can you explain to me following questions in your view 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
The questions are very carefully coined ones (is it the Antiochian number system that is followed? :-) ). But here are the answers.
1. The aim of the first council of the Church was not to form Patriarchates or Catholicates, but to refute the teaching of Arius. Many fathers of Antioch leaned towards Arianism, including Lucian of Antioch. So, it was needed to bring the Church back to Orthodox faith. On the administrative side, the councils of Byzantium discussed only the jurisdiction within Roman empire.
i.e. Armenian Church and Church of the East (including India) could continue their old traditions. This is why we have lineage in Armenian and Eastern (Indian) Churches.
Ecumenical councils are about faith. Administrative guidelines regarding Church in Roman empire is not applicable to Churches outside Roman empire. Actually no Church strictly follows the administrative decisions of councils. Only the faith aspect is considered important.
For example, Roman church established many dioceses outside their jurisdiction. Similarly Antiochian church also did this. In the third Ecumenical council of Ephesus Antioch claimed jurisdiction over Cyprus. But the council decided that Cyprus is free to ordain bishops for their Church and made a general ruling that ancient Churches following succession need not be under Antiochene or other Churches.
Please read the administrative decisions made in the council of Ephesus.
The important point is that Ecumenical councils are about faith. Administrative decisions can change over time (example revisions of constitution of each Church). No Church strictly follows the administrative guidelines. Remember that SOC revised their Constitution many times with out any Ecumenical Synod.
So, Indian Orthodox Church is in the continuity from Aposotlic times and Ecumenical council of Nicea did not bring Indian church under any other Church. It is only in the 17th century that Indian Church decided to enter in to a discussion with Antiochian Church.
2. Catholicate of the East was established by Apostles and it was never under Antioch. But the Church requested help from Antiochian church, especially during persecution. Antiochian church was the closest Church.
3. Actually the question should be of a generic nature. Can the Patriarch unilaterally make any decision?
A Patriarch cannot make decision unilaterally. If he does, he becomes a dissident patriarch who violates rules. The SOC constitution does not allow full freedom to the Patriarch. SOC constitution defines patriarch as a bishop. A Patriarch is a bishop who works with fellow bishops in the Holy Synod. He enjoys status as the head of the Bishops, which again is understood as a unity of bishops.
All bishops are successors of Apostles. I would like to point out few acts of injustice here. Once SOC convened a council and called it 'Universal council'. What SOC did was to ordain two bishops from India and invite only these two for the council. In this council SOC adopted the name 'Universal Syrian Orthodox'. Such revisions are not applicable because majority of Bishops from India did not participate.
Another example is the uncanonical appointment of a Syrian delegate in India by the Patriarch. The Patriarch totally ignored the unanimous decision of Indian Synod and sent a delegate. This delegate further violated canon and constitution by giving ordination to dissident clergy without the permission of Bishops in the Indian Synod.
So, a Patriarch cannot make decision about
4. According to the Constitution of the Church we give 'spiritual' honor to an 'ORTHODOX' patriarch of Antioch. This is understood as a spiritual honor, such as remembering him in liturgy, honoring him when he visits the Church etc. But the Constitution of 1934 explicitly states that this honor should be given only to a Patriarch elected with the knowledge of the Catholicos of the East.
According to the constitution of 1934. The head of the Indian Church is Catholicos of the East and Malankara metropolitan. He has complete authority over the Indian Church, which he exercised together with the Bishops in the Holy Synod. The Constitution does not define what the Patriarch can do. The constitution is about governing the Indian Church. What the Patriarch can do is defined in SOC Constitution, which they revise in local Synods without our knowledge and permission.
The constitution allows the Indian Synod to elect and ordain bishops, govern parish Churches, and only the Holy Synod is given the authority to interpret faith aspects. In essence, according to the Constitution Indian Church is a free Church with own head and Holy Synod to function in Indian sub-continent.
5. The Constitution only allows giving spiritual honor to an ORTHODOX Patriarch. Also, such a Patriarch should be elected with the knowledge of the Indian Synod. The Constitution does not allow accepting 'any' Patriarch. The Constitution does not say that Catholicos is subordinate to Patriarch. They are equal in the sense that they have freedom to function in their respective jurisdictions. Patriarch can function only in his jurisdiction and Catholicos of the East likewise in his jurisdiction. So, they are equal in their Christian duties.
6. Same answer as (5). Also the Indian Orthodox Church always represented in Ecumenical dialogues as an independent Church and made important contributions towards OO-EO and OO-RC dialogues.
7. Same as (5) and (6). The allows the Catholicos and Malankara Metropolitan complete authority over the Indian Church. It also states that the Patriarch cannot freely function in the jurisdiction of the Catholicos.
8. The supreme court affirmed that the true Constitution of the Church is that of 1934 followed by the Indian Orthodox Church. Also the SC ruled that H.H. Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 11 is the legitimate Malankara Metropolitan. According to the const. of 1934 authority over Indian Church is vested in the Malankara Metropolitan.
9. In the Holy Bible. All Apostles are equal and they are given equal authority and power. Hence their succession in all parts of the world is called throne. Throne in Armenia, Alexandria (Coptic), India (East), ....
evidence 1. Indian historic records.
evidence 2. Coptic Synaxarium.
evidence 3. Liturgical hymns of Orthodox Churches (Eastern and OO)
evidence 4. (Didascalia - Doctrines of the Apostles, Syriac document AD 250) "Indian and all its countries and those bordering it even to the farthest sea, received the Apostle's hand of priesthood from Judas Thomas, who was the guide and ruler in the Church which he built there and ministered there." (William G. Young. Handbook of Source Materials (24) pp. 26./ Cureton, Doctrines of the Apostles, pp 33).
evidence 5. writing of Patriarch Zakka 1. (BTW, it was Patriarch Zakka 1 who initially suggested that Jacobites should work towards unity in Malankara Church, but he later changed position due to pressure from Jacobite leaders). Mar Zakka 1 Eiwas wrote "Church history records that Addai, one of the seventy preachers, was sent by his brother, the apostle Thomas, to Edessa, ... converted him together with all the inhabitants of the city. ... The Syrian historians: Mor Michael the Great, Bar `Ebroyo and Bar Salibi add that the apostle Thomas passed through these places and preached their inhabitants on his way to India. This is how Christianity spread since the first century all over the East, where churches were built and bishoprics established.
11. Indian Church underwent many changes over time. Once the Church used the Syriac liturgy of Church of the East. Now the liturgy of St. James is used. Indian Church worked with Holy fathers from our sister Church in faith (old Antiochian Syrian Orthodox) and worked against persecution by RC and Protestant churches. It was a freewill decision of Indian Church. There is also evidence that Apostle Thomas used his own liturgy (see Acts of Thomas). Our anaphoras are of ecumenical nature written by Orthodox fathers of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, East ....
12. Yes & No. There are many similarities with the Coptic and Antiochian Church. For example the head cover of monks is similar to that of Coptic. But the priests cap is different from both. Indian priests wear cylindrical cap similar to Eastern Orthodox. In Antiochian SOC (A-SOC) it is similar to RC. Also, A-SOC bishops wear a red belt. Indian monks and bishops wear saffron. Indian priest wears a white dress (similar to Punjabi Kurtha) while they are not officiating liturgy. During liturgy they wear black similar to all Orthodox churches. So, there are similarities and differences.
13. Apostle Thomas sent Apostle Addai and he founded the Syrian Church (Edessan Church). He along with other Apostles are the founding fathers of the Syriac Church. Jesus Christ our Lord ordained the first Catholcos of the East, i.e. Apostle Thomas who suffered martyrdom in India for His Kingdom.
14. By 19th century the Orthodox Christians of the East were confined to India and Indian Church decided to shift the Catholicate of the East to India. First Indian Catholicos is Apostle Thomas himself. Afterwards we have many Persian fathers and later Indian fathers.
15. According to the Constitution, there is an option to invite a Patriarch, if the Synod decided that way. Also, if an 'acceptable' Patriarch is present, he will be given primacy of honor. But Patriarch Yakub 111 later became unacceptable due to his uncanonical acts (he sent delegate violating the unanimous decision of Indian Synod and taught that Apostle Thomas lacks in priesthood). The Synod decided to reject these uncanonical acts. Hope this explains why he was initially acceptable but the Synod rejected later.
When the Churches are in unity it is usual to invite fathers from another Church to concelebrate in ordination. Such as the broken succession of Antioch was restored with ordination given by Alexandrine Church. Armenian Catholicos also ordained Bishops for the Eastern Church.
16. Churches mutually helping with ordination is found not just in Indian Church history, but all Apostolic Church helped each other in need. Antiochian lineage was restored with priesthood from Alexandria. Armenian Church received ordination from caesaria. Antioch received ordination from Rome, Church of the East received ordination from Armenian and Antiochian Churches..... we can find many many examples in history. Most recently Coptic Church elevated a Patriarch for Eritrean Church and Eritrean Church requested autocephaly. Eritrean Church is today an autocephalous Church.
17. All priesthood is from Christ. It was Christ who ordained His Apostles. This priesthood is given in succession and when this succession is broken, Churches help each other. Indian Church first received laying of hands from Apostle Thomas. Afterwards the Church received priesthood from Church of the East, Roman Church, Antiochian Church ...
According to St. Severus "validity of priesthood is not founded on throne but on maintaining Orthodox faith."
18. It depends on which ordination. If you mean. Let me ask two questions here. Who ordained St. Jacob (Baradaeus)? Who ordained Serapion of Antioch?
Regarding Parumala Thirumeni, Palakunnathi Mathews Mar Athanasius gave ordination as 'Koroyo'. Ordained deacon by Mar Kurilos (Yuyakim). Ordained Ramban by Pulikkottil Mar Dionysius (Malankara Meropoltian). Circumstances should be examined: Palakkunnnahtu Mar Athanasius started Protestant reform movement and went to Patriarch Peter 111 for ordination. He was the first Indian Bishop to be ordained by a Patriarch of Antioch (he was starting a new habit). What he wanted was authority over Indian Church and bring entire Church to Protestant faith. Since it was Patriarch Peter 111 who gave him ordination, Indian Church had no other legal option, but to invite Patriarch Peter 111 to India to help with legal process. During this visit the Malankara Metropolitan allowed the Patriarch to ordain few Bishops. Parumala Thirumeni was one of the Bishops. But the Malankara Metropolitan (Mar Dionysius) resited the attempt of Patriarch to take control over the Indian Church.
19. I do not understand this question. Which canon?
20. Indian Church follows Hudaya Canon, which is a compilation of many different canons, including Apostolic constituion. According to Apostolic constitution church in each region/nation should remain united as one Synod. In India, model is followed only by Indian Orthodox Church. Various RC uniates in India do not sit in same Synod. Similarly Knanaya, Thozhiyoor and Jacobites do not sit in same Synod. Indian Orthodox church strictly follows the canon about unity of the Church. In Hudaya canon Apostle Thomas is the first Catholicos of the East. Hudaya Canon does not allow Antiochian Patriarch to send delegate violating the decision of the Synod of Catholicos of the East. Hudaya Canon does not name a church as 'Universal Syrian orthodox'.
There are slight regional variations followed. e.g. according to Hudaya canon marriage rites should be in a specific way, but in India we have Indian cultural traditions followed by all St. Thomas Christians - Orthodox, Jacobite, Knanaya, Mar Thoma church, .... These are unique traditions of Indian church, not consistent with Hudaya.
Supreme court recognized only the canon submitted by the Indian orthodox Church, because SOC made modifications to Hudaya canon at a later point (popular as coffee powder canon). One story is that they made modification to give more powers to Patriarch and then dipped it in coffee to give antique appearance. Supreme court found that the one used by Indian Church is the true canon.
BTW, in Eastern Orthodox church all churches (autocephalous and autonomous) follow the same canon. Then there are constitutions for each Church. So, constitution and canon should be considered together for a better understanding.
Too many questions to answer, but I hope this can help each other towards reconciliation.
I don't know how these question can help towards better understanding of SOC, since most questions were about Indian Church. Try to read SOC constitution for a better understanding of SOC. Out people do not have enough information about SOC, but assume many things while we live in India.
I have one question to you, is there a Patriarch of Antioch today?