By Jacob Peenikaparambil
Indore, July 19, 2026: One of the most significant teachings of Jesus is reflected in his statement: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27).
This teaching, found in the Synoptic Gospels, implies that all laws, traditions, and practices are to be evaluated from the perspective of human well-being.
Human beings are not expected to become slaves of irrelevant or outdated laws, even if such laws may not appear to be harmful. For Jesus, however, any law that does not promote life is ultimately harmful.
Jesus frequently challenged religious traditions that, in his view, gave greater importance to external rituals than to inner morality and compassion.
The Gospels record several instances in which he openly criticized, ignored, or violated the religious and social norms established by the Jewish authorities of his time.
These include healing people on the Sabbath, defending his disciples when they plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath, disregarding ritual handwashing, redefining the concept of defilement, associating with outcasts, and breaking prevailing gender and cultural barriers.
Jesus strongly criticized the Jewish religious leaders for placing heavy burdens on the people without lifting a finger to help them (Matthew 23:4).
The Pharisees had expanded the Mosaic Law into hundreds of complex and detailed oral regulations that were virtually impossible for ordinary working people to observe perfectly.
They preached rigorous standards while creating loopholes for themselves or simply lacking the compassion to help common people cope with these burdensome ritual requirements.
Jesus’ approach stood in sharp contrast to the legalism and ritualism of the Jewish religious leadership.
He invited people with these comforting words: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28–30).
The recent guidelines issued by the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches regarding bi-ritualism should be viewed in the light of these teachings of Jesus.
The ultimate purpose of Canon Law is the spiritual well-being and growth of the faithful. The fundamental question, therefore, is whether these new instructions will truly contribute to the spiritual welfare of the People of God.
According to the guidelines, if a priest belonging to one of the Oriental Catholic Churches wishes to administer the sacraments or celebrate Holy Mass in the Latin Rite, he must obtain permission from the Dicastery through a complicated and laborious process.
The procedure requires:
- The priest concerned to submit a formal letter of request to the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches.
- A detailed letter of request from the Hierarch (Eparchial Bishop, Exarch, or another competent authority) or the Ordinary in whose jurisdiction the priest will exercise ministry in a rite other than his own.
- A letter of consent from the Ordinary or Hierarch of the priest’s own rite.
Moreover, the permission is granted only for five years, after which the entire process has to be repeated for renewal.
For many years, priests belonging to the Oriental Catholic Churches have generously served the pastoral needs of Latin Catholics, especially in Western countries where there has been a shortage of priests. Within India too, bi-ritual faculties have helped meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.
In such situations, the primary concern has never been the rite or identity of the priest, but the pastoral needs of the faithful. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, all priests participate in the one priesthood of Christ.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand why such an elaborate procedure should be made mandatory merely to obtain permission to administer the sacraments in another rite.
Jesus Christ did not establish either the Latin Rite or any of the Oriental Rites. The first Eucharist celebrated by him was a simple expression of self-giving, sharing, and communion.
The emphasis was on the meaning and purpose of the Eucharist rather than on ritual. The various rites developed gradually as Christianity spread into different cultures.
Hence, rites are human developments. Anything that is humanly developed is not perfect or immutable; it must be open to change according to the needs of the times.
This was precisely the spirit behind the liturgical renewal and cultural adaptation initiated by the Second Vatican Council.
Will these guidelines foster greater cooperation, collaboration, and unity within the Church, or will they create further distance, misunderstanding, and lack of cooperation? T
hey could certainly give rise to several practical difficulties. Let me illustrate this with a concrete example.
More than four decades ago, members of a Syro-Malabar religious congregation established an institution in a city in Madhya Pradesh.
At that time, there were a considerable number of Latin Catholic families living in the surrounding area. They approached the diocesan bishop requesting that the priests of the Syro-Malabar congregation provide for their pastoral needs. The bishop readily granted permission.
Over the years, this initiative developed into a vibrant Latin parish served by Syro-Malabar priests. A beautiful church was built on the congregation’s land, with most of the construction expenses borne by the congregation.
What will happen to such a parish under the new guidelines? The Latin bishop will have to submit a request, which must be endorsed by the Syro-Malabar Ordinary.
But what happens if the Syro-Malabar bishop refuses to endorse the request? It is no secret that there are a few fundamentalist tendencies within both the Latin and Oriental Churches, and the bishop concerned may happen to share such views.
In such a situation, it is unlikely that the Syro-Malabar congregation would hand over the church building and the land to the Latin diocese, especially since the church is located adjacent to its other institutions.
Consequently, the Latin diocese would have to purchase a new plot of land and construct another church, requiring the faithful to bear a heavy financial burden.
Meanwhile, the existing church would remain grossly underutilized. Can such an outcome be said to promote the spiritual well-being of the faithful?
Every law enacted by an organization or a nation generally serves one of two purposes: either to prevent harm or to promote some positive good.
For example, the law requiring pillion riders to wear helmets seeks to save lives in the event of accidents.
Similarly, laws regulating the sale of drugs are intended to prevent substance abuse and protect public health.
Unfortunately, the guidelines issued by the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches do not appear to fulfil either of these objectives.
They do not clearly state the pastoral or spiritual purpose they are intended to achieve. In that sense, they resemble laws such as those found in the Manusmriti, which prohibited a woman from a higher caste from marrying a man of a lower caste.
In my humble opinion, these guidelines are unlikely to contribute to the spiritual well-being of the faithful. On the contrary, in certain situations they may even prove harmful.
A Malayali naturally prefers to converse in Malayalam and will speak another language only when circumstances require it. Likewise, a Syro-Malabar priest normally prefers to celebrate the Eucharist according to his own rite. He celebrates the Latin Rite only when there is a genuine pastoral need.
One possible consequence of these guidelines could be the eventual introduction of another regulation requiring Catholics to participate only in the liturgy of their own rite.
Already, there appears to be an unwritten policy discouraging young members of the Syro-Malabar Church from joining Latin dioceses or religious congregations. Does such an approach really contribute to the growth of the Church in India?
Against this backdrop, the bishops of India should approach Pope Leo XIV and request that these guidelines be relaxed so that bishops and the major superiors of religious congregations may be empowered to grant permission to priests within their dioceses or congregations to administer the sacraments in another rite whenever genuine pastoral needs arise.
Every member of the Church has the right to appeal to the Holy Father. Ideally, these guidelines should be withdrawn altogether, allowing priests the freedom to celebrate the Eucharist in another rite whenever pastoral necessity demands it.
Whenever new laws or regulations are promulgated, Church leaders must ask themselves: What is the mind of Jesus? What is the heart of Jesus? If Jesus were living among us today, what would he have done? Priests too should reflect on how Jesus would have responded to the present guidelines issued by the Dicastery for the Oriental Churches.
The heart of every law should be compassion and the well-being of people.
(Photo from Needpix)