Establishment of Syro-Malabar Knanaya Parishes

Please see the following words of Mar Angadiath in Prot. No. 6/2012 dated 20.12.12 about the Knanaya parishes under him.

It “does not make any allowance for endogamy to play a role in defining the membership” in any parish. All Parishes are “established only on basis of this instruction”. “Family is one unit,” “Family unity is our primary concern,” etc.

Usually, it is the membership on the basis of endogamy alone, differentiate a Knanaya parish from others. Endogamy is the integral part of Knanaya. Knanaya has no existence or relevance without endogamy. It won't be wrong even to say that 'Knanaya is nothing but endogamy'!!!

The inclusion of the exogamous in a Knanaya parish or other structures is fundamentally against the prime, basic law of Knanaya community evolved through the centuries-old practice of the 'tradition of endogamy' combined with the exclusion of the exogamous..

But, Mar Angadiath clarifies beyond all doubts that endogamy has no role, influence or place in deciding the membership in a Knanaya parish in his diocese and that all parishes are “established only on basis of this instruction.” Accordingly endogamy cannot be connected in any way, to the Knanaya membership. So, in Knanaya membership issues, endogamy need not even be mentioned, thought of or considered at all! So, naturally “those Knanites who marry non-Knanites will not be excluded from their Knanaya parish.” and so, no Knanaya parish need be endogamous.

Then what is the difference of a Knanaya parish from others?! When there is no difference, how can we call it a 'Knanaya parish?' The use of the name 'Knanaya', for any parish which has no bearing to endogamy, is illegal, illegitimate and unauthorized.

Mar Angadiath also emphasizes that “Family is one unit“ and that “Family unity is our primary concern” etc. From the above, it follows that the a KANA-family is a single unit and hence cannot/should not be separated and that the unity is the primary concern of the Church. Moreover, the basis under which the non-Knanite spouses and children are denied membership is the absence of endogamy or the endogamous nature. If endogamy has no role, on what basis they can be denied membership?!

Then, it goes without saying that the non-Knanaya members of a KANA's family also CANNOT BUT BE members in the same Knanaya parish! Moreover, nowhere in Mar Angadiath's letter, it is mentioned that they are not members!

Thus, if endogamy has no bearing to the Knanaya membership and if the family cannot be separated, it clearly goes without saying that KANA-family members too are members in a Knanaya parish along with the exogamous Knanite. So whether it is said or not said specifically and precisely in the Prot. , Mar Angadiath clarifies that the KANA-family members too are members in a Knanaya parish along with the exogamous Knanites.

In a parish membership register, I think, only the name of the head of the family is numbered and the names of other members in the family are mentioned under the same family number as wife, son, daughter etc.! If that's the way how it is done, perhaps, the names of the family members other than that of its head may not be 'NUMBERED' separately, though actually their names too are entered under the same family name!!!

When the non-Knanaya son of KANA of the parish marry, his name with his spouse and children will have to be separately entered in the register of the same parish!

Thus non-Knantes will be recorded as official members in the Knanaya parish register. What a paradox?!!

A simple solution

AVOID USE OF THE NAME 'KNANAYA' IF A 'KANA' OR HIS FAMILY ARE MEMBERS IN A KNANAYA PARISH!!!

Philip Nedumchira.