Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
So why are you guys so complicated? 
Dear Alex,
The problems in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church do not really affect me at all, but basically, the problems surround the Liturgy, as I've said in other threads.
The Vatican wants the Malabar Catholics to return to their traditions, and that means that they need to become more "Chaldean" liturgically. To this end, Rome has been appointing/approving/whatever bishops that are in favour of this, so that now the entire Synod is in favour of this, and trying to implement it. And they do have support among some of the priests.
But there is another group of people, including a majority, if I'm not mistaken, of the priests, who do not want this. They claim that the Holy See is trying to put them under the control of the Chaldean Catholic Church by "chaldeanising" them. They assert that they are an independent Indian Church (in fact, a reading of some of their documents might lead one to think that they believe they
are the Indian Church), and so shouldn't have such foreign influences. They are interested in an "Indian" liturgical rite that is more along the lines of what was celebrated before the arrival of the Portuguese and their subsequent "attack" on our Church. The problem with this is that those same Portuguese destroyed all the liturgical books, and so we don't know much of anything about any "Indian rite". What they are in fact promoting (whether or not they actually know this is what they're doing) is a latinised rite, complete with some Latin vestments, "Mass" facing the people, etc.
Because of this problem, things are not quite peaceful in the liturgical sphere.
Of course, a lot of this sounds like nationalism and the assertion of one's ecclesial independence from another Church, which is why I am somewhat annoyed at the Eastern Catholics in India when they side with the Patriarchal Syrian Orthodox because they recognise a very RC form of Petrine primacy, although vested in the Patriarch of Antioch, and attack the Indian Orthodox Church precisely for being "nationalistic" and "rebellious". It is hypocritical for their Synod to hold such a position when one's own house is not in order precisely for this sort of reason.
I personally wonder how committed their Synod is to the cause of restoration when they wear Latin vestments and clerical garb (see some of the pictures on that site, and compare it to the picture of the Indian Assyrian bishop on the same site, as well as pictures of their Major Archbishop's elevation to the Cardinalatial dignity, where he looked as Roman as Cardinal Sodano), when they take Western names (for example, Mar Simon Stock??), etc. Having been to one of their parishes "over there" for Liturgy and a wedding, I really couldn't tell that it was a Syro-Malabar church (statues, Stations, confessional, altar facing the people, etc.). In fact, we were told it was a Roman church, and I thought it looked pretty good for a Roman church; it was only when the Liturgy started, and I saw the phayno and cuffs the priest was wearing over his other Latin vestments, and heard the prayers which followed the Chaldean order, that I knew this was one of their churches, and wasn't Roman.
But you bring up an important point, which I think I also brought up once before. The Chaldean Catholic Church, if it ever had the latinisation problem, is probably more willing to Easternise, especially since they are very close to the Assyrian Church of the East. In India, however, this doesn't seem to be likely. When does a latinisation cease to be a latinisation? How long before such an "abuse" becomes so ingrained in the lives of the people that to remove it would cause more damage than to keep it? If one was talking only about a rite, it wouldn't be such a problem, but you are talking about a living rite that sustains people's spiritual lives. It's a tough problem.
