Paganisation of the Liturgy in India
by
C.B. Andrade Ph.D.
Part I.
Much has been said and written, largely by knowledgeable traditionalist
Catholic laymen, against that abomination known as the Novus Ordo
Missae. These writings have made almost the entire Catholic world
familiar with the many loathsome postconciliar changes in the liturgy
of the true, traditional Mass: such changes as the alteration in the
form of the Consecration of the wine (from "for many" to "for all men")
which invalidates it; the introduction of rank heresy e.g., Eucharistic
Prayer IV which states: "Father in Heaven – You alone are God -" thus
denying the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost; etc. But, not
much, if anything, is known outside India, about the horrendous, pagan
changes that have been introduced into the liturgy of the Mass in
India, despite the massive and sustained opposition to them by the
laity, and it is the purpose of this article to make the readers of
"Einsicht" aware of the spiritual agony to which Indian Catholics have
been subjected by the paganisation of the liturgy by the arrogant,
dictatorial, autocratic and domineering Indian bishops and clergy,
aided and abetted by harlot Rome.
In this article (which will be in two parts) I propose to deal with the
paganisation of the all-Holy Mass under two aspects: (i) The 12 points
of adaptation and (ii) An order of the Mass for India, as concocted by
the Director of the National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical
Centre (NBCLC) which is sponsored by, and is the responsibility of the
Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI).
The 12 Points of adaption
Here are the 12 points of liturgical indigenisation (so-called)
supposedly "approved" by the CBCI and the misnamed Sacred Congregation
for Divine Worship (i.e., the late crypto-Jew Benno Cardinal Gut and
Annibale Bugnini, Freemason and heretic) for adaptation to the Novus
Ordo in India. Although the word "indigenisation" is used, it is
evident even to the meanest intelligence that the adaptations are a
flagrant Hinduisation of the liturgy:
1. The posture during Mass, both for priests and faithful may be
adapted to local usage, that is, sitting on the floor, standing and the
like; fottwear may be removed also.
2. Genuflections may be replaced by the profound bow with the anjali hasta.
3. A panchanga pranam by both priests and faithful can take place
before the liturgy of the word, as part of the penitential rite, and at
the conclusion of the Anaphora.
4. Kissing of objects may be adapted to local custom, that is, touching
the object with one's fingers or palms of one's hands and bringing the
hands to one's eyes of forehead.
5. The kiss of peace could be given by the exchange of anjali hasta and
/ or placing the hands of the giver between the hands of the recipient.
(Writer's comment: the anjali hasta may be made to God (vide 2 above)
or to mere man).
6. Incense could be made more use of in liturgical services. The receptacle could be the simple incense bowl with handle.
7. The vestments could be simplified. A simple tunic-type chasuble with
a stole (angavastra) could replace the traditional vestments of the
Roman rite.
8. The corporal could be replaced by a tray (thali or thambola thattu) of fitting material.
9. Oil lamps could be used in place of candles.
10. The preparatory rite of the Mass may include:
a) the presentation of gifts,
b) the welcome of the celebrant in an Indian way e.g., with a single arati, washing of the hands etc.,
c) the lighting of the lamp
d) the greeting of peace among the faithful is a sign of mutual re-conciliation.
11. In the "oratio fidelium" some spontaneity may be permitted both
with regard to its structure and the formulation of the intentions. The
universal aspect of the Church, however, should not be left in oblivion.
12. In the offertory rite and at the conclusion of the Anaphore the
Indian form of worship may be integrated, that is, double or triple
arati of flowers and / or incense and / or lights.
It would take up too much space to explain the Hindu connotations of
each and every one of these 12 points but, for the benefit of
non-Indian readers I will enlarge on some, the more objectionable, of
these points.
The anjali hasta
This is an out and out item of Hindu ritual. Mr. F. Parmanand, a
quondam Hindu priest converted to Catholicism, writing in 'The
Examiner' (the journal of the Bombay Archidiocese) of September 6, 1969
says that the anjali hasta is "an obeisance made by Hindu devotees to
their minor gods and godesses".
Mr. M. Rajareegam, Msc, B.Ed, a Hindu convert to Christianity, in a
letter to the CBCI says about the anjali hasta: "lam a convert to
Christ from an orthodox Hindu family and I value may faith more than
anything on earth. I beg to add that I do innately perceive the inner
meanings of Hindu symbols and gestures more than a born Catholic would
do. Hence I wish to speak plainly and state that the innovations
brought into the liturgy in recent years amount to, to speak the truth,
a deplorable profanation of the Holy Name of God. Let me substantiate
my statement.
"1) Introducing the Anjali Hasta in place of genuflection is too poor
an expression of adoration. Please consider the Hindu sastra which I
quote below: 'Thus shall Anjali be made to god and others: – Menfolk
shall make Anjali to Thirumurthi by raising the folded hands 12 inches
above the head; to other gods, by placing the folded hands over the
head; to gurus on the forehead; to kings and Pitha (father) on the
mouth; to Brahmins on the chest; to madha on the stomach."
"To Pitha, Madha and Devas, menfolk shall make the Anjali by ashtanga
shashtangana. But the womenfolk shall make the Anjali to all persons
cited above and to husbands by Panjanga Pranam.
"A careful reading on this sastra will disclose to any ordinary man
that the anjali due to gods and men vary only in grade because all
entities we perceive are God in different forms. This is the faith of
the Hindus. There is no question of Creator and creature which is the
fundamental truth for us Christians. To make use of a sastra that is
built on pantheistic philosophy is tantamount to subscribing to that
faith. Can we Christians do that? The Creator must be honored by the
creature by a unique gesture of adoration, which is genuflection as
accepted by the Church."
"The argument (put forward by the Hinduisers) that we give a new
(Catholic) meaning to anjali hasta (by incorporating it into Catholic
worship) is fantastic. How can Christians who number only two per cent
(of the Indian population) venture to alter the meaning all along
existing and held by 98 per cent of Hindus?"
Arati
Is a Hindu ritual performed by married women and courtesans to
counteract the influence of the evil eye and the looks of
ill-intentioned persons. It is, therefore, rank super-stition and has
no place in Catholic ritual and worship.
It would serve no useful purpose to deal seriatim with the remaining
points of Hinduisation, for the introduction of even one pagan ritual
into our All-Holy Mass is profanation enough.
Ostensible Reasons for the Introduction of the Hindu Adapatations
The two main reasons given by the Indian bishops for the introduction of the 12 points of adaptation are:
1. The liturgical renewal envisaged by Vatican II necessarily included
indigenisation of worship in keeping with the local cultures and
religious traditions as is attested to very clearly (supposedly) by the
constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (articles 37-40) and in other
documents of Vatican II.
2. The slow progress of the Church in India (some 13 million Catholics
after 20 centuries) is the result of the foreigners in the Church and
because of the foreign garb (so-called) that the Church wears in
consequence. Therefore the Church must wear Hindu garb in order to be
able to exist an expand in India.
Vatican II Envisaged Indigenisation
Let us examine these two reasons. First, the reason that indigenisation
was envisaged by Vatican II as part of the liturgical renewal. Leaving
aside for the moment, that Vatican II was a heretical Council, did it
really recommend incorporation of items of Hindu ritual into Catholic
worship? What do articles 37-40 (quoted by the bishops) of the Sacred
Constitution on the Liturgy (S.C.L) say? Here are the relevant parts:
"37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid
uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith or the good of the
whole community. Rather, she respects and fosters the spiritual
adornments and gifts of the various races and peoples. Anything in
their way of life that is not indissolubly bound up with superstition
and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact.
Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself as
long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit", (emphasis
added)
"38. Provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is
maintained the revision of liturgical books should allow for legitimate
variations and adaptions to different groups, regions and people,
especially in mission land...".
"39. This number is not particularly relevant to the purpose of this article.
"40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical
adaption of the liturgy is needed and entails greater difficulties.
Therefore:
– The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in
article 22, H 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider
which elements from the traditions and genius of individual people
might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which
are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the
Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced", (emphasis
added)
It is true, therefore, that the C.S.L. does say that the Liturgy can be adapted to the local culture BUT:
– What is meant by local culture? It is nothing but the culture of the
worshipping community (i.e. the Christian community). Even if it were
taken for granted that local culture means national culture, surely
Indian culture cannot be identified only with Hindu culture? Indian
culture is a very complex phenomenon and a multitude of influences –
Dravidian, Vedic, Greek, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, British, Portugese,
French, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian influences have gone into its
making. Mahatma Gandhi is quoted as saying: "Indian culture is neither
Hindu nor Islamic nor any other wholly. It is a fusion of all". By what
right, then can, – say genuflection, – be considered un-In-dian?
Catholics in India have been doing it for hundreds of years and it can,
therefore, be considered as Indian as the Muslim posture for prayer can
be consi-dered Indian.
– And, why do the Indian bishops stop at articles 37-40 of the S.C.L.
in support of the adaptions? Here are some other extracts from the
S.C.L. which the bishops have neglected, (deliberately?) To quote:
a) "Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them (...)."
b) "In the restoration and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, the full
and active participation of all the people is the aim to be considered
before all else."
c) "In order that the Christian people may more securely derive an
abundance of grace from the Sacred Liturgy, Holy Mother Church desires
to undertake with great care a general restoration of the Liturgy
itself".
d) "The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the
intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the
connection between them, can be more clearly manifested and that devout
and active participation by the faithful can be more easily
accomplished." (N.B. in the above extracts the emphasis is the
writer's.)
It is quite clear from these conciliar statements that the essential
criteria for change were the genuine and certain good of the Church,
and meaningfulness to, and better participation of, the faithful. If
the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required it; if the
introduction of Hindu gestures and symbols could lead to a better
understanding of the Mass and to a greater participation in it, then
such changes could be introduced, but not otherwise. Have these
essential criteria been satisfied by the introduction of the 12 points?
Did the good of the Church genuinely and certainly require them? Has
the Mass become more meaningful and the Indian Catholic a more devout
participant in it because of the anjali hasta, arati etc.? The answer
is to be had in the massive and persistent opposition over the years
all over the country to these changes. Besides, many devout Catholics
have left the Church and many more have stopped receiving the
sacraments – or what is left of them after Vatican II. And, if the good
of the Church genuinely and certainly required these changes – and it
is now some 13 years since they were forcibly introduced – surely by
now there should have been a spate of conversions to Catholicism and
large numbers of Indian Catholics should have developed haloes around
their heads.
Has the "good of the whole (catholic) community" not been 'involved'
(C.S.L., article 37) and jeopardized by these Hindu innovations? The
widespread, violent and sustained reactions against them give the
answer to this question. Can the bishops of India honestly and in all
conscience maintain that none of the 12 points is "indissolubly bound
up with superstition and error"? (article 37, S.S.L.) Two Hindu
converts to Christianity, one of them (Mr. Parmanand) a quondam Hindu
priest, categorically state the contrary. Such gestures as the anjali
hasta (an obeisance made by Hindu devotees to their minor gods and
godesses, e.g. Lakshmi, Hanuman, Kali, Ganesh etc.) and the arati (a
superstitions ritual for driving away evil spirits) are definitely not
bereft of overtones of false belief, nor of the specific Hindu ideology
underlying these beliefs.
Taking over ceremonies from a non-Christian religion is certainly
blameworthy if the reason is to minimize existing religious
differences. This is neither honest nor fair to the votaries of other
religions to which these ceremonies lawfully belong and in which they
have their full meaning. Indifferentism (all religions amount to the
same thing) cannot be suggested and promoted without endangering the
Faith or making it disappear.
This wrought-iron figure of Shiva (one of the 3 main gods in the Hindu
pan-theon doing his cosmic dance formed part of the grille-work of one
of the windows of the N.B.C.L.C. 'church'. It was seen – and admired,
no doubt – by all the Indian bishops, – but none of them objected. A
grille-work figure in a window of the N.B.C.L.C.-'church'. It depicts
the Hindu "Teen Murthis", the big three – Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva – of
the Hindu 'trinity'. But even Card. Parecatill (Eastern rite Archbishop
of Ernakulam in Kerala) – that great champion of Hinduisation of the
liturgy, – does not agree that there is anything in common between the
Hindu "Teen Murthis" and the catholic Blessed Trinity.
On the subject of these Hindu adaptions here is an extract in extenso
from an article, "Adaption – Indigenisation – Utilisation" by the late
Dr. Paul Hacker, Professor of Indology, Minister, Germany:
"The Church in India, though forming only a small minority of the total
population (1-2 percent), is extremely variform in her ethnic,
historical and even ecclesiastical conditions: for, besides the Latin
rite, there are the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites. The
Catholics of the last two named rites form a comparatively large group
which has been Christian since antiquity. Other Indian Christians stem
from people who were converted since the 16th century. Few of the
converts were formerly caste Hindus; the majority came from among the
Adivasis (i.e. pre-Dravidian aborigines) and low caste people or
outcasts (called Harijans). It is quite natural these people should
have learned to believe and hope in God and to love Him in the forms
that were prevalent at the time of their conversion. These forms were,
and are, to them a ladder leading them up to the Triune Majesty. They
had no idea that their conversion was an outcome of 'colonialism', that
their Churches imitated European styles and that many of the statues
and implements of cult were – if seen from the viewpoint of art –
trash, and none of them felt hat the sooner all these things were
replaced by things similar to those used in Hindu ritual, the better.
No, such aesthetic and nationalistic considerations were and are
foreign to them. There were – and I hope there still are – many Indian
Catholics whose faith was joyful and fervent, and they were well aware
that they, while professing the true, namely the Catholic religion
lived among an overwhelming majority of non-Christians. It is quite
natural that the very fact that their cult with its symbols, gestures
and implements, and even the form of their Church buildings, differed
from all that was known to be characteristic of Hinduism, was for them
a profession of their faith and a constant reminder to remain faithful
to the Church."
"If we keep this in mind, it is easy to understand that attempts at
'indigenisation' ... as favored by the Indian Bishops Conference – have
roused vehement oppo-sition. Catholics rightfully felt the sanctuary
threatens, sanctuary that made possi-ble their union with God.
Religion, after all, strives for union with God; it is not a
manifestation of social togetherness or national feeling." - "In an
incomparably higher degree than in the liturgical reforms that are
being carried out in the West, the fundamental law of Christianity,
which is charity, seems to have been violated in India... in a higher
degree, because Indian Catholics feel paganism penetrating into the
Church and thus the First Commandment infringed."
"It is no use arguing (as the CBCI does) that all the 12 points of
adaption have no necessary association with Hindu worship. We must heed
St. Paul's teaching which refer to analogous cases. In his epistle to
the Romans, chap. 14, and in the 1st epistle to the Corinthians, chap.
8, the issue concerns meat of animals that had been immolated to idols:
may a Christian eat such meat? The apostle decides the problem solely
on the basis of charity. If a Christian knows that meat has been
immolat-ed to an idol, and if his conscience is hurt when he sees
others eat such meat, or is himself expected to eat such meat, then it
would be a sin to 'wound his conscience' and 'put a stumbling block in
his way'. Now, all the 12 points of adaption have a much closer
association with pagan cult with meat. Every Indian knows they are part
of Hindu worship. Therefore, the religious offence perpetrated on
Indian Catholics... is really a very grave violation of charity."
Slow Progress of Church Due to Her Foreign Image
Is it really true that the seemingly slow progress of the Church in
India (13 million Catholics in 20 centuries) is due to foreigners and
the foreign image they have given her? Here is the answer given by an
Indian priest who, obviously, has studied the matter deeply. He gives
the following reasons, to mention only a few: The small number of
laboures in a very vast harvest; the ancient philosophies and religious
systems and mythologies of the country which are very difficult to
overcome; schismatic and other Christian sects working alongside
Catholic missionaries and causing confusion in the minds of the Indian
masses because of lack of uniformity of faith and behavior; the slow
growth of the much needed native clergy; the inadequate supply of
foreign missionaries and their understandable shortcomings and, to
crown it all, the scandalous diversion and waste of huge resources in
manpower and money which are side-tracked into activities which,
instead of being used as a direct means of conversion are turned mostly
into business propositions. "As the missionary spirit decreased and the
craze for material gains increased, the Church was gradually
discredited in the eyes of prospective converts, who, while taking full
advantage of the opportunities offered to lift themselves up in every
sphere, considered these activities as so many welfare schemes."
This diversion of activity (from preaching the Gospel to engagement in
profit-making commercial schemes) had, moreover, the fatal result of
throwing the whole burden of propagation of the Faith on fewer
shoulders, already too busy and weighed down by the heavy task of
catering to the needs of the existing Catholic communities, and
consequently, with little or no time for the extension of the Church.
Instead of recognizing sincerely and humbly that the above mentioned
factors are the root cause of the slowness of evangelization in India,
and instead of trying to do something practical and positive to remedy
the situation by redoubling the work of propagation of the Faith, the
only work for which the Church exists, "the so-called Indianizers,
sitting comfortably in their ivory towers, financed by foreign money,
claim to have discovered that the foreigners in the Church are
responsible for the slowness of its progress in India and,
consequently, have developed the strange theory that the Church needs
to wear Hindu garb to be able to exist and expand in India."
The 12 Points introduced by Fraud
The Indian bishops (with one or two notable exceptions) have adamantly
and falsely maintained that the 12 points of Hindu adaptation were
approved by the requisite ma-jority of the CBCI and also by the Vatican
(Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgica). But what
is the truth of the matter? The truth is that the adap-tations had to
be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Episcopal Conference (CBCI)
before they could be presented to the Vatican for authorization. But
they were approved by only a simple majority. (The number of bishops
who voted 'placet' ranged from 34 to 40 out of 71 Bishops comprising
the CBCI – for the various proposals of the 12 points). That a
two-thirds majority of the entire episcopal conference was required for
approval is clear from the following:
1. Bishop Ignatius Gopu's letter
(Published in the 'New Leader', 20. August 1978): "Sir, To remove any
possible wrong impression lurking in the minds of your readers, I
request you to print the following relevant portion from His Grace
Archbishop Lourduswany's *) letter (to me) of August 11th,1969: '...
but in fact those who voted placet (for the 12 points) ranged from 34
to 4o for the various proposals concerned and hence we have a clear
two-thirds majority and even more for some proposals' -. A two-thirds
majority in a 71 member house should be 47 placets."
2. Extract from the Proceedings of the (Rome) synod of Bishops 1977 Episcopal Conferences and 2/3 Majority.
To a question from bishop R.A. Villalobos of Costa Rica, the Secretary
of the Commission, Msgr. R.C. Lara replied: "The new code states only a
general principle valid for all episcopal conferences. It does not
distinguish between large and small conferences. The principle is more
or less this: Episcopal Conferences have legislative powers when it is
granted to them by the law itself or in particular cases, by the Holy
See. And in these cases, the decisions of the episcopal conferences
have a binding force when they are approved by a majority (two-thirds)
of the authorised members and are subsepuently approved by the Holy See
... (emphasis added)
3. Extract from "Instruction for the Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy" "Chapter I: Some General Norms.
VI: Competent Authority in Liturgical Matters (Const. 22)
28. For the lawful enactment of decress two-thirds of the votes taken by secret ballot are required".
It is crystal clear from the above that, for the lawful enactment of
decrees, a two-thirds majority of the members, having a deliberative
vote, of the competent territorial authority (i.e. the CBCI in this
case) is absolutely necessary. Bishop Gopu makes it clear that there
were 71 bishops having a deliberative vote in the CBCI when the vote on
the 12 points was taken, and 2/3 of this number is 47. Therefore,
neither a simple majority nor the 34 to 40 placets mentioned by
Archbishop Lourduswamy can validate the decision to introduce the 12
points despite the alleged approval of the Sacred Congregation of Rites
in this matter.
Not that this so-called Sacred Congregation needed much deceiving,
headed as it was by the Crypto-Jew Cardinal Gut (Prefect) and the
Freemason Bugnini (Secretary). Incidentally the letter (Prof. iv 802/69
of April 25, 1969) sanctioning the 12 points was signed only by Bugnini
(Secretary of the Congregation) and not by the Prefect Cardinal Gut
also, and thus was invalid as both signatures are required for
validity. Further, the Vatican sanction was given in what can only be
described as indecent haste... i.e. within the short period of 10 days.
Was this short period sufficient for the geniuses in the Vatican to
decide whether or not the introduction of the 12 points was advisable;
whether any (or all) of the points was innoncuous and free of overtones
of false belief?!
It is clear therefore, that the 12 points of Hinduisation were
introduced into the liturgy in India and forcibly foisted on a
reluctant laity, by a blatant, calculated, deliberate fraud which could
have had no object other than a pre-meditated, cold-blooded destruction
of the Mass and thus of the Church.
The so-called 'Church' of the NBCLC. It has the appearance of a Hindu
temple. It has no cross but, instead, at the top of the tower-like
structure (called a Go-puram) is a pot, known to Hindus as a "Kalasam",
in which Hindus believe the spirit of that deity of the Hindu pantheon,
to which the temple is dedicated, dwells.
This image cannot be a real Crucifix, for a Crucifix has the hands and
feet nailed to the Cross. It cannot be an image of the Risen Christ
either, for the Risen Christ is never depicted on a Cross. A close
scrutiny of the picture reveals that the right hand is held in the
Abhayamudra of Hindu symbolism; the left hand is held according to the
Vareda mudra of Hinduism.
Note:
(*) D.S. Lourduswamy, Archbishop of Bangalore and Chairman of the
Liturgy Commission at the time. Currently, Secretary of the Cong. for
the Evangelization of Peoples, in Rome. He is the evil genius and
archvillain (along with his brother D.S. Amalorpavadoss) of the
paganization of the liturgy in India.
(will be continued)
|
