanaya parents (both must be Knanites) who practice endogamy and
Knanaya customs and traditions (Tharayil, Unpublished work, 9). If the term
“Knanites” is used in singular to indicate community, then this definition is
right. But if that term is used as the plural of the term “a Knanite,” then the
definition is erroneous. This is because of the fact that one becomes a Knanite
through his birth-alone (Kunnacherry, Aug. 1999, 15) and if it is a birth right,
it is lost only at his death. In other terms, Knanite-hood is an ascribed gift
and not an achieved one. The practice of endogamy or any other customs is not an
essential character of knanite-hood. His religious beliefs, life styles etc.,
have nothing to do with his knanite-hood. Even after inter Knanaya marriage; one
retains his knanite-hood. This is evident from the following example.
A knanite marries a non-knanite and now he / she is not considered as part of
the community. But she / he has the distant chance to return to the community
if the partner dies or the aforesaid married is declared invalid by the
competent ecclesiastical authorities and if the person enters into a second
marriage with a member of the Knanaya Community. Then he is considered as part
of the community. His children (if he has) from the second marriage are
considered as Knanites, where as the children (if he has) of the first marriage
are not considered as Knanites. Now the question is who implanted in him
knanite-hood at the time of the second marriage, if he had lost it at the time
of the first marriage? Knanite-hood is not an achieved one but an ascribed one.
Again if it is the practice of endogamy that which makes a knanite a knanite, we
have to say that all unmarried Knanaya persons including priests and nuns are
not Knanites, because endogamy can be practiced only by marriage.
Hence we come to the conclusion that Knanite-hood is dependent upon nothing
except birth from Knanaya parents (and not on the practice of the customs). What
is important is that both the parents must be Knanites (Vellian and Vembeni,
1991, 80). Here we are faced with the problem of explaining the term “Knanaya
parents.” Knanaya parents are the descendants of the group of Syrian Christians
who arrived at Cranganore under the leadership of Kinai Thomman.
3.3: KNANAYA COMMUNITY
Widely speaking, Knanaya community is the living together of the descendants of
the Syrian immigrants under the leadership of Knai Thomman. It is the living
together of the “Knanites” with we-feeling, a sense of people-hood. This sense
of peoplehood is the identity and the assertion of individuality of the
community. Knanites alone can become the members of the Knanaya community.
Though the membership is an ascribed one, one can leave the community (not the
knanite-hood) at any time as one likes. If one feels that one need not partake
in the union of the community one can stay away from the community, and if he
wants to return, there is the possibility to return. However, if one engages
himself in an exogamous marriage, one loses this privilege. He cannot continue
in the community as long as the other person exists. But I repeat, living apart
from the community does not imply the losing of knanite-hood. If one engages
himself in an exogamous marriage, one loses this privilege until the marriage
bond exists. Living apart from the community does not imply losing of
Knanite-hood.
There is no dismissal of the members from the community but only suspension, if
we view from the part of the community. Dismissal means temporary privation of a
privilege to act as a member of the Knanaya community. Of course, this is a sad
decision and the community does not like to take such a decision. But the
community cannot but take such a decision. If the community does not do it, it
will create many social and pastoral problems in the future. The father will
belong to one community and children and mothers will remain in another
community because at any rate they cannot be admitted as Knanites. Community
wants to avoid such situations. Again she wants her survival through its members
entering in Knanaya endogamous marriages by which alone knanite children will be
born. Suspension of members can be considered as a warning to other members.
Though the community does not prohibit such marriages, it highly discourages
such marriages.
From the angle of the individual, it is an assertion of the freedom of that
individual. She / he knows that the other person does not belong to the
community and that if she / he enters into such a relation she / he will have to
leave the community. Still if she/he decides to marry him / her she / he express
his / her freedom of will whereby she / he opts to go out. The community
respects his / her freedom and hence she does not prohibit such marriages, but
only discourages them. What the community says to the individual is, “The
community has respected your freedom to marry the person you liked, and on the
other side the community has her own freedom which you have to respect and
accept. The members of this community want to marry from among the members
themselves and this community is a union of such individuals. You may please
respect the freedom of the members of this community and so please leave the
community. The community understands the feelings of you to leave the community
whom you loved and served so deeply. But it is up to you to make a choice
between two contrasting realities.”
In this respect she does not expel anyone and she has no formal agency to punish
any one. The persons themselves leave the community, though under the force of
tradition. There might arise a question whether it is justifiable that one is
expelled from the community because of the sole reason that one married a person
of one’s choice who does not belong to the community. The sole answer to this
question is, every society or institution has its own rules and regulations and
its members are obliged either to obey them or to leave the community or
society. What gives the Knanaya community its identity is its practice of
endogamy and those who can not follow it may rather go out of her. It is
impossible for a catholic priest to lead a married life as long as single life
is prescribed for the catholic priests (except certain exceptions). He may
either continue as a priest without wife, or leave the priesthood. But he cannot
practice both at the same time.
3.4: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Catholic Church is the body of believers in Christ whose earthly high authority
being the pope. It is defined as a communion of communities. It has got various
Rites in it, and different cultures, all of which is united in Christ as various
parts of the body. Because of this all-inclusive nature she is called catholic.
Catholic Church is a religious entity and what makes one member of the church is
baptism and faith in the Triune God.
3.5: KNANAYA CATHOLIC CHURCH
Knanaya community is a social reality and Catholic Church, a religious entity.
Knanaya Catholic church seems to be a union between these two, otherwise
distinct realities. If may be defined as the body of the members of the Catholic
Church who are also members of the Knanaya community. It is very difficult to
separate the Knanaya community from the church. Still, we may be able to
differentiate these two.
The history of the Knanites is inter-mingled with the Church. It was a group of
Syrian Christians who migrated to Cranganore, accompanied by a bishop, four
priests and few deacons having a missionary end to fulfill. They continued their
relation to the mother Church and had bishops from there. They built churches
and continued in the Christian faith. All these unanimously points to the
conclusion that they were Christians. But what sort of Christians were they?
Were they Catholics under the guidance of Rome? We are not hundred percent sure
of it and cannot give pin-pointed answer to this. Since there is no traits of
St. Thomas “Christians” direct relations to Rome is found, it depends on whether
their mother church, i.e., Selucia-Steciphon Church was under Rome, or whether
they were in communion with the Roman Church. There is a variety of opinions on
this. There are certain texts which testifies to the Roman connection of the
East Syrian Church. However, historians have not come to a final conclusion on
this matter. From the arrival of the Portuguese, however, we are almost sure
that the whole Knanaya Community was having Catholic faith. This may be the
reason why Dom Menezis, the Archbishop of Goa stayed at Kaduthuruthy and
convened the (so-called) Synod (because there is a discussion among the
historians about the validity of this synod) at Udayamperoor (Diamper) both of
which belonged to the Knanites (Chazhikattu, 1961, 241-252). However in 1653,
there took place a tragic division among the St. Thomas Christians (Mattam,
1949, 144). This division later paved the way to the acceptance of the Jacobite
faith by a group.
According to the Jacobite version, the St. Thomas Christians were Jacobites,
having connections with the Patriarch of Antioch. The Portuguese were trying to
impose Catholic faith by Romanizing and Latinizing them. However, they succeeded
in protesting against it and thereby to remain in their old faith. But the
names, by which these groups are known, do not make such an impression. The
Catholic party was called Pazhayakuttukar (those who remained in the old faith)
and the Jacobites, Puthenkuttukar which means those who accepted new faith.
(Chazhikattu, 1961, 260). These terms are popularly accepted by all and hence we
may be able to conclude that Jacobite faith was something new to the land. It
was introduced only in 1665 by Mar Gregarious (Vellian and Vembeni, 1991, 41).
The division among the St. Thomas Christians affected the Knanaya community as
well. In fact, the one who acted as the director of all these happenings was
Anjilimoottil Ittithomman, a Knanite priest of the Kallissery parish (Makil,
1997, 7). The community which till then remained one was separated into two but
only in the matter of religious faith, the community continues to be one form
the sociological perspective. The prevalence of two faiths in the community, of
course, has reduced its unity and strength. Along with a group of Christians one
group of Knanites too accepted Jacobite faith. Though many efforts were taken to
reunite them in to the catholic faith, none of them has brought forth any good
results.
The Catholic section of the Knanites had played a major role in the Kerala
Church. They remained faithful to all the authorities conferred upon them by the
Roman pontiff (Pullappally, 1997, 15). Though Menezis had no authority over the
church of Malabar, the Knanites accepted and remained faithful to him, as they
were instructed so. They had played a major role in ordaining Mar. Candy
Palliveettil (Alexander de Campo as he is known in Latin) at the Kaduthuruthy
Valiyapally which belongs to them (Mattam, 1949, 163). Knanites had given a huge
amount of money for the journey of Fr. Kariyattil, who later became a
Metropolitan and Paremmackal Thomman Kathanar to Rome. Out of the 43,000
Chakrams (rupees) 30,000 was given by Poothathil Ittikuruvila Tharakan and his
brother Thommi, who where Knanites (Karukaparambil, 1997, 12).
When two Vicariates were erected exclusively for the St. Thomas Christians in
1887 by the decree “Quod Jam Pridem,” the whole Knanaya Catholics where included
in the Kottayam Vicariate. Out of the 1, 20,000 members, the Knanites were only
about 20,000 (Karukaparambil, 1997, 14). For better administrative efficiency,
and to avoid quarrel between Southists and Northeast’s, Fr. Matthias Mail was
appointed as the vicar general of the Southists of the vicariate. He become the
Vicar General on 12th October 1889. It was a land mark in the history of the
Knanaya Catholics. Only by this appointment Knanaya Catholics were accepted as a
separate entity within the structural dimension of the church (Makil, 1997, 11).
According to some authors, Fr. Makil’s appointment as the vicar Apostolic of the
new Vicariate of Changanacherry in 1896 was a further step in this direction.
But this statement is not correct He was made bishop not because he was a member
of the Knanaya community, nor it was to please or appreciate the community, nor
to give them any social acceptance. Instead, he was a Catholic and had all the
qualities to be a bishop and hence he became a bishop. The only accusation
against him to be a bishop was that be was a Knanite. Thus Fr. Makil becoming a
bishop could not be regarded as an acceptance of the community.
However the erection of the vicariate of Kottayam in 1911 is truly a further
milestone in their history. By the decree, “In Universi Christiani,” signed on
Aug.29, 1911 by his Holiness Pius X, the Knanaya Catholics were separated from
the vicariate of Changanacherry and Ernakulam and were included in the new
vicariate (Pius X, 1911). In 1923 the vicariate was raised to the status of
Diocese. There after the Knanaya Catholics continue in the Diocese of Kottayam.
The Knanaya group who accepted Jacobite faith continued as part of the Jacobite
church. They kept in mind the desire to reunite with the Catholic Church. This
was in its peaks in 1890’s (Chazhikattu, 1961, 273). But the spirit did not last
long and hence the re-unification did not occur. In 1910, they got their own
bishopric and personal jurisdiction. This bishopric is known as Chingavanam
Knanaya Bhadrasanam (Makil, 1997, 10).
In 1921, Mar. Alexander Chulaparambil obtained from the Holy See to practice
Syro-Malankara rite for the reunified people from Knanaya Jacobite church. Thus
with this privilege, a few people from Knanaya Jacobite Church accepted Catholic
faith and started practicing Syro-Malankara rite in the years that followed
(Vellian, Dec. 1980,1). Thus there were Syro-Malankara Christians in the Diocese
of Kottayam prior to the declaration of the Syro-Malankara Hierarchy in 1930.
Kottayam Diocese seems to be the only diocese comprising two rites.
The above discussion points to certain facts in the history of Knanites that
they had their own churches, own priests, and even bishops appointed from Syria,
they had a Vicar General (Fr. Makil), and have a bishop and a diocese from 1911
onwards. From all these we may be tempted to believe that the Knanaya community
is identical with the Knanaya Catholic community.
6.6: IS SHE A MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
Catholic Church may be defined as a communion of communities. The Knanaya
Catholic community functions as one among the many communities of her. But the
Knanaya community does not form part of the Catholic Church nor is it identical
with the Knanaya Catholic community. Membership of the Knanaya community is an
ascribed one and not an achieved one. A person becomes the member of it both the
parents of him are Knanites. But this is not the case with the Catholic Church.
Though, it is quite natural that one becomes a Christian, if one’s parents are
Christians, in fact, one becomes the members of the church only through baptism.
Baptism is a must to be a member of the Church. In this regard one becomes a
member of the Knanaya Catholic Community, i.e., the Diocese of Kottayam only
through baptism. In a humorous sense, a Knanaya Thomas or Luke will be some
days’ senior to the Catholic Thomas or Candy, who has become the member of the
Church some days after his birth.
Another point of difference is the reasons for the loss of membership in the
church and in the Knanaya Community. One is expelled from the Church because of
many reasons. But one loses the membership in the community only because of one
reason, i.e., exogamous or inter marriages. In fact, Catholic Church does not
like intermarriages. “The attitude of the Catholic Church has always been one
of severely forbidding marriage of Catholics and non-Catholics and she has from
time to time merely tolerated such marriages by granting dispensations, when
guarantees were given that conditions designed to protect the faith of the
Catholic party and the offspring world be fulfilled.” (Mihanovich, et, al.,
1955, 196). This is the attitude of the Catholic Church. Though the Church does
not encourage such marriages, it does not rule out such a marriage maintaining
certain precautions. As part of the Catholic Church, the Kottayam Diocese also
must have followed this policy. But one is excluded from the Kottayam Diocese
if he enters in to an exogamous marriage without any exception. Then how can we
explain the exclusion of its members for exogamous marriage?
The answer is very simple. The diocese is erected for the members of the Knanaya
Community and only the members of the community can be the members of the
Kottayam Diocese (cf. Pious X, “In Universi Christiani.” (Why the community is
erected exclusively for the Knanites will be explained later). If the Knanaya
community excludes a member, he can no longer continue as a member of the
community and if he is not a member of the community, he can not continue as a
member of the diocese, since only the members of the community could be the
members of the Diocese.
Certain points still continue to be in a vogue. For example, if one enters into
a second marriage while the first marriage bond still exists, he is away from
the communion of the church, and hence from the diocese. But what about his
position in the Knanaya Community, if both of his wives are Knanites themselves?
So is the case of the Knanaya ex-priests and sisters who have not obtained
dispensation and if they get married with Knanaya partners, what is their
position in the community? One thing is true that such person’s knaniteh-ood is
never lost and have not acted against the rules of the community.
This distinction between the Knanaya community and the Knanaya Catholic
Community is very important. The community includes not only Catholics but also
Jacobites. It means there are two faiths in the community. So also one can be a
non believer of either of these two faiths or even an atheist. Still, if he is
born of the Knanaya parents, he is to be regarded as a member of the Knanaya
Community, if he wishes so and if not exists an exogamous marriage bond. But
the Catholic Church does not include Jacobites or non-believers. That means
there are members of the Knanaya Community outside the Catholic Church. Thus it
becomes clear that Knanaya community is not a part of the Catholic Church, nor
it is identical with the Knanaya Catholic Church, instead, it is a wide concept
including non-Catholics.
If it is not a part of the Church can there be priesthood in the Community? In
the strict sense there is no priesthood in the Community. Priesthood is a
religious function and it has an existence only in the religious field, say in
the Church. Knanaya community being a sociological fact can not have any
priesthood in it. Then what do we mean by the word Knanaya priest? It simply
means that he is from the Knanaya Community and it does not imply the idea that
he is for the Knanaya Community. Thus a Knanite studying for priesthood becomes
a priest not for the Knanaya Community, but for the Knanaya Catholic Community.
He may act for the Community, but they will not be religious acts, but only
sociological acts. This is because there is no religious function attached to
the Community. From the sociological viewpoint community does not make priests
but the members can become priests. Thus there is no bishop, no priest, no
seminarian, and no sister in the community.
And hence community leadership is not conferred upon them by the reception of
their religious orders. But, in fact, they act as community leaders, because
there is no other formal agency to guide and lead the community and hence the
community has given a silent acceptance to their leadership. If we analyze the
history of the community we may be able to understand the roles played by the
laity in the community. It is much higher than the roles played by the laity in
any other Christian Community of Kerala (Kachiramattam, June 1999, Vol.12).
The first leader of the immigration was not a priest or a bishop, but a lay man
(Vellian (ed.), 1986, Appendix-3). However such lay leadership is a rare
phenomenon and there is no surety of they being succeeded in a sequence. In the
long history of the Knanaya Community, there never existed any hereditary system
of the transition of leadership. Except certain associations which were
originated in this century, there was not any organ to organize the Community.
Because of this fact, the religious figures of the community have taken the role
of bringing the members together and to give them apt leadership. They have done
it quite well in the past centuries, and is being continued now. Yet such a role
taking is not an official one and hence it will be proper to hand over the
leadership of the community to the lay people, if efficient lay leaders emerge
form the community, and let the religious leaders concentrate much on the
spiritual welfare of the people.
Once if we understand this distinction between the community and the church,
many accusations against the community would fade away. It is not the
Knanite-hood that makes one holy and assures his salvation. It is not by
becoming a Knanite one is saved, but through his faith and life in Christ Jesus.
This is made clear by St. Paul who wrote, “However that may be, let each of you
lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my
rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already
circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one
at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but obeying the
commandments of God is every thing. Let each of you remain in the condition in
which you were called.”(1cori 7, 17-20).
One’s salvation is assured only in the church and through Christ.
Hence one must become a member of the church, but it does not mean that one
should become a Knanite because the Knanite-hood does not produce or possess
salvation. To become a Catholic one can opt any Rite, but one has no possibility
of opting to be a Knanite because Knanite-hood is an ascribed gift through birth
and hence can not be included in the Diocese of Kottayam because the Diocese
cannot include a person who is not a Knanite.
3.7: CONCLUSION
The distinction between Knanaya and Knanaya Catholic communities are
very slight. There is all possibility of slipping down from one to the other.
While Knanaya community is a wide concept having the union of all the Knanites
and comprises all - believers and non believers, Catholics and Jacobites,
Knanaya Catholic community is the union of all Knanites who believe in the
Catholic Church. These are some of the important aspects of differences. But in
fact, we find more similarities rather than dissimilarities. There exists a
close connection between these two. Above all, the baptism certificate which is
produced by either the Knanaya Catholic Church or the Knanaya Jacobite church
serves as the identification mark of the Knanite-hood. At least for the time
being, baptism certificate is a must to prove his identity as a Knanaya person,
let he be a Catholic or Jacobite. Hence the relation between the community and
the church can not be ignored.
|
