1993 Tamil Missal translation fraud – Lay Catholics win court case against Church

 

                
			

 

                    NOVEMBER 2013

 
 

1993 Tamil Missal translation fraud

Lay Catholics win court case against Church

In the year 1993, a fraud was perpetrated on the faithful of the Catholic Church in Tamil Nadu. This fraud was perpetrated on them by the bishops of the Tamil Nadu Bishops’ Council [TNBC].

The details of the fraud can be accessed in a twenty-two page report at this ministry’s web site:

THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH-FR P K GEORGE FEBRUARY 2009/OCTOBER 2012

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_ONGOING_ROBBERY_OF_FAITH-FR_P_K_GEORGE.doc.

In his above twenty-six page booklet, “Ongoing Robbery of Faith” authored in 1996, Dr. Fr. P.K. George SJ analyses 3 issues:

a) The newly translated Tamil Missal, 1993

b) The new translation of the Holy Bible in Tamil, 1995

c) A Tamil book titled “Yar Intha Yesu?” [“Who is this Jesus?”] by theologian Fr Paul Leon, 1995; it has the Imprimatur of a Tamil Nadu Bishop. [Fr Paul Leon is apparently currently teaching at a seminary in New York.]

Fr George documents the serious errors in these books. The priest provides evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated on the Tamil Church, and more precisely, that Tamil Catholics have been blatantly lied to.

The fraud or lie that he mentions is that the Bishops of the Tamil Nadu Bishops’ Council [TNBC] have stated that the contents of the new Missal were approved/authorised by Rome whereas they were NOT.

 

Parallels can be drawn with the June 2008 imposition of the St Pauls New Community Bible [NCB] on the Indian Catholic Church by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India [CBCI] when syncretised/Hinduised commentaries and drawings contributed by thirty Indian theologians were given the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat by two bishops, and several Cardinals and bishops launched this “Bible” at grand public functions.

Following a worldwide crusade and media campaign organised by this ministry to have the NCB withdrawn because of its offending drawings and notes, [the NCB also teaches that the Archangel Gabriel did not actually appear to the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation], the book was eventually pulled from the bookshelves of Catholic stores across India and conservative Catholics breathed a collective sigh of relief.

However, about two years later, a slightly “revised” version of the NCB was quietly released. Cheap editions of it are now also flooding the foreign markets with St Pauls hoping to wipe out all competition from other Catholic translations; the NCB will ultimately be the reigning version in large sections of the Catholic Church.

At no time during the years of preparation that surely went into the making of the NCB, and at no time when the NCB was temporarily withdrawn for cosmetic changes to be made in it, were the Catholic faithful aware of what was going on. The Church is a koinonocracy and the laity is the Church; but the Bishops of India did not think that the people in the pews needed to be consulted or informed or included in the production of an “Indianised Bible” for them! The decisions were made and carried out by St Pauls [an agency that is supposed to protect, promote and defend the faith], the foreign agencies who funded them [money plays a major role in this scam], select theologians — a majority of whom are either liberals, sympathizers of the Hinduisation of the liturgy or New Age or who objected to the Roman Documents Dominus Iesus and on the New Age — and the bishops who are under the influence of these theologians.

The NCB saga is chronicled in a series of twenty-one separate reports on this ministry’s web site commencing July 2008 and extending up to June 2013; it is the chronicling of another fraud perpetrated by the Bishops on the Indian Catholic Church.

 

Before we return to the present issue which is the problem of the 1993 Tamil Missal, mention must be made here of yet another major fraud perpetrated on the Catholic faithful.

 

 

By the Vatican directive Prot. N. 802/69 of April 25, 1969, 12 Points of Adaptation were permitted in India.

These “12 Points of Adaptation” ushered in the era of the inculturated or Indian[ised] Rite Mass — which ultimately turned out to be the Hinduised Mass which has become the standard fare in the ashram circuit along with numerous other unapproved embellishments, and fairly routine in the Church at large.

The details of how the fraud was perpetrated can be read in the following report compiled from the writings of priests and eminent Catholic laity, on this ministry’s web site:

THE TWELVE POINTS OF ADAPTATION FOR THE INDIAN RITE MASS-WAS A FRAUD PERPETRATED ON INDIAN CATHOLICS?
OCTOBER 2012

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_TWELVE_POINTS_OF_ADAPTATION_FOR_THE_INDIAN_RITE_MASS-WAS_A_FRAUD_PERPETRATED_ON_INDIAN_CATHOLICS.doc.

Catholics ignorantly and innocently presume that these “12 Points of Adaptation” were approved by Rome after intensive consultation, dialogue, research, and prayer. To the contrary.

To cite Bishop Ignatius Gopu of Visakhapatnam
whose letter was published
in the New Leader July 9, 1978:

The 71 members of CBCI were consulted by post at the introduction of those 12 points into the Liturgy, but only 34 Bishops approved them. Despite the need of having two-thirds majority for major decisions like this one, an application was forwarded to Rome on the 15th April 1969 and within 10 days Rome’s approval was obtained, and the 12 points were imposed on the country.

The Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Bishop’s Conference, Archbishop Diraviam bluntly told the CBCI in Hyderabad (January 1976):
People who Indianize have no respect for the Hierarchy or the Holy See. They are members of the Church who are out to destroy the Catholic Church.

(The Examiner, January 24, 1976)

Several other Indian bishops opposed in totality or only partially approved these “experiments”.

But still they were imposed on the faithful of the Indian Church. In fact the Indian Church was asked by Rome to cease these “experiments” but the CBCI brazenly went ahead with them.

Mgr. M. Arattukulam of Alleppey, a theologian and canonist commented in this connection, “The CBCI including the General Secretary thinks it can act independently of the Holy See“.

 

I cite a prominent Bangalore-based lay Catholic Dr. A. Deva:

The NBCLC has plunged headlong into Hinduising the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the liturgy, A comparison of the 12 sanctioned points with the Hand book of the “Indian Rite mass”, which has now emerged, shows that the present Hinduisation has far exceeded the Vatican sanction under Prot. N. 802/69 dated April 25, 1969.
Within 6 years of this, sanction, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship, James Cardinal Knox, felt compelled to issue a direction to the President, CBCI, then Joseph Cardinal Parecattil, under Prot. N. 789/75 dated June 14, 1975, to desist from further Hinduisations.
The “Indian Rite mass” is in violation of Cardinal Knox’s direction, as a perusal of the mass hand book shows, and is clearly illicit… I have shown that Archbishop Lourduswamy was responsible for the 12 points being introduced into India, by taking the proposal to Rome without proper approval by the CBCI and then erroneously obtaining Rome’s approval.


 

The eminent George Moraes wrote on October 7, 1979:

For the moment, however the Twelve points have not the force of law for reasons, in addition to those pointed out by knowledgeable persons like Bishop Gopu.
The fact is that for the confirmation of the Twelve points the CBCI applied to the Consilium (cf. Word and Worship, August-September 1969, p. 564; Clergy Monthly 1969, p. 522-23), whereas it should have approached the Congregation of Rites. This was on 15th April 1969 when the congregation was still in existence. It was only 28th April that Paul VI announced that “he had decided to split the workload of the 404 year-old congregation of Rites between two new congregation”: viz., Congregation of Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. (The Examiner, May 10, 1969, p. 295) Of course the Consilium had by now become a law unto itself. It confirmed the Twelve points by its reply dated 25th April 1969(Cf. Word and Worship, as above), and in doing so it acted ultra vires. The Consilium was a conservative body (with an ‘s’ in the middle) and not a ministry, and therefore had no power to legislate. Confirmation should have come from the Congregation of Rites, which should have issued a notification to that effect.

He concluded in his above letter, “I am convinced that with the adoption of the “Twelve Points” the Church will be Hinduized, and eventually sink to the position of a Hindu sect“.

 

To once again cite Bishop Ignatius Gopu, June 22, 1978:

For any major decision, a two thirds majority of the house is needed. In this case, this was clearly lacking. Yet an approval was obtained from Rome and the 12 points were imposed on the country
(emphasis added).

This approval is based on a misunderstanding and it continues to be implemented. Even at this late hour this mistakes may be corrected.

2.

 

 

Still more details thoroughly documenting the entire sordid drama will be soon available on our web site at: THE PAGANIZED CATHOLIC CHURCH IN INDIA-VICTOR J F KULANDAY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_PAGANIZED_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_IN_INDIA-VICTOR_J_F_KULANDAY.doc.

One may also read:

THE GOLDEN SHEAF-A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH ECCLESIASTICAL ABERRATIONS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_GOLDEN_SHEAF-A_COLLECTION_OF_ARTICLES_DEALING_WITH_ECCLESIASTICAL_ABERRATIONS.doc

INCULTURATION OF THE LITURGY AND SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM-JON ANDERSON-AND MY RESPONSE
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/INCULTURATION_OF_THE_LITURGY_AND_SACROSANCTUM_CONCILIUM-JON_ANDERSON-AND_MY_RESPONSE.doc

LOTUS AND THE CROSS-THE HINDUISATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN INDIA

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/LOTUS_AND_THE_CROSS-THE_HINDUISATION_OF_THE_CATHOLIC_CHURCH_IN_INDIA.doc

PAGANISATION OF THE LITURGY IN INDIA-C B ANDRADE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PAGANISATION_OF_THE_LITURGY_IN_INDIA-C_B_ANDRADE.doc

 

To return to the subject of this report, the Tamil Missal, 1993, I reproduce a portion of Dr. Fr. P.K. George‘s “THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH“, 1996:

THE NEWLY TRANSLATED (CORRECTED) TAMIL MISSAL

In March 1993, the Catholic Bishops of Tamil Nadu brought out a new Tamil Missal under the title THIRUTHIYA THIRUPPALIPUTHAKAM (meaning “Corrected Missal“).

It carries the signature of all the Tamil Nadu Bishops and its main features can be outlined as follows.

1. Approved by Rome?

In the letter of promulgation, the Bishops speak of a change made in the words of Consecration, for which they claim considered agreement among themselves, and also the approval of the Holy See. A Latin document from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is reproduced to substantiate the second claim.

To be noted very specially is that this document purporting to authorize a change made in the new edition of 1993, was signed by Jacobus R, Cardinal Knox and Archbishop Antonius Innocenti in 1977, prior to the publication of the earlier Missal.

As regards the hundreds of other serious changes, most of which are in the orations (Collect, Offertory, Post Communion), the Bishops’ letter of promulgation says nothing. Apart from the above-mentioned obviously invalid Latin document, there is no sign of any approval of Rome.

Asked repeatedly about Rome’s approval, the Bishops are consistently silent on the point, but give only the irrelevant answer that the New Missal has been approved by the Tamil Nadu Bishops, a fact obvious from their very signatures in the Missal.

 

2. Suppression and Dilution of Catholic Doctrines

Differing from the Latin text of the Missal given by Pope Paul VI as well as from the earlier Tamil version, the new Tamil version has in most cases either suppressed or made vague and ambiguous

  • expressions of a life after death
  • the sacrificial aspect of the Mass
  • references to repentance, forgiveness, judgement, punishment, reparation
  • the resurrection of the body
  • the devil as an evil spirit
  • devotion to the passion and death of Christ
  • God-given authority in the Church

 

3. Avoidance of Traditionally Accepted Words

Several traditional words having a precise and specifically Christian meaning as well as well as an aura of sacredness have been replaced by vague, commonplace, secular terms.

Two printed criticisms of the new Missal, one in Tamil and one in English, both by the present writer, amply explaining and substantiating [the problems with] all the above-mentioned changes were sent to every Bishop more than a year ago.

A personal letter and a copy of a Papal instruction concerning the translation of liturgical books were also sent.

The letter contained the following four questions.

  • Does the new Tamil Missal have Rome’s approval?
  • Do the Bishops of Tamil Nadu have the power to publish a new translation, especially a corrected edition, of the Missal of the Catholic Church without Rome’s approval?
  • Do the Bishops take responsibility for the changes in the new version?
  • Do the Bishops want to make the use of the new Missal mandatory?

These questions were later repeated by a group of priests and lay persons in a letter addressed to each Bishop individually.

The questions remain unanswered as of writing.

A point of interest is that five among the Tamil Nadu Bishops are common signatories to both the earlier and the present editions of the Missal, editions which differ between them very much.

What can one think of the Bishops’ position that both editions are correct translations of the same original?

 

 

I suggest that the reader digest the above information well before reading the following press reports.

While Dr. Fr. P.K. George has problems with the ambiguity and other aspects of the 1993 translation as compared to the traditional/conservative one, the key issue raised by him is this:

THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL WAS NEVER APPROVED BY ROME!

 

On November 7, 2013, the newspapers gave front page coverage to the details of a court case filed by laity against the hierarchy of the Church in Tamil Nadu and the verdict of the case being given in their favour.

Naturally, the reader will now read the secular reports keeping the first three pages of this report in mind.

My comments on the newspaper reports will follow the last report on page 7.

 

I. THE TIMES OF INDIA

Tamil version of Catholic prayer book banned by city court

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-11-07/chennai/43773705_1_tamil-version-vatican-translation

By Manish Raj, TNN,
November 7, 2013

CHENNAI: A civil court here has banned the use of a 1993 Tamil translation of Catholic prayer book ‘Missal’ (‘Thiruppali book’) until prior approval is obtained from the Vatican. Noting that some words had been wrongly translated and some others removed in the Tamil version, the court recently declared the translation as incorrect and against the canonical law.

The Tamil translation of liturgical prayers and texts was first published in 1970 with prior approval from the Vatican. The book was updated in 1975 and underwent some more changes in 1993. Against the last alteration, three suits were filed.

Claiming that the changes had been made without approval from Rome and that the authorities had disobeyed the law, the petitioners said it was a case where “additions and omissions from the prescribed text were made”. Further, the four tenets of liturgy – sacrifice, eternal life, sin and doctrine – were dealt in a superficial manner, they said.

In their reply, the archbishops of Chennai and Puducherry said the petitioners did not have a locus standi as under the tenets of the religion, they did not have a right to question the translations. The prayers “involved spiritual and religious aspects of the church” and “the court did not have jurisdiction to go into the veracity of church’s authority.” If there was a doubt, “superiors and doctors of church” could be approached, they said.

In his order, IV assistant judge T Chandrasekar said it was a mere translation of liturgical book and the priests had failed to prove that the translation had been carried out with approval of the Vatican. If the court was barred from dealing with the matter, “everybody would release translations to suit their convenience,” the judge said.

It also prohibited the translated version of book from being used in churches till prior review and approval was obtained from the Vatican.

 

II. THE HINDU

Court restrains bishops from using liturgy book

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/court-restrains-bishops-from-using-liturgy-book/article5322683.ece?ref=relatedNews

By B. Kolappan and R. Sivaraman, November 7, 2013

Chennai- Judge terms the translation as improper, incorrect, illegal and unbiblical

A City Civil Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining Roman Catholic Bishops and priests from using a Tamil translation of the Missal 1993, the liturgical book, in churches under their jurisdiction.

T. Chandrasekar, IV Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, said ‘Thiruppali Puthagam’, a translated work by the bishops was illegal, improper, incorrect, unbiblical and ultra vires of the Code of Canon Law. Consequent to the judgement, Catholic churches across the State are not in a position to use the book for mass.

Terming the translation as ‘careless’ and ‘confusing’, the judge said there was no documentary evidence to show that a committee was appointed for translation.

The judgement was delivered on a suit filed by G. Alex Benziger, Leonard Vasanth and J.V. Fernando of Chennai, who described themselves as members of the Roman Catholic Church.

They contended that contrary to earlier translation, the bishops replaced “udal” for body instead of ‘sareeram’ and the word ‘sin’ was found totally removed. When asked about the history of translation, Rev. Fr. L. Anandam, Rector, St Peters Seminary, Madurai, said there were three translations of the Missal in the past.

After the Second Vatican Council in 1965, Pope Paul VI granted local translation of the Missal, which was in Latin and belonged to the period of Pope Pius V (16th century). Again, Pope Benedict XVI sanctioned the latest translation, which is in use since 2011-12. He said theologically there was nothing wrong with the word “udal”.

4.

 

 

Rev. Fr. Joe Arun, a cultural anthropologist, said the argument of the petitioners would turn the clock to the days of Hellenisation when the Bible was translated from Aramaic – the language Jesus and his disciples spoke – and Hebrew into Greek and symbolises the supremacy of the language of the conqueror and dispensing with culture specific translations.

“Here, the battle is between conservatives and reformists. We need a culture specific Missal that accommodates the people’s language,” he said.

Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai, one of the secretaries of the All India Catholic Bishops Conference, said only a microscopic minority opposed the Missal 1993 and it was the same conservatives who opposed translation of Missal from Latin to Tamil.

 

Objective of translation is to reach out to the common man, say priests

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/objective-of-translation-is-to-reach-out-to-the-common-man-say-priests/article5322853.ece?ref=relatedNews

By B. Kolappan, November 7, 2013

Chennai- Catholic priests said they were intrigued by the argument of the three petitioners who have succeeded in getting a court injunction against the usage of a Tamil translation of the Missal 1993, the liturgical book, in churches under their jurisdiction.

“The objective of the translation is to make the Missal accessible to the common man, who will certainly feel alienated when words like ‘sareeram’, ‘jeeva ootru’ and ‘partichutham’ are used. Instead, ‘udal’ ‘vaazhvin neer’ and ‘thooya’ elegantly convey the message,” said Rev Fr Vincent Chinnadurai, one of the secretaries Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India.

While delivering the judgment on a suit by G. Alex Benziger, Leonard Vasanth and J.V. Fernando of Chennai, T. Chandrasekar, IV Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, said “Thiruppali Puthagam”, a translated work by the bishops was illegal, improper, incorrect, unbiblical and ultra vires of the Code of Canon Law. The petitioners contended that contrary to earlier translation, the bishops replaced ‘udal” for body instead of ‘sareeram’ and the word ‘sin’ was found totally removed. According to them, the Second Vatican Council in 1965 accorded permission to conduct mass in local languages, and the Roman Missal was translated. The first translation was released in 1970 with the consent of Rome. But the Missal 1993 was released by the Roman Catholic bishops in the State without obtaining the approval of the Pope.

In their response, the Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore, two other Archbishops and 11 bishops, had said the translation had been approved by Catholic Bishops of Tamil Nadu and necessary procedural formalities had been taken to render the original text. Rev. Fr. L. Anandam, Rector, St Peters Seminary, Madurai, said theologically there was nothing wrong with the word “udal”.

Echoing his view, Rev Fr Joe Arun, a cultural anthropologist, said the Second Vatican Council made it clear that church should be sensitive to the local tradition and translations culture-specific. “The Catholic church could set up ashrams in India because of the message of Second Vatican Council. We use camphor instead of candles. Similarly, kuthuvizhakku is allowed. Local culture became part and parcel of the church,” he said.

Fr Arun argued ‘thirunilaipaduthal’ was a better translation for ordination while in the earlier days the word ‘abishekam’ was used and the idea is to dispense with Sanskrit words.

 

III. THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

Can’t follow 1993 version of Tamil Missal as court says it is unbiblical

http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Can%E2%80%99t-follow-1993-version-of-Tamil-Missal-as-court-says-it-is-unbiblical/2013/11/07/article1876216.ece

By Sruthisagar Yamunan, November 7, 2013

In a judgment that could have far-reaching consequences on the Roman Catholic Church here, a civil court has restrained churches from using a 1993 Tamil translation of the Roman Missal, terming it “unbiblical and ultra vires” of the Canon Law.

The Roman Missal is the liturgical book of the Catholic Church, which details procedures for the celebration of Holy Mass in churches.

 

5.

 

The court took the view that the 1993 Tamil translation was “unbiblical” as it was released without the approval of the Vatican, a necessity under the Canon Law.

The present suit was filed by three faithful who claimed to be members of the Roman Catholic Church. In their petition, G Alex Benziger, Leonard Vasanth and J V Fernando contended that the defendants, consisting of Archbishops and Bishops numbering 15, revised and released a new version of the Missal in 1993. But, the translation was not placed before the Holy See, the episcopal jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome for approval, which is mandatory under the Canon Law.

The 1993 translation had multiple flaws and carried “unwarranted and improper” changes to the liturgy, which were misleading the faithful who attended Mass. “The translated versions have diluted and denied the doctrinal teachings of the Truth that were received and being received by the faithful,” the petition alleged. So, it demanded that the court issue a permanent stay on the use of the 1993 translation.

However, the Archbishops and Bishops questioned the court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating the matter as it was religious in nature and involved rites, rituals and spiritual matters, which are the exclusive domain of the church. If the plaintiffs had issues with the translation, it should be taken up with the church and not the court.

 

‘Court has no say in religious matters’

http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Court-has-no-say-in-religious-matters/2013/11/07/article1876367.ece

By Sruthisagar Yamunan, November 7, 2013

The order that has restrained the usage of a Tamil translation of the Roman Missal has brought out a keenly contested issue of law: whether the civil court has jurisdiction to deal with religious and theological matters.

In the litigation itself, the defendants comprising Archbishops and Bishops contended that the court had absolutely no jurisdiction on the matter as it purely dealt with matters of spirituality and religion.

If the petitioners had any grievance on the translated texts, they should have approached the higher-ups in the church and not the court.  In dealing with this contentious issue of law, judge T Chandrasekar, in the order, points to the Canon Law 1401 quoted by the defendants which states that the church has exclusive rights in spiritual matters and violation of ecclesiastical laws. However, the judge says no such ecclesiastical forum is in force in the country.  Translation and release of a liturgical book without approval of the Vatican, mandatory under the same Canon Law, will not come within the realm of theological questions warranting relief from the ecclesiastical forum.

“…when the translation and release of the Liturgy book of 1993 is not in accordance to Canon Law, the defendants lost the Locus Standi to dictate (that) the plaintiffs (should) only approach the forums under Canon Law…” the order said.

 

Translation row on ‘Body of Christ’ triggers ecclesiastical, legal debate

http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Translation-row-on-Body-of-Christ-triggers-ecclesiastical-legal-debate/2013/11/07/article1876366.ece

By Sruthisagar Yamunan, November 7, 2013

What is the appropriate translation for the ‘Body of Christ’? That appears to be the bone of contention. While several passages have been quoted by the petitioners to drive home their opposition to the 1993 Tamil translation of the Roman Missal, the usage of which has now been restrained by a local court, the word employed to denote the body of Christ in the revision, in particular, seems to have turned detrimental to the translation.

The judge, issuing the orders restraining its usage, specifically pointed to the prayers made during the ritual of the Holy Communion. As per Christian belief, in the last supper with his disciples Jesus Christ had said that the bread, which he broke during the meal, was his body.

According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus had asked his followers to continue the ritual of breaking the bread in his remembrance. Similarly, the wine he had at the supper was his blood. Catholic churches across the world recreate this during the Mass.

In the prayers offered during the Communion, the 1993 translation of the Missal deviates from the 1979 version in adopting a different word to denote the body of Christ.

While the older version had the word ‘body’ translated as ‘Sariram’, the 1993 version replaces it with the Tamil term ‘Udal’.

The petitioners argued that the two words have different connotations – while ‘Udal’ stands for just the body, ‘Sariram’ denotes the body to be the abode of the soul. This, it is contended, is the true sense of the term ‘body’ used in the Gospels and the Roman Missal.

6.

 

 

In the order, the judge seemed to have agreed to the contentions and said that ‘Udal’ would refer to a dead body. The defense that ‘Sariram’ is a Sanskrit word is dismissed by the judge as “illusory and moon shining one”. 

Another instance the judge quotes is the consecration prayers, where the new translation seemed to have replaced ‘Irai Vaazhvu’ with ‘Nirai Vaazhvu’ to denote spiritual life. The judge said ‘Nirai Vaazhvu’ points to worldly life.

 

Missal version without Holy See nod: Petition

http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Missal-version-without-holy-see-nod-Petition/2013/11/07/article1876368.ece

By Sruthisagar Yamunan, 7th November 2013

A civil court here has restrained churches from using a 1993 Tamil translation of the Roman Missal, terming it “unbiblical and ultra vires” of the Canon Law in a suit filed by three faithful who claimed to be members of the Roman Catholic Church.

In their petition, G Alex Benziger, Leonard Vasanth and J V Fernando contended that the defendants, consisting of Archbishops and Bishops, revised and released a new version of the Missal in 1993. But, the translation was not placed before the Holy See, the episcopal jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, for approval.

However, the defendants denied any wrongful translation and maintained that it had been approved by the Catholic Bishops of Tamil Nadu, who have absolute authority in such matters. Further, no one to date has raised any questions on the translation and the suit has been filed with ulterior motives, they claimed.

Quoting several examples from the translations and comparing it with the 1979 version of the Tamil Missal, IV Assistant Judge T Chandrasekar said the 1993 translations are “highly obnoxious, careless and confusing”. The defendants have also failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the translation received the approval of the Holy See, the judge said.

“The defendants cannot take it for granted that whatever mischief they can do, it is seldom possible for anybody to bring it to the knowledge of the Holy See of Vatican and under the guise of questioning the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain the law suit, they can escape from the clutches of law,” the order said and restrained the usage of the translation in Roman Catholic churches.

 

MY COMMENTS

The defendants [the bishops] have argued in court that “no one to date has raised any questions on the translation and the suit has been filed with ulterior motives“. What ulterior motives are they talking about?

As pastors of the Church, couldn’t they have been specific in their response? How difficult would that have been if they were indeed speaking the truth? As for no one having raised any questions till date about the translation, what about Dr. Fr. P.K. George‘s “THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH“? It was released as a book all of seventeen years ago, in 1996. In that book, Fr. George states [emphasis mine], “Asked repeatedly about Rome’s approval, the Bishops are consistently silent on the point, but give only the irrelevant answer that the New Missal has been approved by the Tamil Nadu Bishops, a fact obvious from their very signatures in the Missal.

The author adds [emphasis mine], “
Two printed criticisms of the new Missal, one in Tamil and one in English, both by the present writer, amply explaining and substantiating [the problems with] all the above-mentioned changes were sent to every Bishop more than a year ago.

A personal letter and a copy of a Papal instruction concerning the translation of liturgical books were also sent.

The letter contained the following four questions.

  • Does the new Tamil Missal have Rome’s approval?
  • Do the Bishops of Tamil Nadu have the power to publish a new translation, especially a corrected edition, of the Missal of the Catholic Church without Rome’s approval?
  • Do the Bishops take responsibility for the changes in the new version?
  • Do the Bishops want to make the use of the new Missal mandatory?

These questions were later repeated by a group of priests and lay persons in a letter addressed to each Bishop individually.

The questions remain unanswered as of writing.

The bishops and their representatives therefore were lying, committing perjury, in court, which itself is a criminal act that is prosecutable.

My own report THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH-FR P K GEORGE has been in the public domain since a few years now, and so will the present one. I intend sending it individually to each and every bishop of the Tamil Nadu Bishops’ Council and to certain selected office bearers and executive commissions of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India. We will be able to report back on the responses received, if any.

From the past experience of this ministry, we are very pessimistic. The bishops are not known for their clear, unequivocal responses to laity on sticky issues where they have collectively messed up.

7.

 

Questioning the court’s validity in adjudicating the issue, the bishops wished that “If the plaintiffs had issues with the translation, it should be taken up with the church and not the court.

I have been writing to the present Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore since nine months now on serious issues concerning liturgical indiscipline [during each and every Sunday Mass], the mis-handling of finances by the clergy, etc., but my bishop has not thought it fit to take my many detailed letters seriously.

When such is the case, and the same will be confirmed from laity in the majority of Indian dioceses, the only recourse left for the lay person is to seek the hearing of the civil courts. In this particular issue, the attempt of the bishops to take shelter under the excuse of Canon Law has failed. Their bluff has been called by the judge when restraining them from further use of the 1993 Missal. The court found that when the Indian Church itself was not faithful to Canon Law in the matter of imposing unapproved-by-Rome innovations upon the laity, it lost its right “to dictate (that) the plaintiffs (should) only approach the forums under Canon Law “.

 

While the petitioners definitely have problems with the language of the new translation, what brought them a favourable verdict is that the 1993 Missal translation did not have the approval of Rome. As I have pointed out earlier, the 12 Points of Adaptation were never really approved by Rome [leave alone by the Indian bishops] and when we reached copies of the St Pauls New Community Bible to certain dicasteries in Rome who should have been in the know concerning the release of a national bible, they were taken by surprise.

 

It should come as no surprise that Fr. Joe Arun, a “cultural anthropologist” seeks to defend the lost cause of the Tamil Nadu bishops by appealing to the setting up of ashrams as a positive thing resulting from the new approaches heralded in by the Second Vatican Council. My visit to some of these ashrams in 2004-5 resulted in a voluminous report that can be read here:

CATHOLIC ASHRAMS OCTOBER 2005

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CATHOLIC_ASHRAMS.doc.

My thoroughly substantiated conclusion from a Catholic perspective was and remains that the ashrams are centres of New Age, syncretism, blasphemy, sacrilege and heresy. They are a Trojan horse in the Catholic Church. They pursue the legacy of Fr. D.S. Amalorpavadas, the founder of the National Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Centre, Bangalore in perpetuating the “12 Points of Adaptation” and the process of experimenting, innovating and effectively Hinduising the liturgy and life of the Church. I sent the well-documented report to many, many bishops. See

CATHOLIC ASHRAMS-LETTERS FROM BISHOPS IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT JANUARY/OCTOBER 2005/APRIL 2006

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CATHOLIC_ASHRAMS-LETTERS_FROM_BISHOPS_IN_RESPONSE_TO_THE_REPORT.doc
What came of it? Nothing.

As for the bishops’ arguments [which were dismissed by the judge as “illusory and moon shining“] that in the 1993 translation “the idea is to dispense with Sanskrit words“, that is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. The Indian Rite Mass that is standard in the Catholic ashrams circuit is a SANSKRITISED Mass. The prayer before and after meals is in Sanskrit. The most commonly used mantra in the Catholic Church today is the “OM” mantra, which is Sanskrit. The second most popular one, the Gayatri Mantra is again in Sanskrit. Who are the bishops and their cohorts trying to lie to/fool?

 

The names of Fr. Joe Arun and Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai keep popping up in the newspaper reports where they attempt to speak for the bishops and defend the controversial 1993 Missal.

These two priests were closely associated with Fr. Jegath Gaspar Raj who owns two Hindu temples and spent millions of rupees to bring out a music CD in praise of the Hindu god Shiva. See:

FR JEGATH GASPAR RAJ-IN PRAISE OF SHIVA-PRIEST INVESTS RS 15 MILLION, FLOATS COMPANY WORTH RS 100 CRORES AUGUST 2006

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/FR_JEGATH_GASPAR_RAJ-IN_PRAISE_OF_SHIVA-PRIEST_INVESTS_RS_15_MILLION_FLOATS_COMPANY_WORTH_RS_100_CRORES.doc,from which I quote:

Fr. Jegath Gaspar Raj, a Catholic priest, founder of Tamil Maiyam, an organisation with the stated aim of the promotion of Tamil arts, literature and culture, joins hands with Tamil maestro Ilaiyaraaja to produce a music audio
of
Thiruvasagam, a set of verses written by Manickavasagar, a 13th century devotee of Shiva in praise of the Hindu god.

The priest, with the blessings of Most Rev. Antony Devotta, Bishop of Tiruchirappalli, and the support of other Catholic priests, Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai, Fr. Lourdu Anandam, Fr. M.A. Joe Antony S.J. [Editor of the New Leader], Fr. Joe Arun S.J. [Director of the Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Loyola College campus, Chennai], and the full knowledge of Archbishop Most Rev. Malayappan Chinnappa SDB and Auxiliary Bishop Most Rev. Lawrence Pius Dorairaj of Madras-Mylapore, uses the studios, offices, communications systems, infrastructure, personnel, time [over 3 years] and money of the Church in the pursuit of his goal, with a projected budget of Rs. 1.5 crore [Rs. 15 million] towards which he has made borrowings of at least Rs. 1 crore [Rs. 10 million], much of it at an interest rate of 20%.

8.

 

 

I had, in this connection also, written to the bishops. See

FR JEGATH GASPAR RAJ-IN PRAISE OF SHIVA-LETTER TO THE BISHOPS SEPTEMBER 2006

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/FR_JEGATH_GASPAR_RAJ-IN_PRAISE_OF_SHIVA-LETTER_TO_THE_BISHOPS.doc
and

FR JEGATH GASPAR RAJ-IN PRAISE OF SHIVA-RESPONSES TO THE REPORT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/FR_JEGATH_GASPAR_RAJ-IN_PRAISE_OF_SHIVA-RESPONSES_TO_THE_REPORT.doc.

Again, what came of it? Nothing.

 

Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai is quoted as saying that “only a microscopic minority opposed the Missal 1993 and it was the same conservatives who opposed translation of Missal from Latin to Tamil.

In my report
THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH-FR P K GEORGE I had written, “It is 15 years and 13 years respectively since the Tamil Missal and Bible were released. As in the case of the NCB, they do not appear to have approval from Rome. My enquiries reveal that Fr. George, some Catholic individuals and lay groups in Tamil Nadu, and the traditionalist Society of St Pius the Tenth [SSPX] had strongly objected.

Yes, it will always be “only a microscopic minority” that will be knowledgeable and concerned enough to oppose error. Sunday after Sunday, I wonder how many, if even one, among the hundreds of faithful present in church are aware that the rubrics of the Mass are being assaulted, that there are anywhere from five to ten liturgical abuses/aberrations being perpetrated on the congregation. I have been talking to the celebrant priests, deacons, choir members, catechists, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and the faithful in general, apart from writing letters to my bishop. My experience: no one really cares.

Why are the objectors “only a microscopic minority“? Poor catechesis is one reason.

Aside from communicating to the faithful the changes in the liturgy since that requires their full participation in the Holy Mass, virtually nothing else that comes from Rome is ever communicated to the people of God from the pulpit. Over the years I have engaged in self-education in these matters, and I don’t recall a single time that I have heard the priest inform his congregation about some important new communication from the Holy See. The homilies are politically correct and lack any challenge. So the laity remains ignorant.

But if even “only a microscopic minority” [remember the prophets of the Old Testament?] is concerned enough to speak out, priests like Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai are obliged to give them a fair and respectful ear.

 

The petitioners in the court case found that in the 1993 translation “the word ‘sin’ was found totally removed.

The same has been my experience in church. When confronted with the word ‘sin’, the celebrant often either substitutes or accompanies the embarrassing word with less offensive/more politically correct ones, e.g. “Lord, forgive us our weaknesses, failings…”, as if weaknesses and failings are the equivalent of sin.

I remember a time when the Church vigorously emphasized sin and its consequences in its preaching. No more. If the petitioners are correct, the 1993 Missal translation was certainly not the work of good men.

 

A fraud is a lie, an untruth, a deception. Let there be no more frauds perpetrated by the bishops on the laity.

 

In February 2009, I had written in concluding the first part of THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH-FR P K GEORGE:

I cannot vouch for the exactness of Dr. Fr. P K George’s report [including his charges against the Tamil Nadu Bishops as I could not find any documentation on this old issue] because I do not have sufficient knowledge of the Tamil language to make my own examination of the Tamil Missal, the New Tamil Bible, or the Tamil book by Fr Paul Leon.

But I see no reason to disbelieve his findings or doubt his integrity unless proven otherwise.

I leave it to the learned, higher authorities of the Church in India and in Rome to make a diligent study of these new revised versions, translations, commentaries, etc. that are being prepared by our theologians and scholars and which are being awarded the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat by the Bishops despite theological errors and deviations from orthodoxy in these publications.

Conscious of my own limitations of expertise in such areas of Biblical exegesis and doctrinal understanding, I admit to experiencing moments of doubt that I might be wrong when learned priests and Bishops apparently teach what I believe to be wrong. But in my records I have dozens of letters from priests of major religious congregations from all over India and overseas, who include a Doctor in Canon Law and a summa cum laude theologian, and all of them agree with me on these issues. Surely they cannot all be wrong? They are all neither traditionalists nor liberals nor fundamentalists. They are regular priests who stand on the traditional teachings of Rome. We pray that Rome will stand by us in our crusade to preserve Catholic orthodoxy, the Faith of our Fathers, and loyalty to the Holy See in the Indian Church. –Michael Prabhu

 

I now recall that lay Catholics have been writing to me about problems with the Konkani Missal and the new translation of components of the Rosary, such as the Hail Mary. As I am not competent to deal with these matters, I leave it to the people of Goa and Mangalore to raise these issues with their bishops.

 

9.

 

 

 

This Times of India story serves to emphasize what the “microscopic minority” is concerned about. The Kerala church has come to the realization that priests are playing around with the Mass. And they intend to do something about it.

Lessons from Vatican on conduct of Holy Mass

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-24/kochi/36526100_1_liturgical-services-catholic-churches-kerala-churches

By T S Preetha, TNN,
January 24, 2013

KOCHI: For the Catholic churches in the state, especially of the Latin rite, there would soon be some guidelines on how to conduct the Holy Mass.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments in Vatican is preparing a booklet to help priests celebrate the Mass properly to ensure that the liturgical services are not changed according to their interests.

The booklet would discuss how Eucharist and other liturgical celebrations can be done better for the congregation. It comes as a result of the Vatican’s concern about the fact that several clergymen have relaxed the methods, interpreting the holy text in their own way.

“There is a laxity in the services now, as many priests add their versions, and translate the Latin phrases loosely. That is the main reason why the Vatican wants to prevent liturgical aberrations through specified guidelines,” said Latin Archbishop Francis Kallarackal.

There is also a move to remove the confusion regarding translation of the Roman Missal, the liturgical book that contains the texts and rubrics for the celebration of the Mass in the Catholic Churches. The Liturgical commission headed by Archbishop Soosa Pakiam is currently checking the Malayalam translation of the Missal used in Kerala churches. After the changes, the commission would send it to Vatican for approval.

The Vatican officials have frowned upon the attempt of many clergymen to make the mass entertaining by using more songs than necessary, and have asked priests not to make the mass a show.

Though the new guidelines would be applicable mainly to the Latin Church, other Catholic churches would also follow it.

“Although it deals with the Latin Liturgy, the principles are valid for all. The most important principle is of continuity and evolution and not discontinuity or rupture. It means that too progressive and too conservative attitudes are rejected,” said Fr Paul Thelakat, spokesperson of the Syro-Malabar church.

The other major issue that would be involved in the new directives is whether the priest can face the congregation during the reading of the word of God.

It would also highlight the fact that Inculturation of the liturgy should be respected, giving freedom for the legitimate varieties without affecting the principles.

 

The following letter was sent to the Apostolic Nuncio, all bishops of the Tamil Nadu Bishops’ Conference and to office-bearers and executive commissions of the CBCI as per the list on pages 11-13:

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
nuntius@apostolicnunciatureindia.com ; nuncioad@yahoo.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:51 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

THE APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE IN INDIA – NEW DELHI

MOST REV. SALVATORE PENNACCHIO, APOSTOLIC NUNCIO

Your Grace,

You must be well aware of the verdict delivered by a judge of the city civil court in Chennai as reported in the secular press on November 7, 2013, in favour of three lay petitioners, restraining by a permanent injunction the Church in Tamil Nadu from using the 1993 Tamil translation of the Missal. I welcome that judgement.

As per Canon Law, the translation was required to be approved by Rome whereas it was not.

This is not the first incident of its kind. The precedent was set with the imposition on the Indian Church of the “Twelve Points of Adaptation” in 1969. A similar situation arose in June 2008 when a group of theologians wrote some controversial commentaries for the St Pauls New Community Bible. In both cases, the laity was never consulted, and majority approval of the Indian bishops was not obtained. In the case of the “12 Points”, “approval” from Rome was improperly obtained and was disputed by several bishops; yet it was imposed on the Church.

Please find attached a report that I have prepared which throws more light on the matter.

I look forward to receiving your views on this most serious matter.

Michael Prabhu

Catholic apologist, Chennai

michaelprabhu@vsnl.net;

www.ephesians-511.net
India’s leading lay Catholic web site

 

 

 

 

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
Archbishop Bombay ; abpossie@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:03 AM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

His Eminence Oswald Cardinal Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay

President, CBCI and CCBI

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
catholicostvm@gmail.com ; baselioscleemis@gmail.com ; mabt@dataone.in ; imarcleemis@hotmail.com ; mcccuria@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:05 AM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

CBCI Vice-President-I, His Excellency Baselios Cardinal Cleemis, Major Archbishop of Trivandrum 

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
diocese@archdioceseoftellicherry.org ; archbishopgeorgev@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:09 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

CBCI Vice-President-II, Most Rev. George Valiamattam, Archbishop of Tellicherry 

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
archbpagra@gmail.com ; abpalbert@gmail.com ; archdagra@yahoo.co.in ; bishopdsouza@yahoo.com ; abpalbert@yahoo.com ; archdagra@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:11 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

CBCI Secretary General, Most Rev. Albert D’Souza, Archbishop of Agra

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
cbcisec@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:14 AM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

Rev. Fr. Joseph Chinnayan, CBCI Deputy Secretary General, Director, CBCI Centre

 

1. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
chengaidiocese@yahoo.co.in ; bpneethi@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:22 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. ANTHONISAMY NEETHINATHAN

BISHOP OF CHINGLEPUT [T.N.]

2. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
cbebishophouse@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:25 AM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. THOMAS AQUINAS

BISHOP OF COIMBATORE [T.N.]

3. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
dharmapuridiocese@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:31 AM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. LAWRENCE PIUS DORAIRAJ

BISHOP OF DHARMAPURI [T.N.]

4. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
dgldiocese@yahoo.co.in ; bishopantonyp@yahoo.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:33 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. ANTONY PAPPUSAMY

BISHOP OF DINDIGUL [T.N.]

5. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
kottardiocese@yahoo.co.in ; peterremigius@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:37 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. PETER REMIGIUS

BISHOP OF KOTTAR [T.N.]

Member, CBCI Special Commission for Evangelization

6. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
kumbakonamdiocese@gmail.com ; kumdio@yahoo.co.in

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:39 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. ANTONISAMY FRANCIS

BISHOP OF KUMBAKONAM [T.N.]

7. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
archmsml@gmail.com ; George Antonysamy ; georgeantonysamy@yahoo.com

Cc:
Arul raj
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:49 AM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. GEORGE ANTONYSAMY

ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS-MYLAPORE [T.N.]

8. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
abssecretarymdu@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:31 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. PETER FERNANDO

ARCHBISHOP OF MADURAI [T.N.]

9. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
bpmardio@gmail.com ; vincentkm@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:33 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. VINCENT MAR PAULOS
[SYRO-MALABAR]

BISHOP OF MARTHANDOM [T.N.]

10. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
bishopooty@ootacamunddiocese.org ; bishopooty@hotmail.com

Cc:
secretaryooty@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. ARULAPPAN AMALRAJ

BISHOP OF OOTACAMUND [T.N.]

 

 

 

11. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
rcdiopalayamkottai@yahoo.com ; judepaulraj@rediffmail.com ; bishopjude@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:38 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. JUDE GERALD PAULRAJ A.

BISHOP OF PALAYAMKOTTAI [T.N.]

12. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
archbishop@archdiocesepondicherry.com ; dioceseofpondy@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:17 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. ANTONY ANANDARAYAR

ARCHBISHOP OF PONDICHERRY-CUDDALORE

13. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
dioceseoframanathapuram@gmail.com ; paulalappatt08@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:20 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. PAUL ALAPPATT

BISHOP OF RAMANATHAPURAM [T.N.]

14. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
dioceseofsalem@gmail.com ; bpsingam@gmail.com ; salemdiocese@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. SEBASTIANAPPAN SINGAROYAN

BISHOP OF SALEM [T.N.]

15. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
svgbishop@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:25 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. J. SUSAIMANICKAM

BISHOP OF SIVAGANGAI [T.N.]

MEMBER, CLERGY AND RELIGIOUS COMMISSION,
CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA

16. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
devadassambrose@yahoo.in
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:27 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. M. DEVADASS AMBROSE

BISHOP OF THANJAVUR [T.N.]

MEMBER, LABOUR COMMISSION, CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA

17. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
thuckalaydiocese@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:30 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

REV. FR. PHILIPH KODIANTHARA

DIOCESAN ADMINISTRATOR, DIOCESE OF THUCKALAY [T.N.]

18. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
trichidio@rediffmail.com ; antony devotta
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:32 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. ANTONY DEVOTTA

BISHOP OF TIRUCHIRAPALLI [T.N.]

19. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
bishopyvon@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:34 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. YVON AMBROISE

BISHOP OF TUTICORIN [T.N.]

BISHOP-IN-CHARGE, JUSTICE PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, CBCI

20. From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
catholicvellorediocese@gmail.com ; soundarajbishop@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:36 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MOST REV. SOUNDARARAJU PERIYANAYAGAM, SDB

BISHOP OF VELLORE [T.N.]

 

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
laitylink@gmail.com ; chinnaduraivincent@gmail.com

Cc:
edward.edezhath@gmail.com ; stanley.roman@gmail.com ; kackanatt@hotmail.com ; amarjulios@gmail.com ; muvattupuzhadiocese@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:42 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

LAITY COMMISSION, CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA

SECRETARY,
FR. VINCENT CHINNADURAI, CHENNAI

JOINT SECRETARY, MR. EDWARD A. EDEZHATH, KOCHI

BISHOP-IN-CHARGE, MOST REV. STANLEY ROMAN

MEMBER, MOST REV. ABRAHAM MAR JULIOS

Your Graces, Fr. Vincent and Mr. Edward…

 

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
aramanapala@gmail.com

Cc:
dominicveliath@gmail.com ; bishopvja@sify.com ; bishopprakash0722@gmail.com ; archbpdj@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:47 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

DOCTRINAL COMMISSION, CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA, BANGALORE

SECRETARY,
REV. FR. DOMINIC VELIATH, SDB 
 

 

 

BISHOP-IN-CHARGE, MOST REV. JOSEPH KALLARANGATT 

MEMBER, MOST REV. PRAKASH MALLAVARAPU

MEMBER, MOST REV. DOMINIC JALA SDB

Your Graces and Reverend Father Dominic…

 

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
archdagra@yahoo.co.in ; archdagra@gmail.com ; archbpagra@gmail.com ; bishopdsouza@yahoo.com ; abpalbert@yahoo.com
Cc:
babu karakombil ; cbcipro@gmail.com

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:51 PM Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

MEDIA/INFORMATION OFFICE, CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

SECRETARY, REV. FR. BABU JOSEPH KARAKOMBIL, SVD

SECRETARY, REV. FR. DOMINIC D’ABREO

BISHOP-IN-CHARGE, MOST REV. ALBERT D’SOUZA

Your Grace, and Reverend Fathers Dominic and Babu Joseph…

 

AUTO-RESPONSES

From:
Dharmapuri Diocese
To:
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:31 AM

Subject: Bishop’s House, Dharmapuri Re: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

Sincere thanks for your email message as soon as I view your mail, I will respond to you, because you are important and precisely your relationship is precious.

Best Wishes,
Bishop’s House,

Dharmapuri

 

From: “Secretary, Ooty” <secretaryooty@yahoo.co.in> To: <michaelprabhu@vsnl.net>

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 2:36 PM Subject: Auto-response

I thank you for your kind remembrance by sending me this E-Mail. I will send my reply as soon as possible.

 

From:
noreply@boxbe.com
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:21 PM

Subject: Re: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

Hello Michael Prabhu,

Thanks for the message about “THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE”. This is a one-time automatic confirmation to let you know you’re on my Boxbe Guest List.

Email from you will be delivered right to my Inbox.

Thank you,
dioceseoframanathapuram@gmail.com

 

LETTERS TO THE PRESS

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
letters@thehindu.co.in
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:51 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
letterschennai@newindianexpress.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:53 PM

Subject: THE 1993 TAMIL MISSAL TRANSLATION CASE

Dear Sir,

I applaud the decision of the civil court judge on issuing a permanent injunction to the Tamil Nadu Bishops’ Council restraining them from using the 1993 translation of the Missal [your news of November 7].

When the faithful write to the bishops, they either do not respond or reply evasively.

The petitioners were left with no other alternative but to seek redressal in a civil court.

Citing Canon Law, the defendants argued that the Catholic laity should have approached the Church, the issue being a religious and internal one. By virtue of the same Canon Law, the Bishops are required to obtain approval from Rome [the Vatican/Holy See] for the changes in the Tamil Missal before imposing them on the people but this was not done.

As a matter of fact, the laity was never even consulted.

The honourable judge rightly decreed that if the Bishops want to appeal to Canon Law, they must be seen to be obeying it themselves — which they obviously weren’t.

Their statement that Catholics have never objected till now to the translation is false.

This is also not the first time they have perpetrated a fraud on the laity of the Church.

As a proof of the veracity of my statements, I am attaching a report prepared by me and individually mailed today to all twenty bishops of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Thank you.

Michael Prabhu

Catholic apologist www.ephesians-511.net

12 DAWN APTS., 22 LEITH CASTLE SOUTH ST., CHENNAI – 600 028

Advertisements


Categories: Hinduisation of the Catholic Church in India, Liturgical Abuses, new age

4 replies

Trackbacks

  1. 1993 Tamil Missal translation fraud – Lay Catholics win court case against Church- By Michael Prabhu | THE LAITYTUDE
  2. 1993 Tamil Missal translation fraud – Lay Catholics win court case against Church- By Michael Prabhu | Christian Reforms
  3. ஏசுவின் உடல் அல்லது சரீரம் எது சரி – திருப்பலிப் புத்தகம் தடை அல்லது தடை நீக்கம் எது சட்டப்படி
  4. ஏசுவின் உடல் அல்லது சரீரம் எது சரி – திருப்பலிப் புத்தகம் தடை அல்லது தடை நீக்கம் எது சட்டப்படி

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

fergymisquitta

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

ephesians-511.net Testimonies

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai – 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail: michaelprabhu@vsnl.net, http://www.ephesians-511.net

EPHESIANS-511.NET- A Roman Catholic Ministry Exposing Errors in the Indian Church

Michael Prabhu, METAMORPHOSE, #12,Dawn Apartments, 22,Leith Castle South Street, Chennai - 600 028, Tamilnadu, India. Phone: +91 (44) 24611606 E-mail: michaelprabhu@vsnl.net, http://www.ephesians-511.net

%d bloggers like this: