OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 12:15:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Three Day Episcopal Synod Of The Malankara (Indian)Church  (Read 6238 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thomas Daniel (Reji)
Chevalier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Archdiocese of Syriac Orthodox Church
Posts: 308


Proud to say belongs to Syriac Orthodox Church


WWW
« on: May 12, 2005, 02:40:49 AM »

A three day Episcopal Synod of the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church of Malankara has started at the Church head quarters (Patriarch Centre) at Puthencuriz today the 11 May 2005. His Beatitude Catholicose of India Mor Baselious Thomas I is presiding over the Holy Synod. Metropolitans Mor Philoxenos of Malabar diocese, Mor Thimotheos of Kottayam and Archdiocese of Greater India, Synod Secretary Mor Gregorios of Kochi diocese, Mor Divanasios and Mor Dioscoros of Simhsana dioceses, Mor Milithios of Kollam and Thumpamon dioceses, Mor Koorilose of Niranam and Thiruvanathapuram dioceses, Mor Ivanios of Kandanad diocese and Mor Theophilos of Malankara Syrian Orthodox Theoligical Seminary are participating in the local Synod.

The Synod is expected to discuss the reconstitution of the existing dioceses and also certain other religious matters.

The Jacobite Syrian Christian Church of Malankara (India) under the Catholicose is a division of Universal Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and all the East. The supreme head of the Church is the Patriarch of Antioch and the Catholicose is the head of the Indian Church. It is the Catholicose who presides over the Indian (Malankara) Synod. He ranks second to the Patriarch in hierarchy.
Logged

Oh.. Morth Mariam Yoldath Aloho (Mother Of God)Pray For Us
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,023


Lion of Judah, Lion of Arabs, Lion of Everyone


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2005, 08:10:41 AM »

Where's Mor Tithos? 
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2005, 11:45:32 AM »

I think Mar Tithos (Bishop of American section Jacobite Church) is directly reporting to Patriarch Mar Zakka 1.  The model they follow is same as the RC uniate model.   Patriarch as the supreme head of Universal church (based on petrine primacy) and then independent uniate Churches.

Also, the Jacobite Knanaya Bishop is not sitting in the Synod. It is  considered a seperate Church, right?  How many divisions are there total?

Also, if Jacobite Church  (Knanaya Jacobite and American Jacobite)  are uniate Churches under SOC based on PETRINE PRIMACY, then why this is not applicable to other OO Churches?  A rule based on PETRINE PRIMACY, if it is absolute  truth, then it has to an UNIVERAL TRUTH, right? Universal truth means it is applicable to all OO Churches, right?  But why SOC tries to make different uniates out of INdian Church bring them  under universal rule  (universal SOC) based on Petrine primacy?

I hope the Synod meeting discuss about reuniting the divisions in the Indian Church towards one OO church in India.  I don't think we can achieve anything better by borrowing concepts of supremacy and uniatism from RC church.   Our focus should be our common faith which unites us all - the only one criteria for our unity.

May peace prevail!

-Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2005, 11:51:09 AM »

What I meant is we need only one Synod of Bishops from India.  We do not need too many divisions like in RC.  One OO faith and one OO Church for India - our ultimate aim.  A great aspect of Orthodox Church is that all Orthodox bishops can sit in the Synod of a regional Church.   But in RC tradition, they do not have such a united Synod of Bishops.  I think we should not adopt RC model of administration.


-Paul
Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2005, 02:05:06 AM »

Dear Paul,

After reading your message, it appears to me that you are confused.

It is a fact that the See of Antioch was established by St.Peter and the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of Peter.

However the association of the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch is not purely based on Peterine Primacy. It is based on historical and canonical reasons.

The Malankara Church was always ‘Syriac’ in tradition. Some argue that Malankara Church was East Syrian while the Syriac Orthodox Church was West Syrian. The truth is there was only one Syriac Church in the Oriental Orthodox faith. The Oriental Orthodox church had a Catholicose / Maphrianate for the East. In the Syriac church hierarchy the Patriarch of Antioch was always the ranked first. The second and third in the SOC hierarch were the Catholicose of the East and the Patriarch of Jerusalem respectively. The order in which the names of these fathers are remembered in the Divine Litrugy is also in this order. First Ignatious (Patriarch of Antioch), Second Baselious (Catholicose of the East) and Third Gregorious (Patriarch of Jerusalem). There is documented history of many Catholicose of the East, later on becoming the Patriarch of Antioch.

It is true that there was an independent Catholicose of the East also. However this was a position with in the Nestorian Church and not in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

The situation of Simhasana Churches and Knanaya Diocese staying outside of the Malankara Synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church is rather unfortunate. However that was forced on the church due to court cases filed by a section of the Malankara Church that opposes this canonical connection with Antioch. There was a 1995 Supreme Court order, which categorically stated that these two entities are under the Patriarch of Antioch and cannot be disputed by any. Several litigations are continuing about the other entities with in the church. So for administrative ease, if these two entities remain outside the Malankara Synod of the SOC, atleast these two entities does not have to defend themselves in court, for every court case filed by those opposed to the Antioch connection.

Hope all this will finally settle and we will have a united synod in India.

In Christ..

Mathew G M

I think Mar Tithos (Bishop of American section Jacobite Church) is directly reporting to Patriarch Mar Zakka 1. The model they follow is same as the RC uniate model. Patriarch as the supreme head of Universal church (based on petrine primacy) and then independent uniate Churches.

Also, the Jacobite Knanaya Bishop is not sitting in the Synod. It is considered a seperate Church, right? How many divisions are there total?

Also, if Jacobite Church (Knanaya Jacobite and American Jacobite) are uniate Churches under SOC based on PETRINE PRIMACY, then why this is not applicable to other OO Churches? A rule based on PETRINE PRIMACY, if it is absolute truth, then it has to an UNIVERAL TRUTH, right? Universal truth means it is applicable to all OO Churches, right? But why SOC tries to make different uniates out of INdian Church bring them under universal rule (universal SOC) based on Petrine primacy?

I hope the Synod meeting discuss about reuniting the divisions in the Indian Church towards one OO church in India. I don't think we can achieve anything better by borrowing concepts of supremacy and uniatism from RC church. Our focus should be our common faith which unites us all - the only one criteria for our unity.

May peace prevail!

-Paul


Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2005, 12:48:07 PM »

Dear Paul,


It is true that there was an independent Catholicose of the East also. However this was a position with in the Nestorian Church and not in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Hope all this will finally settle and we will have a united synod in India.

In Christ..

Mathew G M




Dear Mathew,  I still cannot conceive the idea that Knanaya and American Diocese are independently under Damascus. 

Regarding independence of Catholicate of the East, I think you assumption is not correct. The Church of the East had independent head before the Counfil of Chalcedon.  It is after the council of Chalcedon that a section of the Church of the East became Nestorian.  There was always an Orthodox section.

Also, when an Orthodox Catholicate of the East was established in the East after Chalcedon, Antioch was not involved.  St. James of Edessa has written in his Ecclesiastical history about how the Catholicate for Orthodox originated.  St. James clearly identifies the following parties involved - the Nestorians, the King and the Orthodox. Antioch or Antiochiain Patriarch is not mentioned. Also, St. James clearly states that it was with the permission of the King that the Orthodox revived the Catholicate.

I have also another example. Antioch claimed that they have the right to ordain Bishops in Cyprus. But one of the three ecumenical councils concluded that Cyprus can ordain their own bishops. The claim of Antioch was made invalid.

You mentioned about Syriac tradition, but totally ignored the Greek tradition of Antioch. How can you do this oif your study is sincere?

Actually the mother of all Churches of Syriac tradition is the Edessan Church. According to all early accounts (even the Acts of Mar Addai, Didascalia etc.), the founding father of the Edessan Church is Apostle Thomas and his co-Apostles Mar Addai etc.  Gregory Bar Hebraeus identifies two Church of Syriac Tradition - the Western Section and the Eastern Section.

I agree that the Western Church (antiochian) originated from St. Peter (as well as other Apostles). But Bar Hebraeus clearly identifies the origin and succession of the Eastern Church, a succession which begins with Apostle Thomas.

So, to the best of my knowledge, current Damascus based SOC was occupying the possesion of Eastern Church and expanding their boundaries through a series of revision of their constitution.  Actually the East in 'Patriarch of Antioch and all the East' only means that he is Patriarch of Antioch and the region called 'Anatolia' in Mesopotomia.
'Anatoli" (in Greek Anatoli means East) is a well known geographic region in the south-east of Turkey.

Fr.  Philip Raczka of Syrian Catholic Church writes:  "At the time the Christian Church began, Antioch was the capital of the Roman province of "the East" (Anatolia).  It was the principal economic center of the entire Middle East, as it was at the crossroads of trade routes connecting Europe and Asia.  For these reasons it quickly became the center of Church life in the area as well.  Although the city was destroyed by an earthquake in the seventh century, the chief hierarchs of Churches in the Middle East still bear the title patriarch of Antioch and all the East."

So, the 'East' means only Anatolia, the East according to the boundaries of the Roman empire. Outside the Roman empire the Syrian Church of the East (Catholicate of the East), Armenian and Georgian Churches flourished. The head of all the three major Churches outside Roman emoire has the title Catholicos.

So, let us preserve the integrity of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East (Catholicate of the East) and the Western Church (SOC based in Damascus) can preserve the integrity of the Western See.

I have great difficulty accepting the Knanaya, jacobite and American Archdiocese Diocese divisions. Why SOC is not dividing the ethnic Syrian section this way?  i.e. why only the Indian Church is divided with this special administrative setup?

Peace

Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2005, 12:55:54 PM »


Also, when an Orthodox Catholicate of the East was established in the East after Chalcedon, Antioch was not involved. St. James of Edessa has written in his Ecclesiastical history about how the Catholicate for Orthodox originated. St. James clearly identifies the following parties involved - the Nestorians, the King and the Orthodox. Antioch or Antiochiain Patriarch is not mentioned. Also, St. James clearly states that it was with the permission of the King that the Orthodox revived the Catholicate.


I meant St. James of Ephesus, who is an important OO father. You can read the massive work of St. James on Church history, especially the history of Antiochian and other Church in Roman empire. Not even a single time he links the Eastern Syrian Church (Catholicate of the East) with Antioch.

I think the modern interpretations popular among Indian Jacobite circles are too much exaggerated. They are giving the Antiochian see more jurisdiction than they originally enjoyed.

Also, today the title 'Patiarch of Antioch' is just a honorific, used just as a symbol, because there is not a single Syrian Church in the city of Antioch (Antakya) or Christians living there.  By Canon Patriarch of Antioch is the 'BIshop of Antioch'. But with out having a single parish, how can this title be true compared with the reality of today.

I we need to humbly accept each other, accepting the reality and remain united in each region. Seeking too much authority and power is not good for any one. There is only one Universal Church - all OO churches together. So, the concept of Universal Syrian Church is an exaggeration, this idea was developed to bring Indian church under supreme universal rule.


Paul




Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2005, 02:45:41 PM »


I have great difficulty accepting the Knanaya, jacobite and American Archdiocese Diocese divisions. Why SOC is not dividing the ethnic Syrian section this way? i.e. why only the Indian Church is divided with this special administrative setup?

Peace

Paul


I am not going to argue with you. Form reading your above post, it appears to me that ethnic pride is very important to you.

I just wanted to say that your assertion that Malankara has no connection with Antioch, other than just sharing the common oriental orthodox faith does not hold water. I would like to quote St.Gregorious of Parumala, who as a Ramban served as the secretary and translator for Patrairch H.H Peter IV, and later ordained by the Patriarch as the Metropolitan of the Diocese of Niranam. He says: "Those who work against the See of Antioch, remains cursed."

I would like to quote Mar Divannasios Wattesseril, Malankara Metropolitain in his book Madopadesa Saarangal: "The supreme priestly (spiritual) authority of the Malankara Church resided in the Patriarch of Antioch." While the constitution of the Malankara Church was being drafted in 1934, several lay leaders blinded by ethnic pride, wanted to avoid any mention of connection with Antioch. Mar Divannasious prevailed and the constitution reads; "Malankara Church is a part of the Syriac church, and the head of the Syriac Church is the Patriarch of Antioch." Mar Divannasious while toiling hard for the temporal authority of the Malankara Metropolitan, never ever questioned the Spiritual Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. Some people erroneously believe that Mar Divannasious remains excommunicated, but that’s not true. Patriarch H.H Elias III had lifted the excommunication in 1933 and H.G is very much a valid Bishop of the SOC.

There are members of the Malankara Church that still like to maintain the canonical and historical connection with Antioch. There is one section of the Malankara Church, filled with false ethnic pride, rejects any connection with Antioch. This section is very powerful, even the Chief Minister of Kerala is from this section, and the most circulated news paper in Kerala is also controlled by this section. This section even joined hands with Hindu fundamentalist to block the visit of H.H Zakka I to India.

Almost all parishes in Malankara where the majority of members want to maintain the canonical and historical connection with Antioch is being persecuted by frivolous law suites filed by the other party. However in 1995, the Supreme Court stated that the Knanaya Diocese and Simhasana Churches are under the See of Antioch and cannot be challenged by anyone. So inorder to protect these two entities from frivolous law suites and persecution, they are kept as a separate entity directly under the Patriarch of Antioch. This is not at the instance of the Patriarch but at the instance of the leaders from Malankara.

In Christ,
Mathew G M
Logged

NULL
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2005, 08:07:43 AM »

Quote
Fr.  Philip Raczka of Syrian Catholic Church writes:  "At the time the Christian Church began, Antioch was the capital of the Roman province of "the East" (Anatolia).  It was the principal economic center of the entire Middle East, as it was at the crossroads of trade routes connecting Europe and Asia.  For these reasons it quickly became the center of Church life in the area as well.  Although the city was destroyed by an earthquake in the seventh century, the chief hierarchs of Churches in the Middle East still bear the title patriarch of Antioch and all the East."

Paul,

Not to get the thread off on a tangent, but Father Archimandrite & Protopresbyter Philip Raczka is a priest of the Byzantine Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, not the Syriac Catholic Church.

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2005, 12:47:40 PM »

Mar Divannasious prevailed and the constitution reads; "Malankara Church is a part of the Syriac church, and the head of the Syriac Church is the Patriarch of Antioch." Mar Divannasious while toiling hard for the temporal authority of the Malankara Metropolitan, never ever questioned the Spiritual Authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. S

In Christ,
Mathew G M


Dear Mathew, If the constitution is fine for you then why H.B. Thomas 1 did not accept it. Why he created a new consitution. So, the problem here is not about accepting Patriarch of Damascus as 'first among equals', rather the problem is the ego associated with accepting the authority of the Malankara Metropolitan as defined in the same constitution you mentioned. You have to take in to consideration the entire constitution, not just one part. 
If you consider it entitrely, then Malankara Metropolitan is the authority over entire parishes of Malankara Church and the Catholicos has the authority to accept a Patriarch who was ordained with his consent.  Also, in the constitution,  Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is a Division (NOT a subdivision or subordinate entity) of the Syrian Church.

As I already mentioned there are two Syrian Churches - of th West (Antioch) and of the East (Indian/Persian). This is very similar to Churches of Greek tradition - we have Greek Churches of Cyprus, Alexandria, Greece, Jerusalem etc. There is no supreme authority over these Greek Churches.  Same is true for Syriac Churches.

Seems like you tend to associate Syriac ONLY with Antioch. This is the root problem in Malankara. Our people do not know much about the Antiochian Church and the fact that this Church had a Greek tradition. It is only after Chalcedon that a polarization started between Greek and Syriac sections of Antiochian Church.

Also, the term 'Malankara' is not mentioned in Hudaya Canon or any one of the Syriac history books. Nor does it mention Antiochian Patriarch ordaining a Bishop for India. First bishop ordained this way was Mar Athanasius of Protestant Mar Thoma Church in 1842.

Peace
Paul





Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2005, 12:57:59 PM »

Dear Mathew, Based on all information I have, only the following administrative setup will bring permanent unity in Malankara.

1. OO faith is most important. It should be taught so. Other things like primacy etc. are insignificant for OO. Right perspective about the nature of OO Church and Catholicity should be taught to people. Currently IOC Bishops keep the correct understanding about Catholicity of OO Church. For Jacobite Bishops primacy of Petrine throne is most important (this is very clearly against the OO understanding). They understand Catholicity in terms of being under petrine throne of Antioch (similar to how Indian RC identify themselves with Rome).

2. One united Synod in India in OO faith (no need for seperate Knanaya Church, American Archdiocese Church or Jacobite Church).

3. Honor Patriarch of Damascus as first among equals (exactly as in IOC constitution).

4. Supreme head and authority over Indian Church is Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan, who acts together with his Synod in India.

5. Like our Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian sister Churches, the Indian Church is Apostolic in origin (founded by Apostle Thomas) and not a subordinate to any Church of the West. The Apostolic identity and lineage must be preserved.

6. We should not try to find human faults of both sides. i.e. complete willingness to forgive any sins of a human nature commited against each other. The unity is based on faith, not based on who is perfect.

Peace
Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2005, 01:06:00 PM »


The situation of Simhasana Churches and Knanaya Diocese staying outside of the Malankara Synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church is rather unfortunate. However that was forced on the church due to court cases filed by a section of the Malankara Church that opposes this canonical connection with Antioch. There was a 1995 Supreme Court order, which categorically stated that these two entities are under the Patriarch of Antioch and cannot be disputed by any.

In Christ..

Mathew G M




Dear Mathew, If you sincerely follow the Supreme Court, then why ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court that the head of the Malankara Church is the Malankara Metropolitan?  I suppose no one is interested in sincerely following the directions of the Supreme court, but tryign to find loop holes in Indian constitution and Supreme Court directives for advantage.  If there was sincere desire to remain united, truly realizing that what is important is the common OO faith, it was possible long ago.  So, what is needed today is to teach people the truth about OO faith and how Churches are united in this faith. Until leaders do this, there won't be unity.

Peace
Paul



Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2005, 06:37:51 PM »


3. Honor Patriarch of Damascus as first among equals (exactly as in IOC constitution).


First of all the title is not 'Patriarch of Damascus' it is 'Patriarch of Antioch and All the East' similar to the the head of the IOC is not Catholicose of Kottayam or Devalokam.

To better understand your position, I have some questions for you. Please answer them for me.

1) What willl this honor mean as first among equals mean ? How will the Patriarch of Antioch differ from the head of any other OO church as far as the IOC is concerned ?

2) Are you implying that everything IOC is doing with respect to the honor given to the Patriarch of Antioch currently is all right. OR Are you suggesting any changes from the existing IOC set-up ?
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2005, 08:05:26 PM »



First of all the title is not 'Patriarch of Damascus' it is 'Patriarch of Antioch and All the East' similar to the the head of the IOC is not Catholicose of Kottayam or Devalokam.

To better understand your position, I have some questions for you. Please answer them for me.

1) What willl this honor mean as first among equals mean ? How will the Patriarch of Antioch differ from the head of any other OO church as far as the IOC is concerned ?

2) Are you implying that everything IOC is doing with respect to the honor given to the Patriarch of Antioch currently is all right. OR Are you suggesting any changes from the existing IOC set-up ?


H.H. Catholicos is the Archbishop of Kottayam and officially the head of the Knanaya Church. If his seat is in Delhi, he will be the Archbishop of Delhi. Patriarch is the Archbishop of Damascus.  If you read old writings, St. John Chrysostom is called Archbishop of Constantinople, which means Patriarch.  There is too much exaggeration of the word 'Patriarch' these days, right? Developing even to the idea of infallibility!


1.  First among equals means a honor. Within OO, the Pope of Alexandria has the primacy of honor. This is not based on primacy of Petrine throne, but old custom followed within Byzantine empire. This is the reason why in all joint meetings of OO, the Pope of Alexandria takes the middle position. He has primacy of honor, but he does not misuse it to conquer sister OO churches. For him only the OO faith of sister Churches is important.

2. I think, if H.B. Thomas 1 stops the divisive attitude everything will be fine. Remember that H.H. Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 11 sent a ring to H.H. Zakka 1 which symbolizes unity. This means that IOC is willing for a 'normal' relationship, but excluding RC ideas of supremacy, universal SOC etc. Jacobite Church can help by getting rid of all exaggerations and entering in to a normal relationship. There is no need to act beyond realities.

Peace
Paul

Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2005, 01:31:13 AM »


2. I think, if H.B. Thomas 1 stops the divisive attitude everything will be fine. Remember that H.H. Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 11 sent a ring to H.H. Zakka 1 which symbolizes unity. This means that IOC is willing for a 'normal' relationship, but excluding RC ideas of supremacy, universal SOC etc. Jacobite Church can help by getting rid of all exaggerations and entering in to a normal relationship. There is no need to act beyond realities.


Paul,
Just so that we dont digress, I don't want to comment on your completely baseless allegation about H.B Thomas I and your totally unfounded aqusition about Patriarchal infallability. I will just say none of that is true.

 I will rather focus on the issue. I still didnt get an answer to my original question. In your earlier post, you had laid out some conditions for OO unity in India, and one of that was; "Honor the Patriarch of Antioch as first among equals."

What specific honor is the IOC prepared to give the Patriarch of Antioch ? Is there anything different the IOC will do, than they are doing now  ?
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2005, 01:15:12 PM »



What specific honor is the IOC prepared to give the Patriarch of Antioch ? Is there anything different the IOC will do, than they are doing now ?


You can honor another person, but to be useful to all  it has to be a two way process.  H.H. Catholicos sent a ring ( I suppose gold) as a gesture of unity between two Churches. But there was no positive development because there are people in the middle blocking any improvement. I hope you agree to this.  Did you forget the message of H.H. Catholicos that he prays for the head of SOC in each liturgy.  What more is required than this prayer and unity in faith?

-Paul


Logged
Chacko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2005, 03:33:39 PM »

Dear Paul,

Please don't try to fool others by talking lot about the ring send by Catholicos Mathews II etc. Both of us know very well about the actual tactics behind this move. Please remember that it was not only for the Patriarch he had send gold ring; he had given and offered many more things to lot of people who are ready to switch sides. He is an expert in talking one thing and doing just opposite. Christians of our State knows this very well. The Kerala Christian leaders of other Episcopal churches have tried many times to mediate the problem between both our Churches, but whenever this Catholicos felt that his tactics will not work he has cunningly withdrawn from even appearing before them.

Also don't try to fool others by reproducing the words of Catholicos Mathews II who says that he prays for the head of the SOC in each liturgy etc. If he was sincere he would not have given an affidavit against the HH in July 2002 in US court. Earlier the Patriarch believed this Catholicos to an extent even though we in Malankara warned about his true character. But the cunningness of the Catholicos was exposed to HH after this incident. We in India know very well about the true character of your Church’s Catholicos. On the one side he will say peace, peace and talk a lot about this in the public; at the same time he may be doing things which will be harmful for others. Till 2002, people of other denominations believed him, but gradually the real character of this Catholicos Mathews II got exposed. The Manarcad Church issue is still afresh in the minds of our people. This Catholicos then tried to enter this most famous Church of SOC by force. Even non-Christians had appealed to him to avoid this move, but he never bothered to discontinue his hate march to the church. His aim was to occupy that Church through any means. For that he had even arranged anti-social elements. But finally because of the severe opposition from people of all walks of life, he was forced to drop his hate mission. This incident had rocked the state as never before. From then onwards his image started to dip. Can you deny this. Even if you do deny, this is a fact known to all the people in the Christian belt of our state.

There is no doubt that your Church’s Catholicos Mathews II is an intelligent and good looking leader. But he has never used his intelligence for the unity of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in India. What he was always interested was to play power politics. If he was little more sincere, peace would have been happened long before.

- T M Chacko
Logged

NULL
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2005, 03:49:32 PM »


You can honor another person, but to be useful to all it has to be a two way process. H.H. Catholicos sent a ring ( I suppose gold) as a gesture of unity between two Churches. But there was no positive development because there are people in the middle blocking any improvement. I hope you agree to this. Did you forget the message of H.H. Catholicos that he prays for the head of SOC in each liturgy. What more is required than this prayer and unity in faith?


H.H Zakka I was in India during his Jubilee year of enthronement. I didn’t see anyone from the IOC calling on H.H to congratulate him. I saw Catholicose Mathew II on secular TV announcing, that the IOC will object to his visit, even if it requires force. The Catholicose even went on 'name calling'.

I saw the IOC petitioning the Govt of India to not allow H.H Zakka I to enter India. I saw the IOC petitioning civil courts against H.H Zakka Ist visiting India. One Bishop of the IOC even went to the extend of calling a 'Hindu Fundamentalist' organization hypocritical for not opposing the visit of H.H Zakka I. He said since these Hindu Fundamentalist organizations are opposing the activities of foreign protestant missionaries, they should oppose the visit of this foreign Patriarch also.

By 'people in the middle' are you implying the ultra patriotic coterie, blinded by Indian ethnic pride that surrounds the Catholicose. If so, I agree. I don’t think the Catholicose Mathew II, meant everything that he said on TV.  He is in his 90's. I don’t know him personally, but from what I have heard, he is someone who leads a very prayerful life. Obviously he is influenced by this coterie.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2005, 06:04:14 PM »


I saw the IOC petitioning the Govt of India to not allow H.H Zakka I to enter India. I saw the IOC petitioning civil courts against H.H Zakka Ist visiting India.


IOC did not try to prevent any one entering India.  If some people did it then that is their own responsibility not IOC. Hope you will definitely agree that H.B. Thomas 1 said very bad words against IOC (as reported in media)  and did everything he could to distort the understanding.  Also you may agree that people of Jacobite Church once prevented H.H. during a visit to North Kerala region.  Are you suggesting that Jacobite faction is pure and perfect with absolutely no human fault? Observing the events for last few years, I won't be able to accept such a proposal.

If our aim is to prepare a list (say in excel spread sheet form) of human faults, then we can contiue for ever!

Let us discuss faith issues and how it should be in an Orthodox framework instead of again and again falling in to the trap of discussing human faults - such as IOC filed, IOC prevented, IOC closed churches and so on ... as if Jacobites never did any of these atrocities towards IOC. Let us kindly remain realistic.

Finally do you agree that the Orthodox model of unity of Holy Synod is better compared with numerous uniate churches within Malankara?


-Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2005, 06:41:14 PM »

Till 2002, people of other denominations believed him, but gradually the real character of this Catholicos Mathews II got exposed.  The Manarcad Church issue is still afresh in the minds of our people. This Catholicos then tried to enter this most famous Church of SOC by force.  Even non-Christians had appealed to him to avoid this move, but he never bothered to discontinue his hate march to the church.  His aim was to occupy that Church through any means. For that he had even arranged anti-social elements. 

- T M Chacko


Dear T.M. Chacko,

H.H. is a great spiritual father, pure vegetarian, monastic and living a life according to Orthodox tradition. God Almighty blessed him to live beyond 90 years of age and his face still shines with grace. You may find all kinds of faults, but what ultimately matters is the life one lead in Orthodox faith. How many of us can strictly live such a  pure vegetarian, monastic life, even at the age of 90 do all the prostrations and prayers?  Then let us stop this habit of finding faults.

Can you talk to us about the head of your Church, his faults if any (actually I do not want to hear the faults of H.H. Zakka 1 or HB Thoma1)  instead of finding faults with H.H.?


Most Indian Churches were occupied by western Churches by force. RC occuoied many ancient Churches, including the tomb of Apostle Thomas. Later Protestant Church filed court cases against IOC Malankara metropolitan and tried to occupy Churches. Now some extremists linked to Damascus are trying capture Indian churches from the Malankara metropolitan, the true head of Indian Church.

Why should those who do not accept the Apostolic origin of Indian Church try to capture Indian Churches? This is injustice, right?  For example, we are not going to Damascus to occupy any of the Churches established by SOC, right?

Kindly read the history of Churches in middle-east. I think the situation in India is much better compared with middle-east. Hope you read in history that once upon a time SOC tried to gain control over Armenian Churches in Jerusalem with the help of non-Christian Turkey Sultan.

So, WHO IS BETTER HERE? Do you want more examples, say a numbered list of all court cases filed against IOC, physical harm caused to IOC priests, etc.?

Why the Jacobite faction is always introducing  rumors and stories instead of really focusing on real faith issues? If we go by justice, there is every right for the Malankara Metropolitan to administer each parish of Malankara Church. But in a corrupt democratic system who cares for truth!

Few times I listed purely faith related aspects that can bring unity. But seems like our Jacobite friends do not want to listen, but going back again to the same old style of finding faults. Is this the right approach?

My kind request to stop this approach and focus on faith aspects, Orthodox administrative model etc. Finding faults will not lead us anywhere.

Let us focus on genuine issues. Do you agree to the uniate model followed in your Church?

Paul
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2005, 11:51:42 PM »

IC XC NIKA
I am sorry for my ignorance, but is the relationship between the SOC and the IOC, well, not to strong?  I know that the relationship between the Copts and the Ethiopians has gone from bad to worse (well, at least amoung the clergy, and specifically between the bishops).  Is this also the case with the SOC and the IOC.
Sorry, I would like some good reading on the history, Paul.  Please provide some sites, if you will.
THANKS.
copticorthodoxboy
Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2005, 02:55:17 AM »

IC XC NIKA
I am sorry for my ignorance, but is the relationship between the SOC and the IOC, well, not to strong? I know that the relationship between the Copts and the Ethiopians has gone from bad to worse (well, at least amoung the clergy, and specifically between the bishops). Is this also the case with the SOC and the IOC.
Sorry, I would like some good reading on the history, Paul. Please provide some sites, if you will.
THANKS.
copticorthodoxboy

Dear CopticOrthodoxBoy,

I will try to summarize 100 years of history below.

Background
----------------
In 1905 Patriarch of Antioch, Mor Abdul Mesihah was deposed and Patriarch Abdullah was installed in his place by the SOC synod. In 1908 Patriarch Abdulla ordained Mar Divannasious Wattesseril as Malankara Metropolitain. 'Malankara' is a region of India, where majority of the Oriental Orthodox christians live. In India the Oriental Orthodox church is called the Malankara Church.

Establishment of Catholicate in 1912
--------------------------------------------------
Mar Divannasios Wattesseril approached Patriarch Abdulla and the SOC synod to relocate the Catholicate (Maphrianate) of the East an institution under the SOC from Tigris to India.  The position of Maphrianate was abolished by the SOC synod around 1860 or so. The SOC synod didn't agree. The majority of the Malankara Synod in 1912 also didn’t approve. Of the five Bishops in Malankara only two bishops; Mar Divannasious Wattesseril and Mar Ivanious Murimattathil (who later became the Catholicose) approved this move.

So without the consent or approval of the SOC synod or the Malankara Synod, Mar Divannasiou Wattesseril approached the deposed Patriarch Abdul Mesihah to revive the Catholicate in India. The deposed Patriarch Abdul Mesihah readily agreed. The problem was three bishops were required to elevate a Catholicose and the Synod was not behind this move. So inorder to bypass that technicallity Patriarch Abdul Mesihah , Mar Divannasious Wattesseril and Mar Ivanious Murimattathil first ordained a priest as Bishop. Then immediately after that, this new Bishop, Mar Divannasious Wattesseril and Patriarch Abdul Mesihah elevated Mar Ivanious Murimattathil as Catholicose of the East. This ordination of the new Bishop and the elevation of the new Catholicose was done without the approval or consent of the SOC synod or the Malankara Synod.

Patriarch Abdulla immediately declared this new Catholicose and party as excommunicated. Naturally a schism developed.

A section of the Malankara Church sided with new Catholicose and they eventually are those who are referred to as IOC now. Another section maintained their loyalty to the Patriarch of Antioch. This section is what is usually referred to as MSOC or Jacobite Church.

Peace of 1958 and the Schism of 1970s
-------------------------------------------------------
As a fallout of the schism, litigation started for the control of the assets of the church. The litigation which began in 1912 went all the way till 1958. In 1958 a peace deal was worked out. The Patriarch of that time (Yakub III) and the Catholicose of that time (Geevarghese II) accepted each other, with the Patriarch ranked first spiritually, and the Catholicose and Malankara Metrapolitain having full temporal authority in India.

Catholicose Geevarghese II passed away, and new Catholicose Augen I was installed by the Patriarch in 1964. By early 1970's Mor Augen I started using title that his predesessor was not using namely "seated on the Apostolic Throne of St.Thomas" and claimed that he was equal in stature as the Patriarch. Again two sides evolved; those who support an independant Catholicate and those who were loyal to the Patriarch, and schism resurfaced.

So now in India there are two different Oriental Orthodox churches with separate hierarchies. The Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church (Jacobite Church) that maintains the historical and canonical connection with the Patriarch of Antioch and the IOC (also called MOSC), which considers itself fully autocephalous.

So the answer to your question is yes. The relationship between the IOC and SOC is not that good.

The following link gives the history from a MSOC perspective. I am sure Paul will send you links from the IOC perspective.
http://www.malankarachurch.org/malankara/MalankaraChurch2.htm

In Christ,
Mathew G M
Logged

NULL
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2005, 03:07:49 AM »


Let us discuss faith issues and how it should be in an Orthodox framework instead of again and again falling in to the trap of discussing human faults - such as IOC filed, IOC prevented, IOC closed churches and so on ... as if Jacobites never did any of these atrocities towards IOC. Let us kindly remain realistic.

Finally do you agree that the Orthodox model of unity of Holy Synod is better compared with numerous uniate churches within Malankara?


-Paul


Dear Paul,
My intention is not to find fault with the IOC. The only reason I quoted the above was because, you had staeted that IOC is doing everything it needs to honor the Patriarch of Antioch as the First, and if we had a united synod in India, the IOC would not do anything differently from now.

A united Synod would be good in India. But unity is achieved in steps. This has been suggested multiple times by various MSOC leaders. Lets with-draw all court cases. Lets first maintain status-quo. Lets first learn to co-exist peacefully without litigation as true sister OO churches.

In my opinion full OO unity in India can be achieved only in stages. First all court cases should be withdrawn and status-quo should continue. Full communion should be restored. Then eventually have a united Synod.

Or the contrary, what I find is attitudes like; "We won the court cases, so transfer all the chuch assets to us. We just need the building and the wealth, we dont care about the people."

With that attitude, we will not reach anywhere.

In Christ,
Mathew  G M


Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2005, 10:07:59 AM »


Establishment of Catholicate in 1912
--------------------------------------------------

Patriarch Abdulla immediately declared this new Catholicose and party as excommunicated. Naturally a schism developed.


In Christ,
Mathew G M


Dear Mathew,

1. There is absolutely no point in discussing anything befre 1958, because in 1958 everything happened before was reconciled and H.H. Catholicos accepted SOC head with one condition, that is subject to the Malankara constitution of 1934.  After this event it is really not worth to develop a dispute based on anything before.

2. In 1972 the "Synod of India" excommunicated Patriarch Yakub 111 for his false teaching that St. Thomas lacked in priesthood as well as his act of appointing an uncanonical delegate who gave ordination to clergy without the permission of Metropolitans of each diocese.

Don't think that only the Patriarch has the right to excommunicate, if you examine history of Church in the middle-east you will find all kinds of combinations of excommunication, even group of bishops removing Patriarchs. If the reason is genuine this is possible. Malankara Synod had genuine reasons to excommunicate the SOC Patriarch. From IOC perspective current SOC lineage is faulty - this is proven by other facts of which  SOC communion with RC and EO is just one example.  The attempt of H.H. Catholicos (who remains pure in his faith and following canonical traditions) to reconcile with Patriarch in Damascus by exchanging ring should be considered charity towards reconciliation. It was disrupted by middle men.

3. Why focus on court cases.  I can show you several examples of Jacobites filing court cases against IOC. Can you sincerely say that Jacobite never did this atrocity towards IOC? How about the continuing attrocity towards IOC in Jacobite stronghold regions, the suffering of IOC priests and people etc.? Who will answer for this?   I know IOC will not keep silent, because they are of similar blood as you, same community. So, it is not a question of who is perfect.  Since these court cases are not about punishing anyone, but seeking the opinion of Indian supreme court.  For example, when both sides were together approaching Supreme court, the court suggested a united Malankara Association.  They wanted this Church to be united. Consider the story of King Solomon and two women. The mother did not want to cut the baby. The other woman agreed to divide the baby.

Jacobite Church also started court cases and used law (i.e. freedom of religion in constitutional law) to create a new constitution and register a Church in 2002, right?  This is same as depending on Supreme court in matters like this - one is directly using the law, the later is asking the Supreme court to interpret law. So, don't say that these cases are about causing physical harm to any one. It is just a peaceful way of settling disputes instead of people fighting in the streets. This process did not start with IOC, but with Protestant -Orthodox disputes and at that time Jacobite faction and IOC were in the same Malankara Church.

The steps are very simple, when there is unity, there is no meaning for dispute for parishes. So, unity should happen first, which will make all disputes meaningless. When it is one church and one Synod, all properties belong to same one Church, right?

I think more important than anything, the attitude towards each other is important.  When we take side, we fail to see the good in the other side.  I believe that SOC should be satisfied with their assets in the middle-east and traditionally the head of Indian Church is the Malankara Metropolitan.

Our disputes are more about assets and other superficial aspects like throne, supremacy etc. Seldom we discuss faith issues, the fact that it is the same faith confessed in liturgy. Or, is it that throne, supremacy etc. are aspects of faith?  I don't think so, because other OO do not discuss such things. Other than the traditional plural (Our Patriarchs Mar Ignatius, Mar Baselius and Mar Gregorios ) used in IOC vs. the singular (Our Patriarch), is there any difference with Jacobite Church?  A very scholarly priest wrote recently that the IOC usage is from original Syriac text and very ancient.

-Paul

Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424



« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2005, 10:51:49 AM »


From IOC perspective current SOC lineage is faulty - this is proven by other facts of which SOC communion with RC and EO is just one example.


Dear Paul,
Here is a good example of the IOC hypocrisy that I see very often. In your earlier post you said the IOC gives all the honor that is due to the Patriarch of Antioch and considers him the FIRST among equals. You also said the IOC including Catholicose remembers for H.H Zakka Ist in all the Divine Liturgies.

Now you are saying that the current SOC lineage is faulty and excommunicated from an IOC perspective. Please pick one line. Is the current SOC orthodox or is it heterodox from an IOC point ? If the current SOC lineage is faulty and excommunicated then why remember the current SOC Patriarch of Antioch in IOC Divine Liturgy?

Forgive me a Sinner..
Mathew G M


Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2005, 01:02:24 PM »



Dear Paul,
Here is a good example of the IOC hypocrisy that I see very often. In your earlier post you said the IOC gives all the honor that is due to the Patriarch of Antioch and considers him the FIRST among equals. You also said the IOC including Catholicose remembers for H.H Zakka Ist in all the Divine Liturgies.

Now you are saying that the current SOC lineage is faulty and excommunicated from an IOC perspective. Please pick one line. Is the current SOC orthodox or is it heterodox from an IOC point ? If the current SOC lineage is faulty and excommunicated then why remember the current SOC Patriarch of Antioch in IOC Divine Liturgy?

Forgive me a Sinner..
Mathew G M




Dear Mathew, I think you ignored the following in my message: "The attempt of H.H. Catholicos (who remains pure in his faith and following canonical traditions) to reconcile with Patriarch in Damascus by exchanging ring should be considered charity towards reconciliation. It was disrupted by middle men."

The issues with H.H. Zakka 1 are minimal.  Also, HH. Zakka 1 DID NOT ordain a rival 'Catholicos of the East'. The head of Jacobite church is given a different title. Also, the 1987 encyclical of H.H. Zakka 1 affirms that all Apostles were endowed with same authority and power as Apostle Peter.  The issue is actually between IOC & Jacobie section in India, not much between IOC and SOC.

IOC priests and bishops do visit SOC monasteries and even had dialogue with H.H. Zakka 1, e.g. in 1998 H.G. Mar Eusebius has discussion on issues with H.H. Zakka 1. Forget about what is happening in India, it is all based on IOC-Jacobite issues. Within OO, IOC is participating in all official dialogues, OO-EO, OO-RC, OO-Anglican etc.

The issue is whether Malankara Church should have an united Synod. Hope you agree.

In liturgy Orthodox Patriarchs (Orthodox Patriarchs Mar Ignatius, Mar Baselius, Mar Gregorios) and Bishops in all parts of the world are  remembered, subject to the condition of Three Ecumenical Synods as we pray in IOC Sunday liturgy - "establish us firmly on the Rock of faith of the Three Holy Ecumenical Synods".

-Paul

Logged
Chacko
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2005, 01:29:09 PM »

Dear Paul,

I only tried to explain the facts when you over projected your Church head at the cost of our high priests. In this particular situation, i think it is only my duty to explain the facts or else wrong signals will be send.

You said your priests are being tortured in our state because of us and also you tried to raise the emotions of other Oriental Churches like Armenians of Jerusalem by raising complaints against SOC.  I can understand your cunning tactics behind this statement. You are hoping that you will get the support of other Oriental Orthodox Churches through these allegations against us.  Only if this cunningness be dropped from the minds of your  leadership, peace will come. When you say to the foreigners that your leaders are being tortured, you may be able to mislead some who are not aware about the ground situation here, but this will never be believed by those who know something about the century old-dispute between both our Churches in Malankara.  We don’t need to dig into the long past for knowing these facts; just go through last 4 years of the Malankara Churches, one will understand the facts.

You say your Church is not going to capture our churches in Damascus. That is true, I agree, but that is not because of your love for SOC, no person is there for you to follow up.  Drop your cunningness and try to be more frank.  Now what is the situation in India where both our Churches exist?  Is it we who are creating troubles for your Church here ?  No people in Kerala will blame us for this except your Church leadership.  Whenever your Church decide to stop encroachments, peace will naturally flow in.  I am very happy that these days a section in your Church is asking your leadership to stop such encroachments and instead concentrate in spiritual matters.  If this happens, a long standing peace in our Churches will come.

In your last mail you said about the right of Malankara Metropolitan and his powers over parishes.  If i am correct it is you who also says a lot about the ancient Indian Christian tradition before the arrival of foreign powers. If we are ready to accept this ancient tradition, then according to this, no Metropolitans had any power over parishes. Metropolitan’s role as per ancient Indian Christian tradition was only to give spiritual leadership. The administrative matters of each parish were managed by the elected bodies chosen from the respective parishes.  No metropolitan interfered in the internal matters of parishes. Even the priests were appointed only from the respective parishes or with the consent of them.  As said before, neither the Metropolitans nor the local head’s like Archdeacon, had any role in parish administration and they were not even permitted to visit a parish unless invited by the respective parishioners. All the ancient parishes were built with the money and effort of the parishioners.  May be this is one of the reasons for the origin of such a form of administration.  In short, the bishop’s role was limited to giving SPIRITUAL leadership as per the ancient Indian Christian tradition. History says nothing bad of that period.

A major change happened to this ancient tradition with the arrival of Portuguese (Latin Catholics). It was after that a Metropolitan-centered administration developed in the Malankara Church. This led to an autocratic situation which I think is the root cause of all the troubles.  I am always of the opinion that Bishops role must be limited to spiritual leadership. I remember late Paulose Mar Gregorios of your Church explaining how his co- bishops get corrupted by wealth. (This is the case of many of the leaders in other Churches also). This interview was telecasted in some local TV channels also. He explained in that program that it is a very sad situation that his co-bishops are more interested in running educational institutions, hospitals etc. and accepting donations for each appointment. There may be exemptions to what he mentioned. But it remains a fact that a single-person centered situation is more dangerous than a collective leadership. I remember one socialist oriented bishop in Kerala saying that each Church has became a limited company with lot of business activities.  The Metropolitans are its directors whereas its Chiefs act as Chairman.  Again I am not saying that what he said is 100% correct. But there is also some fact in that.  In that situation I think it has became the need of the hour to decentralize the church administration; then the bishops will naturally concentrate their whole energy to spread Gospels.  If these changes are executed, I hope, peace will naturally come. Too much power to a few persons is not good in the coming days.  This is my opinion.  I don’t know how many people will agree with this.

- T M Chacko, Kottayam, Kerala State, India.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2005, 02:02:53 PM »

Dear Chacko, If you want to continue to blame IOC, you can do that.  Enduring every blame is part of faith. But what I said is different, that there is only one Indian Church founded by Apostle Thomas and even today there is need for only one Holy Synod in that nation.

Peace
Paul
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2005, 08:48:57 AM »



I have great difficulty accepting the Knanaya, jacobite and American Archdiocese Diocese divisions. Why SOC is not dividing the ethnic Syrian section this way?ÂÂ  i.e. why only the Indian Church is divided with this special administrative setup?


                                   you may be right saying Knanaya church should be under malankara church but you must think about what knanaya community got to say about this.before malankara church formed a constitusion knanaya community did have  a constitution for thrmselfs.if we knanaya community didnt function separate during the long battle we would have suffered a lot as SOC in india now our church would been split with dirty games.But by the grace of God we functioned separately so we are still united under the Partirach and we glad about it.We have no disrespect to SOC in India as you can see we do work togther preists do celibrate services in both sides HB do attened in functions of Knannaya community so as Mor Savorious in SOC in India we live togther as brothers.But mind we have a different identity(i am not saying knanaya community is any greater than SOC) and to avoid future conflicts if IOC  gain court cases,avoid court cases and preserve our seperate identity  we better function separate so far it never caused ay trouble in church eiether for SOC in India or Knannaya comunity so what is the problem to continue its in the same way.And you must remember knanaya Metropolitan  is not functioning under a geographical border Knanaites where ever they are under HG mor Savorious so it may be difficult change the system specialy for Knanaites who are in Europe or US.
Logged

NULL
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2005, 09:27:43 AM »

Joe,

I'd like to ask a question of you, somewhat off the topic of the thread.

I presume from what you've written that you are a Knanaite.ÂÂ  I was aware that both the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church and the Saint Thomas Christians had jurisdictions for their Knanaite faithful (both at Kottayam, as I recollect); I ony recently discovered that there is also a jurisdiction for them in either the Jacobite or IOC - not sure which - or is there a community within each?ÂÂ  

Would I be correct in guessing that there is also a community within the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (which has no separate jurisdiction for them, as far as I know)?

Do you have any idea of the comparative sizes of the three (or four or five) different religious communities?

What about the Mar Thoma Church - does it also have a Knanaite community?

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: June 10, 2005, 09:33:49 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2005, 12:55:12 PM »

Hi Neil
             i belonging to  Syrian Knanaya community or  normaly called as Knanaites (Knanaya Diocese head quaters in Chigavanam nera Kottayam)
There are mainly two Knanaya community one is mine and the other one is called Knanaya Catholic (kottayam Diocese recently became Kottayam Arch Diocese after a long  battle)with in them there is knanaya malnakra community which donot have separate head its a part of Kottaym diocese but follow SOC  prayers and services they are people left Syrian Knanaites in 20th century
Knanaya catholics are more in numbers Knanaya catholics and Syrian knanites marry each other but donot have proper accepted inter church marriage as RC and SOC(whcih just and unwanted local issue anyway)

              So mainly there is two groups of Knanaites one Syrian Knanaites second Knanaya catholic within them malankara knanaites.There is no Knanaites under Indian Orthdox(at least no church even though they cliam Knanaya diocese is their diocese they will never be brave enough to set their foot in Knanaya churchs they have  couple association members i believe but no Knanaites know who are those members)

            Knaaya catholic part of syro malabar archiepiscopal church which is RC,Syrian knanaties are part of malankara syrian orthodox church but under direct authority of HH Mor Ignathious Zaka 1

                    There few knanaites became pentacostal in recent  years but they have nothing to do with church or knanaya identity any more
                  I have no idea about size knanaya population but its all togther nothing more than few hundred thounds
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2005, 02:18:43 PM »

Out of some misunderstanding the Knanaya community in Kerala thinks that they keep pure Syrian blood, practise endogamy and proudly remain as subordinates under Damascus or Rome.   But when we examine history, the Knanaya community came to India following the advice of Catholicos of the East H.H. Mar Shimun (at that time the Syrian Church of the East founded by Apostle Thomas was Orthodox). Canonically the head of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos of the East in the succession of Apostle Thomas.  So, formally the Catholicos of the East is the head of Knanaya Diocese.  The Knanaya split from Orthodox church when Mar Clemis was removed from the Synod by Catholicos Mar Augen. Bishop Mar Clemis sided with the Patriarch and later obtained the hight title "Great Metropolitan of the East'. Another Bishop who left the Synod was ordained rival Catholicos. The division in the Indian Chuch is due to many dissatisfied members causing confusion and seeking more position.  Petrine primacy is not valid for Oriental Orthodox.  There is only one Catholicos and Malankara Metropolitan who is canonical and legal successor of Apostle Thomas in India.  Just as the position of Patriarch and other hirarchs in middle east are legally validated by respective Sultans etc., in India Catholicos H.H. Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 11 is the only legal head of the Malankara Church. Knanaya community, which shares same Apostolic origin as Indian Church, is integral part of Malankara (Indian Orthodox) Church.  Present confusion is due to false doctrines taught by SOC, such as univeral primacy of successors of Peter, lack of priesthood for Apostle Thomas etc.

Otherwise it is same Church. It was same when Knanaya left Persia with the blessing of Catholicos of the East and until 1970s when H.H. Catholicos Augen was leading the Church. It is uncanonical entry of a Syrian Bishop to India which caused the problems. This Syrian Bishop entered India and gave ordination to large number of people violating protocols and canon. Finally the government sent him back. But the division he created continued.

Paul






Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2005, 12:33:43 PM »

Hi Paul
          i personaly dont like to talk about  fightings in malankara church in  a public forum as i belive its  a dirty  unnecessary fight.But as you draged me into it i would like to make some comments about it
yes your  are right we proudly belive what you said about knanaites ;if you think its a misunderstanding why did the malankara church catholic or orthodox  let knanaites carry on with it.If there is no base for their endogamy and seperate identity why didnt any church leaders try to dvide Knanaya diocese and put under different bishops depends on geographical area?You and your church leaders concider Knanaya diocese as part of IOC (even though there is no single church under the jurisdiction Kottayam Catholicose) why didnt you try to ignore or excommunicate all knanaites if they are following something uncanonical (at least on papers as you cant do anyhting practicaly when there is no knanaya church to follow IOC oders).Why you still have a diocese called Knanaya Diocese on papers under Kottayam Catholicose; if our  seperate identity is misunderstanding.
About pure blood we not teaching we are high among x'ans ,we consider all x'ans,all human as equal;you have nothing to worry about our purity of blood thats something we have to worry i hope you dont get too stressed about our blood purity(specialy when many syrian rite x'ans in kerala claim they all been conveted from Bramins by St Thomas  and refuse to accept x'ans converted from low cast as equal to them.Let me remind you all historians refused the existance of Bramins in kerala in first century)

               You said Knanaites came to India by advice of catholicose of east,do you have any evidence to say Edessa was under the jurisdiction  catholicose of East in AD 345?
              next you saying catholicate of east founded by St Thomas in best of my knowledge the only church which teach that is IOC and you only started teach this in the late 20th century can i ask Paul didnt your church know about this for 1900 years?Why the high scholars and saints including Mor Gregorious of Parumala,first catholcose of malankara,people who formed constituion in 1934 and  even the patriach who ordiened your catholicose didnt found it?

CAN I ASK MY X'N BROTHERS IN THIS FORUM IS THERE  ANY OTHER CHURCH  (OO,EO,RC)APPART FROM IOC DO TEACH THE CATHOLICATE OF EAST WAS FOUND BY ST THOMAS AND ST THOMAS WAS THE FIRST CATHOLICOSE OF EAST.

                Now even if i accept  your point that Knanaites been send by catholicose of east.Catholicose of East in AD345 was the  functional body cretaed by First Council to functione under HH THe Patriarch of Antioch  and all the East.Catholicose of Kottayam do not accept functioning under HH The Patirach of Antioch.
Knanaites accept the Catholicose who function under HH;thats why we accept HB Basolious Thoas 1 as spiritual head of malankara church,we done the same for Catholicose Augun 1 when he functioned under HH.

           Can i remind you Catholicose of East created by first general council was abolished by general council when he adopted nesthorian faith.And general council didnt arranged any equilateral arrangment so that catholicate do not excisit anymore.Unless you want knanaites to follow the Nesthorian catholicose (i hope you wont ask us to do that)So even for argument i accept Catholicate of East created by St Thomas and he was the first catholicose of east;catholicose of kottayam is not the successor of him or he arnt the  canonical catholicose formed by first council.
          The other Catholicateof East  (Thigrees) was formed by Patriarch(Syriac Orthodox)of Antioch as his dependent office he formed and latter Patriach Yacoob 2 abolished that catholicate so its clear the second catholicate has nothing to do with first canonical catholicate;second catholicate formed by Patriach,functioned under him as a dependent office,and abolished by him.
so its clear Syriac Orthodox Patirach of Antioch cannot form canonical first catholicate of east (selucia)
The catholicate formed by Patirach in 1912 was not the first catholicate(canonical) it was the Syriac Orthodox catholicate.What else  a patriach dismissed by his synod could do(mind  even a Patirach accepted by synod do not have complete authority he should gain synod acceptance for major issues) So its not the same catholicose who send kananites to India(clealy even if i accept your point we dont have to accept Kottayam catholicose automaticly as he has nothing to do with canonical catholicose)Again its clear he is not the succesor of St Thomas.
And when it come to Catholicose Augen 1:he was the catholicose ordined by HH Yacob 3 Patriach of Antioch
You keep saying Malankara church is independent Indain Orthodox church so why did you needed patiarch of Antioch to ordine your Catholicose.
You said legal head of Indian church i would imagine you said that depend on Suprem court verdict i would like to ask few questions about thta verdict.Mind IOC did have the bets lawyer in India(the most expensive too)in suprem court but what was the verdict

1) claimed Patirach and Catholicose are equal :suprem court refused that they clearly siad Patirach is higher than catholiocse in postion
2)IOC claimed malankara church is autocephalous(thats formed independetly)and completely independent:but suprem court refused that verdict clearly says church is autonmous(function independtly) not autocephalous judgement says malankara church is  apart of universal church
3)You claimed St Thomas found a throne in India(even though you didnt find it till 1972 was it hiding under pazhya seminary locker?is that the reason scholars or saints couldnt find it untill Augun 1 or may be some lawyers find it):suprem court refused to accept it they said Kottayam catholicose can use it as an ornamental title(not  alegal titile)
4)IOC claimed your preisthood is from St Thomas:suprem court refused that too they said preisthood of IOC is from HH Yacob 3 when he lay  his hand on Augan 1's head he wasnt seated on St Thomas Throne at that time.
5)Soprem court said formation of catholicate became legal when Patirach accepted untiy in a x'n manner(as he was  a true didnt realise the your lawyers points behind this plan) in 1950s not just because HH Abudulla patriach  formed catholicate with out synod acceptance.
6)Again abdulla Patirach bull says do not walk away from universal church and Petrine supremacy,and your constitution say the same malankara church is a part of universal church.So tell me what independent church and catholicate you talking about and again head of malankara church Malnakara metropolitan not just catholicose.
7)Suprem court clearly says the independent seperate status of Knanaya,Simhasana,and Evangelical churchs IOC(methran fraction accepted) when church untied in 50s
8)If IOC is independent and indian in tradition why you still hang on to Syriac orthodox catholicate of east  for syriac orthodox formed by HH Patriarch of Antioch couldnt you just form an independent church
9) Again why you still follow syriac tradtion in litergy,church,canons,and vestments  as P.C Alaxander sid couldnt just form a proper Indian church

                                       So you want kananites to follow a catholicose
who donot follow suprem court verdict,canons,
donot accept his own constitution,
do not accept patirach who given him preisthood,
denies to be a part of universal church,
trying to invade Lords hurchs  to get their wealth or close it
publicly saying he do not want or worry about church memebrs as long as he can take the wealth of church or close it
refuse respect and decent funeral of faith fulls in their church(which  is the life time hard work of them)

                         Sorry if thats what you want us to do  we not gonna accept it we will follow Knanaya constitution which formed before IOC constitution or Catholicate,which is accepted by suprem court of India and  SOC.We will follow the HH and catholicose ordined by him if they ever ask us to be part of their Indain Synod yes we will consider it as long as we can keep our identity which we kept for ore then 1600 years.
Look back to the church history Knanaites did gave a loads great things including improving postion kerala x'ans,so was the other syrian migrants too because they didnt kept their identity they been forgeten by you now you guys want eradicate the living evidence of syrian  relation.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2005, 01:40:43 PM »

Hi Paul

               You said Knanaites came to India by advice of catholicose of east,do you have any evidence to say Edessa was under the jurisdiction  catholicose of East in AD 345?



Dear Joe, Check the ancient song 'munnam malankara ...'. There was only one Orthodox Catholicos of the East at this time. He was Catholicos Mar Shimun who later sufferd martyrdom. He allowed Knanaya to settle in India (same St. Thomas Christian community as the Persian Church). Also, this Catholicos was in the original lineage of Apostles Thomas and Thaddaeus and was not ordained by Antioch.

I think the struggle of the Indian Church for independence is very legitimate. Like all other sister churches in the communion, they also need to function as a Church in India.

Peace
Paul
Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2005, 01:55:20 PM »

Dear Joe,  The same Suprme Court wrote that the authoroity of Patriarch in Malankara affairs reached a vanishing point and the legitimate Malankara Metropolitan is H.H. Mar Baselius Mar Thomas Mathews 11.  If India's highest court affirmed this why Jacobite faction completely ignored it?  Also, the Church should be governed by the constitution of 1934.

Remember that when Catholicos of the East Baselius Gheevarghese 11 and Patriarch was at peace, it was conditional, based on the constitution of 1934.

But there are always loop holes in constitution, such as freedom of religion which allowed Jacobite faction to register a new church in year 2002 with a new constitution adopted in same year. So, the legitimate and ancient church is still the Indian Orthodox Church headed by H.H. Mar Baselius Mar Thomas Mathews 11 who by the grace of almightly is 91 years old now.

You talk too many words about a Patriarch of Antioch who has absolutely no churches or people in the city of Antioch today. But why you totally ignore the decision of indian Supreme Court and the truth about the Malankara Metropolitan.  According to the consitution Malankara Metropolitan is the administrative head of the Malankara Church.

It is always indiscipline that leads to divisions.  We had a united holy Synod in 1970. But indisciplien occured when Patriarch violated the decision of this united Synod and appointed an illegal delegate in India. This delegate bishop freely gave ordination violating all rules of canon and constitution. He organized an extremist dissident group to revolt against the Catholcios (same Catholicos of Indian Orthodox Church who participatedin Oriental Orthodox council of 1965). It is this dissident group that later became the current Jacobite church.

I think the Indian church suffered a lot, not due to Hindus, but th e persecution of Western churches and her struggle for existence and freedom is very legitimate. She is not greedy to ask universal supremacy over other sister churches. All he is struggling for is her own existence as the ancient Church founded by Apostle Thomas in India, the place were the Apostle suffered Martyrdom according to all ancient canonical records and liturgical hymns of Orthodox, as well as local Indian traditions.

Let us follow the constitution and accept the legitimate Malankara Metroipolitan and remain united as one OO church - i.e. Knanaya, Jacobite, Malankara Archdiocese of America and Indian Orthodox united as one Indian Church. May SOC also exist as a free Church in peace with Indian and other sister Churches.

Paul

Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2005, 05:19:43 PM »



Dear Joe, Check the ancient song 'munnam malankara ...'. There was only one Orthodox Catholicos of the East at this time. He was Catholicos Mar Shimun who later sufferd martyrdom. He allowed Knanaya to settle in India (same St. Thomas Christian community as the Persian Church). Also, this Catholicos was in the original lineage of Apostles Thomas and Thaddaeus and was not ordained by Antioch.

I think the struggle of the Indian Church for independence is very legitimate. Like all other sister churches in the communion, they also need to function as a Church in India.

Hi Paul
             Munna Malankara is the only word to say about catholicose but all Knaaya history not just based on Munnam malankara, as i said do you have any proof to say Edesa was under catholicose  jurisdiction?
Knanaya pattu also says about coming from Jerusalem so its an oral tradtional song may have used words as ornamental ;as your catholicose use Throne St Thomas.
I clearly explained why the catholicsoe of kottayam is not the Canonical first catholicose's successor  can you tell how come he is the successor ?
And i asked where was St Thomas see and throne till 1970 you didnt ansewr to that either.
Again i said Knaanite follow Catholicose  who functioned under HH not an autocephalus  church head(specialy became autocephalus after 1970 years of functioning.
So which canon says Catholicose of east was not functioning under HH
And tell me how can Syriac orthodox Patirach of Antioch can creat Canonicla First catholicate in this era
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2005, 05:50:58 PM »

Dear Joe,ÂÂ  The same Suprme Court wrote that the authoroity of Patriarch in Malankara affairs reached a vanishing point and the legitimate Malankara Metropolitan is H.H. Mar Baselius Mar Thomas Mathews 11.ÂÂ  If India's highest court affirmed this why Jacobite faction completely ignored it?ÂÂ Also, the Church should be governed by the constitution of 1934.


[i]If HH affirs vanished how come your appeal to  to privent HH visit to India been refused by Indian courts(mind your your claim was HH can only visit Indian church if invited by Kottaym catholicose according to 1934 constitution)[/i]


Remember that when Catholicos of the East Baselius Gheevarghese 11 and Patriarch was at peace, it was conditional, based on the constitution of 1934.

The constitution clearly says Indian church is not Independent of autocephalus it says Indian Church is part of universal church and the head of Universal church is HH.So  what independent  autocephalus church you talking about when your own constitution says its not?
[/i]


But there are always loop holes in constitution, such as freedom of religion which allowed Jacobite faction to register a new church in year 2002 with a new constitution adopted in same year. So, the legitimate and ancient church is still the Indian Orthodox Church headed by H.H. Mar Baselius Mar Thomas Mathews 11 who by the grace of almightly is 91 years old now.


Unless you say 93 years is ancient per catholicate which found by Excommunicated Patriach of Antioch with out synod approvel,or  70 years per your constitution if not about 40 as per acceptance by HH and there by a catholicate (as per suprem court)



You talk too many words about a Patriarch of Antioch who has absolutely no churches or people in the city of Antioch today.


Thats what i love about middile eats X'nity they suffred a lot by Muslims and X'ns western church but they still keep the  quality X'nity and theology from the begining.There are more catholic church in India than Orthodox all togther so you advicing to become an RC depends on number or do i have to became a Hindu as they are more in numbers again if i go to Middile east do you advice me to become a Muslim?

 But why you totally ignore the decision of indian Supreme Court and the truth about the Malankara Metropolitan.ÂÂ  According to the consitution Malankara Metropolitan is the administrative head of the Malankara Church.

I never say he is not,but i cant accept him  when he dont accept the whole suprem court verdict and canon so i am sorry he is not  our catholicose

It is always indiscipline that leads to divisions.ÂÂ  We had a united holy Synod in 1970. But indisciplien occured when Patriarch violated the decision of this united Synod and appointed an illegal delegate in India. This delegate bishop freely gave ordination violating all rules of canon and constitution. He organized an extremist dissident group to revolt against the Catholcios (same Catholicos of Indian Orthodox Church who participatedin Oriental Orthodox council of 1965). It is this dissident group that later became the current Jacobite church.

You saying HH is the person gone wrong I feels i like want to laugh not Augun found the new unexicited St Thomas Throne Mor Clemis and Mor Phelexinous were member of that Synod so it wasnt uninanimous,second  no synod including Universal Synod not allowed to take non canonical decision ,decision to make Syriac orthodox catholicate  to canonical first catholicate,use of non existed st Thomas Throne,Autocephalus status ,these are all uncanonical;being a Patriach its HH's job to prevent his church making Noncanonical decision.

I think the Indian church suffered a lot, not due to Hindus, but th e persecution of Western churches and her struggle for existence and freedom is very legitimate. She is not greedy to ask universal supremacy over other sister churches. All he is struggling for is her own existence as the ancient Church founded by Apostle Thomas in India, the place were the Apostle suffered Martyrdom according to all ancient canonical records and liturgical hymns of Orthodox, as well as local Indian traditions.

If Indian church is independent and autocephalus why its need Preisthood from HH,why did you need him to ordien your catholicose[/b]

Let us follow the constitution and accept the legitimate Malankara Metroipolitan and remain united as one OO church - i.e. Knanaya, Jacobite, Malankara Archdiocese of America and Indian Orthodox united as one Indian Church. May SOC also exist as a free Church in peace with Indian and other sister Churches.


Your IOC itsself not following so how can you ask us to follow,again canon tradition,faith,and Throne of Antioch,Valued presithood,part of Catholic(unversal) church,following faith our fore fathers including Mor Gregorious of Malnakara are more important than the 81 yera old Constituion formed by greedy man.
Paul


Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2005, 08:09:21 PM »


1. The Malankara metropolitan of Indian Orthodox Church (Malankara Orthodox Syrian) is the only legal administrative head recognized as the true shepherd by Indian Supreme court after studying both sides of the story.

2. Indian Church is founded by Apostle Thomas (also included in the constitution of 1934)

3. The  struggle of the Indian Church is legitimate. like our sister Churches we are not seeking universal supremacy, but just the right to remain as the Indian Church. To have the same freedom as all sister Churches.

4. According to the constitution of 1934, a Patriarch can intervene in internal affairs of Indian Church only when allowed so by the legitimate head of the Indian Church. It is not a one sided approach where the Patriarch can do anything. We do not believe in infallibility in the constitution.

Any attempt to promote RC teachings of universal supremacy will be always resisted by the Orthodox.  You cannot serve two masters - both RC supremacy and Orthodox equality at the same time.

Peace
Paul
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2005, 05:20:31 PM »

1. The Malankara metropolitan of Indian Orthodox Church (Malankara Orthodox Syrian) is the only legal administrative head recognized as the true shepherd by Indian Supreme court after studying both sides of the story.

Will true shepherd invade a church who do not want him?,will a true shepherd try to close lords church?,will a true shepherd refuse decent funera?l,will he let his body throw in feild infront of his children?,will a true shepherd says members of church can leave they dont want him but leave the wealth for me before you leave?
The same suprem court said many more things why you only ready to accept what you want same suprem court said iOC is not independent, not autocephalus,there is no Throne of St Thomas,Catholicose is not equal to HH,and presithood not from St Thomas but from yacob 3 do you accept all this too?
[/b]

2. Indian Church is founded by Apostle Thomas (also included in the constitution of 1934)

   I never said it arnt neither SOC thats our traditional faith.All x'an tradition of Keral is from St Thomas[/b

3. TheÂÂ  struggle of the Indian Church is legitimate. like our sister Churches we are not seeking universal supremacy, but just the right to remain as the Indian Church. To have the same freedom as all sister Churches.


You have all right to do so ,at the same time SOC in India have the right follow what they belive is right thats all.specialy
when suprem court says so.If you dont want to be part of Universal church why dont take that off from your constitution,why dont say the same in suprem that you cant accept their verdict to be part of Universal church
.


4. According to the constitution of 1934, a Patriarch can intervene in internal affairs of Indian Church only when allowed so by the legitimate head of the Indian Church. It is not a one sided approach where the Patriarch can do anything. We do not believe in infallibility in the constitution.

[b]Yes you donot belive in infallibility of constitution i can see that  IOC not following it.HH is not doing anything he intervene when your catholicose violated his susthathicon  and shelmoosa,when IOC leaders violated their own constitution,and canonicaly unaccepted thigs (that catholicoe is equal to HH,Indian church is autocephalus,invented new St THomas throne walk away from universal church,walk away from Petrine unity against the bull of founder of your own catholicate, ect ect).If he cant intervene then who else gone protect the church from your schims.
[/i]

Any attempt to promote RC teachings of universal supremacy will be always resisted by the Orthodox.ÂÂ  You cannot serve two masters - both RC supremacy and Orthodox equality at the same time.
[b]
Church been declared as Universal(catholic)by St Ignatius of Antioch its an Orthodox teaching,What you mean by equality again catholicose and Patriach equal that uncanonical?its canonical that a patriach wont suprem over a patriach but not a catolicate ,catholicate formed to functioned under patirch.[/b]Peace
Paul
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2005, 05:41:18 PM »

Hi Paul
           can you explain to me following questions in your veiw please so that i can understand  IOC teaching

1)Is Malankara orthodox catholicate is the continutiy of Catholicate formed by 1st general council of Universal church?if so can you explain how?
2)Was the catholicate of east part of Patriach of Antioch according  to first synod?
4)Can a Patriach make decision against his Synod opposition?
5)can you explain the autocephlus status of IOC?
6)What canon says is Patirach and Catholiocose equal?what your constitution and suprem say about this?
7)Is Indian church independt and autocephalus if yes can you explain how?
8)What dose 1934 constitution say about this?
9)What Suprem court say about this?
10)When did The Throne St Thomas first appeard in church history?
Is there any historical find about this?
Is there any traditon about this?
11) Did St Thomas ordined any native Bishops in India?
12)Is there any Indian traditional liturgy used in malankara church?
13)Dose malankara church have unique vestments?
14)Who ordined first catholicose of malnakara church?
15 )Who was the first Indian Catholicose of east?
16)Why Patriach Yacob 3 ordined Augun 1
17)is that an orinetal  or canonical tradtion an outsider?head of sister church or diffrent church ordine the church head of other church?
18)Where did IOc recived presithood from?
17)Who ordined Parumala Mor Gregorius?
18)Was the  canon used by Pulicottil thirumany against Marthoma church legal?
19)was it different from the canon submited by SOC in suprem court?
                        It will great if you could send me the views of IOC about these issues,paul as you sonds like you done a lot of research about this i think you will be able to provide me with some clear answers for my doubt so that i get better picture about both SOC and IOC about this issues
                 Thanx mate
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2005, 07:34:38 AM »

Dear Paul
           i am still waiting for your replay.It will be very healp full if you can send me IOC teaching about this
Thank you
Logged

NULL
Tags: schism Petrine Primacy Indian Orthodox Syriac Orthodox 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 68 queries.