OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 11:41:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Answers to questions  (Read 5512 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« on: June 21, 2005, 01:18:51 PM »

Hi Paul
           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
                 Thanx mate

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), ....

10. Yes.

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."  (1983)

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?


Peace
Paul













« Last Edit: June 21, 2005, 04:04:34 PM by paul2004 » Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480



« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2005, 08:03:39 PM »


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.ÂÂ  

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.


True. How did Mor Abdul Messish take a unilateral decision to enthrone a Catholicose in 1911 ? Which Synod authorized him ? The majority of the bishops in the SOC in the Middle East or in India didnt support that move. So do you accept that Mar Abdul Messish is a dissident ?



I have one question to you, is there a Patriarch of Antioch today?


Yes there is and that is H.H Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka Ist. Actually I have read your own posts where you have referred to H.H Zakka Ist as the Patriarch of Antioch. Now are you confused again ?














Quote
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2005, 12:57:52 PM »

True. How did Mor Abdul Messish take a unilateral decision to enthrone a Catholicose in 1911 ? Which Synod authorized him ? The majority of the bishops in the SOC in the Middle East or in India didnt support that move. So do you accept that Mar Abdul Messish is a dissident ?


Yes there is and that is H.H Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka Ist. Actually I have read your own posts where you have referred to H.H Zakka Ist as the Patriarch of Antioch. Now are you confused again ?


Quote

Why do you think that the entire SOC Synod should authorize H.H. Mar Abded Messih? Is it written in the SOC constitution?

It was NOT the decision of SOC to have Catholicate of the East (succession of Apostle Thomas) resotred.  It WAS the decision of the Indian Church to have the Catholicate resotred. SOC Synod is about internal matters of that Church. For internal matters of Indian Church, the SOC consitution does not allow SOC Synod to intervene,  neither does Indian Church constitution allow SOC Synod to intevene. Indian Consitution only mentions the spiritual honor given to an 'Orthodox' Patriarch.

Following is from SOC constitution: "The Patriarch has the right to establish relationships between his church and other churches, to negotiate with them on ecumenical affairs, to sign common statements or bilateral agreements and to visit the worldly authorities wherever he is to discuss church affairs in general." 

So, it is in the right of H.H. Mar Abded Messih to establish strong ties with Indian Orthodox Church.  No Syrian Synod needed for this. As I said, Syrian Synod is for internal aspects of Syrian Church. In dealing with other Churches Patriarch is the authority from SOC side and Catholicos of the East is the authority from Indian Orthodox. It is the Catholicos appointing Indian delegates to Ecumenical meetings.

There is an important question. It is always the Syrian Synod appointing the Patriarch. If the Synod did not elect, the appointment is invalid. Now, which synod authorized Mar Abdulla to function as Patriarch?  What I read is that it was the plan of just three Bishops  to pay money to Sultan of Turkey and gain status as Patriarch.  Mar Abdulla was the RC bishop of Homs. Who is perfect here?

Paul


« Last Edit: June 24, 2005, 12:58:24 PM by paul2004 » Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480



« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2005, 05:40:58 PM »


 It WAS the decision of the Indian Church to have the Catholicate resotred. SOC Synod is about internal matters of that Church. For internal matters of Indian Church, the SOC consitution does not allow SOC Synod to intervene,ÂÂ  neither does Indian Church constitution allow SOC Synod to intevene. Indian Consitution only mentions the spiritual honor given to an 'Orthodox' Patriarch.

Following is from SOC constitution: "The Patriarch has the right to establish relationships between his church and other churches, to negotiate with them on ecumenical affairs, to sign common statements or bilateral agreements and to visit the worldly authorities wherever he is to discuss church affairs in general."ÂÂ  

So, it is in the right of H.H. Mar Abded Messih to establish strong ties with Indian Orthodox Church.ÂÂ  No Syrian Synod needed for this. As I said, Syrian Synod is for internal aspects of Syrian Church. In dealing with other Churches Patriarch is the authority from SOC side and Catholicos of the East is the authority from Indian Orthodox. It is the Catholicos appointing Indian delegates to Ecumenical meetings.

There is an important question. It is always the Syrian Synod appointing the Patriarch. If the Synod did not elect, the appointment is invalid. Now, which synod authorized Mar Abdulla to function as Patriarch?ÂÂ  What I read is that it was the plan of just three BishopsÂÂ  to pay money to Sultan of Turkey and gain status as Patriarch.ÂÂ  Mar Abdulla was the RC bishop of Homs. Who is perfect here?

Paul


Paul,
The problem of your argument is that, the Malankara Synod at that time also didnt authorize the establishment of a Catholicate. It was only Mor Vattesseril Divannasios and Mor Murimattathil Ivanious (who was made the Catholicose) who supported this idea. The rest of the three Bishops, the majority of the Malankara Synod was against it.

So Mar Abdul Messish who didnt obey his SOC synod and Mor Vattesseril Divannasios and Mor Murimattathil Ivanious who didnt obey their Malankara Synod are all dissedents. Right ?

The SOC Synod did elect Mor Abdulla II. The Malankara Church accepted that election. The very fact that Mor Vattesseril Divannasios received his ordination from Mor Abdulla II and not from Mor Abdul Messih was his acceptance of Mor Abdulla as the righful Patriarch.

Even if Mor Abdul Messish is the rightful Patriarch, he by himself cannot establish an instituions with out the consent of the Synod.

Logged

NULL
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2005, 09:40:25 AM »

So what if H.H Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka goes to Edesa region today and establishes the Throne of St. Thomas by ordinating a catholicose for that see will it be valid?  Would you accept that catholicose?  The region of Edesa have a much valid claim in restoring the throne of St. Thomas.

Logged
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2005, 09:47:51 AM »

So what if H.H Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka goes to Edesa region today and establishes the Throne of St. Thomas by ordinating a catholicose for that see will it be valid?  Would you accept that catholicose?  The region of Edesa have a much valid claim in restoring the throne of St. Thomas.

Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2005, 12:00:29 PM »

Hi Paul
           just found the answers sorry i didnt know u gonna send it via  a diffrent thread

First of all my appology if you felt my questions as  a pre planned  action against you.I didnt mean it that way;i was only trying to learn more about IOC consepts about my doubts;specialy  when any explanation will not change my faith;as i follow my heart which lies in Holy see of Antioch.But thank you for your replay which give me better idea about IOC.And i appreciate the effort you put into it

           Now can i ask you some other doubts  arised from your answer

So IOC teach First council   has nothing to do with Canonical first catholicate of East;even though it says  about the jurisdiction catholicate of east and postion of catholicose,says its part of Patirach of Antioch,and even where should catholicose of east to be seated during the synod.

I know no church folow the  boundries anymore thats why HH Moran Mor Iganatious Zaka is called as SOC patirach of Antioch,there many other patirach of Antioch too.
Costitution and Canons are different thats why i think being the SO Patirach of Antioch  HH cannot reesatablish the first canonical Catholicate.In a common view i think what he can reestablish is the  SO catholicate of east which he established and abolished in the past.
                 Thats why i think Abdul Misshiha Patirach even with permission of his or Indian synod cannot reestablish  canonical first catholicate he can only reestablish SO  catholicate of east(again with the permission of his synod)

               Brother Paul what i do not undersatnd is IOC teach Council of Nicea has nothing to do with Indian church(so thta you saying church in India was not  represented in the council of Nicea  there by Council of NIcea is not a general council as it wasnt represented by whole X'an world) but IOC now cna cliam the succesion of Catholicate of East which actualy formed by this council
             Catholicate of east formed by first council of Nicea(says from now the Cheif Metropolitan of East called as catholicose)and again says its under Patirach of Antioch even clearly say about synod postion of catholicose  you ignoring all this facts.

         About Malankara church  IOC teach its not  a part ofUniversal SOC;am i right? I have to say till now i thought your constitution says  Malnkara Orthdox church is  apart of Unversal Syriac orthdox church.Can you tell me is there any website where i can read IOC constitution in full if not where can i get it.
Could i ask you if its not  apart  of Universla Syriac orthodox church why it give spiritual honor to Patriach of Antioch as well as during 1958 peace talk why IOC accepted simhasana churchs,Mangalore church,and evangalical association to fucnction under HH.
           And am i right say you consider patriach and  catholicose as equal even though canon and suprem court syas no they not equal?My other doubt is if catholicose  of east  is canonical succesor of First catholcate why it donot govern over the churchs in middile many of them where under first catholcate and second SO catholicate.

             Paul even with all this evidance why suprem court refused to accept there is a Throne of St Thomas.Did the suprem court after studying this evidence said Kottaym Catholicose is successor of St Thomas?
I didnt know jesus Christ ordined St Thomas as Catholicaose of East,i hope SOC wont teach Christ ordined St Peter as Patriarch of Antioch.
              I can understand being a X'an church church have to help when  linage of succesion broken.But i understand from what you so far siad the succession wasnt bronken  when Agun ordined or when Mor Ivanious ordined as Catholicose you dont need the help of another Throne when you got own bishops to ordine.
And canon laws says a ptriach is ordined by his subordiane bishops,presits,and memebers of church togther
if thats the case as you consider patriach and catholocose equal your bishops could easly ordine Catholicose  so why did you ask the help of Yacob 3 or abdul messiah.I never heard its  normal practice a head of another Throne ordine  succosser of a different throne when its not an emergency.
Then again canon says catholicos eis suborinate of patirach and can be ordined with out HH in emergency,thats if catholicose is subordiane to patiarch(As IOCdo not accept that part of canon even if there is no emergency you can still ordine with out HH specialy when he is just a Patriarch of another throne)

              Paul so before Palakkunathu Mor Athansius  who ordined Bishops for Malankara?
If malankara Metropolitan have sole authority why a Bishop ordined by Patirarch  cause legal problom when patriarch have no authority is that because 1934 constitution came  well after that?and if HH was allowed to ordine some bishops by Mor Dinoysious why Patriarch giving Susthathicon to Parumala thirumany specialy when HH have no authority it should been done by Mor Dianoysious again why they signed salmusa to HH instead of Mor Dianoysious
              There were  two canons submited to royal Court of Travancore one by Marthoma church and the other by Pulikottil thirumani  for Syrian church and royal court accepted Pulikottil thirumnays canon it was the same Baba kashi given in Sabha case which IOC latter claimed  Coffe powder canon  if thats was coffee powder canon was Pulikottil thirumany cheating Marthoma church and royal court of Travancore?Canitell Paul suprem court didnt actualy concider the argument between Baba Kashi and Methran Kashi in the matter of canon so they didnt  valued either of them as true or false they suggested it dose not matter in this case.

        Dear Paul questions wasnt inteded to understand SOC it was to understand IOC teaching.

Answer to your question Is there Patriarch of Antioch
 The ansewr is read thorugh your own answers you allready said there is one and who is it it was Abdul Misshiah when he ordined your catholicose and then after his excommunication succesion continued you accepted Yacob 3rd and he ordined Agun Zakha 1  is his succosor unless the canon which you submit and  your holy bible(1934 constituion)says Catholicose (even if he is excommunicated) and his local synod is the only one who can elect and ordine Patriarch of Antioch.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2005, 01:35:24 PM »


So IOC teach First council   has nothing to do with Canonical first catholicate of East;even though it says  about the jurisdiction catholicate of east and postion of catholicose,says its part of Patirach of Antioch,and even where should catholicose of east to be seated during the synod.

I have not read about this in the decisions of First Ecumenical COuncils. There are several versions available for free, even canonical versions used by Churches. The above is not in the canons of First Ecumenical Council.


Quote
I know no church folow the  boundries anymore thats why HH Moran Mor Iganatious Zaka is called as SOC patirach of Antioch,there many other patirach of Antioch too.

'Anatoli' in Greek means East. Greek was the language used by Antiochian Church, at least first few centuries. Antioch was given jurisdiction over Anatoli regions of Byzantine Empire. Outside Byzantine empire Antioch never enjoyed any authority and power.
People in Kerala, the Jacobites, exaggerate too much based on their borrowed ideas of universal primacy.

 

Quote
         About Malankara church  IOC teach its not  a part ofUniversal SOC;am i right? I have to say till now i thought your constitution says  Malnkara Orthdox church is  apart of Unversal Syriac orthdox church.Can you tell me is there any website where i can read IOC constitution in full if not where can i get it.
Could i ask you if its not  apart  of Universla Syriac orthodox church why it give spiritual honor to Patriach of Antioch as well as during 1958 peace talk why IOC accepted simhasana churchs,Mangalore church,and evangalical association to fucnction under HH.
     

At the time of drafitng the consistution in 1934, 'Universal Syrian Church' has a different meaning.  It was much later the Western division alone adopted the title 'Universal Syrian Orthodox' exclusively for themselves.  As I said few times, it was Apostle Thomas and his brother Apostle Thaddaeus who founded Church in Edessa. This is the mother of all Syrian Churches.  Syrians in the West gor organized as "West Syrian Church' or the Antiochian Church and the Syrians in the East (keeping the lineage of Apostle Thomas) organized as East Syrian Church. Indian Church is in Syriac tradition and it is founded by Apostle Thomas in the East.

So, in 1934 there were two Syrian Churches - West Syrian  (SOC) and East Syrian (Indian).

Kindly also read the later statements in the consitution. Indian Church is included in the 'Orthodox Syrian Church of the East' and the head of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicose of the East.

Currently there is only one 'Catholicos of the East'.

Please also give honor to the declaration of the  Indian Supreme Court that the head of IOC is the true Malankara metropolitan.

There is no hope in any dialogues if any one ignores the above declaration of Indian SC.

Peace
Paul



Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2005, 01:46:35 PM »

Dear Joe, I hope this one last question is enough.  If the consitution of 1934 satisfies your interests, then why you are not accepting it?

If it satisfies you (i.e. you can formulate all kinds of questiosn against me based on that consitution), then you have to accept it and them ask questions. Otherwise if you decided to reject it, there is no point in saying that you love the Patriarch, the Syrians and does not like the Indians.  There has to be some justice in our approach.

Peace
Paul
Logged
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2005, 03:31:29 PM »

Paul do you or your Independent Indian Church value any of what your Catholicose said in front of the Holy Alter. 

Catholicose  Mor Ougen’s salmoosa:

“ I the feeble and meek Ougen Mor Themothios, chosen for ecclesiastical office of the Catholicose, confess my belief before this synod and before the Head of this synod, H.H. Moran Mor Ignatius Yakub III, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, that the Patriarch is my Head, that I accept from St. Peter, the Head of the Holy Apostles upto your Holiness all the canonical Patriarchs who have reigned on your Holiness’s throne and all those who come after Your Holiness.  Once again, I repeat my canonical connection with the Holy throne of Antioch.  I swear that I shall no depart from this solemn Oath”. 

St. Mor Gregorius Geewargis of Parumala Submitted to H.H. Moran Mor Ignatius Peter III of Antioch & All the East

"My weak selves will never, at any day, violate the decisions, rules, and canon laws particularly noted in this declaration as well as those omitted from this declaration for brevity but stated here as the many other canon laws, decisions, rules, practices, and customs of the Jacobite Syrians, any commandments of Your Holiness or those of the Patriarchs who will be in this position over the times publicly or in private, and conduct or encourage, do or persuade to do, speak or incite speech, help or promote, agree or persuade any conduct, deeds or speech, in opposition to or disapproval to such commandments, and never detract from or depart from these commandments or oppose or be silent and never join other ways opposed to the faith of the Jacobite Syrians or do anything or accept anything opposed to the customs of our Syrian Church, or ever believe in any doctrine contrary to those of the three Holy Synods. If indeed I do, as were Satan and Cain cursed by God, I will be accursed and execrated from the mouths of God, the head of the Apostles, Apostle Patros, and his eleven brothers, the Apostles of our Lord Meshiha, the fiery Mor Ignatios, the holy fathers who participated in the three Holy Synods, all the malpans (teachers) who were given breath by the Holy Spirit, the authority equivalent to Apostle Patros and the steward of the truth of our Lord Meshiha, Patros the Third the exalted Moran Mor Ignatios Patriarch and all the high priests who will succeed him on the Apostolic throne of Antioch and in addition will be separated from God's Holy Church and the communion of the Holy Mysteries and removed and distanced from the blessings and positions I have received and stripped of the white robes of high priesthood. May God's wrath be upon me!"

Are you and your church claiming that these people were joking around and said these things meaningless in front of the Holy Spirit!!!!

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2005, 03:40:21 PM »

Do you accept H.H. Abded Messih, the Patriarch of Antioch? He was buried in the same place all previous canonical Patriarchs were buried.
Do you accept him?

I would like to say that Indian Orthodox Church accepted him. If you do not, then there is no point in discussing further.

Inittially the Indian Chuch believed that Mar Abdulla is the legitimate Patriarch. But the Church sent a delegation to study the real stuation there and found that Mar Abdulla was an RC bishop who paid money to Turkey Sultan to become the Patriarch.  After learning this fact indian Church rejected Mar Abdulla and accepted Mar Abded Messih. But Jacobites accepted Mar Abdulla even after these events.

Mar Abded Messiah was buried in the right place canonical Patriarchs are buried.  So, the the present lineage accepted by Jacobites is not the canonical lineage.  We do not expect any justice from such an uncanonical lineage occupying Damascus.

Please include Patriarch Mar Abded Messih in you calendar and exclude the RC bishop Mar Abdulla who paid money.

-Paul
 



Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2005, 03:58:46 PM »

Please be careful when you use the name of the Holy Spirit.  Please remember that H.H. Mar Abded Meshih was rightuflly ordained and remained in the Orthodox faith and buried in the place where ONLY canonical fathers are buried.  Also, the  position as Patriarch is not something one can buy with money. 

It took some time for Indian Church learn the truth, until then the Church unknowingly was accepting Mar Abdulla. Church also fell in to trap while accepting Mar Yakub 111 for the purpose of peace. Though these sacrifices were done, later truth was revealed. When Mar Yakub 111 taught that Apostle Thomas is not a priest the Synod rejected him.

Eventhough some SOC leaders tried to impose Petrine primacy as an important teaching, Indian Orthodox learned from Coptic and other sister Churches that this is not at all important.  So, the truth learned is more important than any past false teachings taught and blindly accepted due to lack of experience.

So, I have only one thing to tell you, what ever shalmoosaa you produce (remember that Indian is not currently under British rule though one can produce copies of many Shalmossa signed between Indian Kings and British King), when you learn the truth stick to the truth. No turning back.

Currently IOC follows the truth in everything (consitution, faith, Apostolic tradition) and the only true Malankara Metropolitan is with that Church. 

How many Jacobites sincerely believe in the priesthood of Apostle Thomas, his works in Indian and Martyrdom? I am always reading Jacobite writing against Apostle Thomas. Is this justified?

-Paul
Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2005, 04:17:32 PM »

that I accept from St. Peter, the Head of the Holy Apostles upto your Holiness all the canonical Patriarchs who have reigned on your Holiness’s throne and all those who come after Your Holiness. 



Dear Kefa,

We also accept the above statement. Apostles Peter and Paul are called chief among Apostles. We also agree the succession. But Indian Church is founded by Apostle Thomas and she is not subordinate to any church in the West.  We have a lineage in the East which begins with Apostle Thomas. Our Church canonically restored this lineage with mutual help and the lineage is continued. 

By providence, God has given us everything to function as an Orthodox Church in India. That is all we need for us and the future generation.  Let us not impose our supremacy over Churches in need. May the Church fonded by Apostle Peter also prosper. May Churches help each other when need. May the head of our sister Churches remain in one faith, in peace and unity.


Peace
Paul
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2005, 06:14:15 AM »

Dear Joe, I hope this one last question is enough.ÂÂ  If the consitution of 1934 satisfies your interests, then why you are not accepting it?

If it satisfies you (i.e. you can formulate all kinds of questiosn against me based on that consitution), then you have to accept it and them ask questions. Otherwise if you decided to reject it, there is no point in saying that you love the Patriarch, the Syrians and does not like the Indians.ÂÂ  There has to be some justice in our approach.

Peace
Paul

            Dear Paul
                          I donot accept 1934 constitution as Knanaya diocese do have constitution before even the formation of new catholicate of east . And i dont think many things you say in the constitution were actulay meant  in the way now you interpret,again in 60 years interpretation has changed severly like this what it will be in another 50 years?

                             The only reasons   for asking you these questions is to learn more about other church specialy one in my door step.I love patriarch and all orthdox x'ns  that dose not mean i hate Indians.India is my motherland i love it  to my borns so as the Indians.I do not hate IOC or its followers but i hate  the way IOC (only a fraction of its memebers) twist things around and the  way they treat people who donot want accept them,the way IOC leaders disrespect the holy places,sacrements and disrespecting the humanitarian  rights  of a dead person's to recive proper funeral.The way IOC leaders.
                    Dear Paul there are pleanty of opetunitys for SOC and IOC in India to work togther if IOC leaders follow the Christs teaching we could open all churchs and share it  bring them back to former glory.There is no x'n base for these arguments or hate teaching.You can see whats going on in your church now protest against Bishops,illegal entering to churchs,fights between your own bishops for power.Not that this have any effect on me my friend ;this  cause disrespect to the pure orthdox tradtion in front of both x'n and non x'n people in India

                       Again what ever happend  between IOC and SOC  will not affect Knanaites what so ever because by the Grace of God  we are in  a safe zone.Lord showed his kindness and lead our former fathers to choose the right thing and form constitution ,accept the spiritual supremacy of HH i am glad they done it.My only worry is  how can i speak to my Catholic and protestent friends about the great orthdox faith when they see the  terrible nonx'n actions by both fractions.

                I hope one day IOC  and SOC will realise this and IOC accept  the freedom of people and hopefully we all work togther as sister churchs and preach the gospel of Lord and follow it too.

NB:Paul if you not happy to tell me more about IOC teaching and concepts i wont be asking you anymore questions ,let me remind you again my intention  was not to critisise you; i was only trying learn about IOC as my  IOC friends here have no idea about the reason behind the spilt they couldnt tell me anything about my doubts,so i thought you will be happy to help me  but now i know you not.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2005, 11:14:14 AM »


                    Dear Paul there are pleanty of opetunitys for SOC and IOC in India to work togther if IOC leaders follow the Christs teaching we could open all churchs and share it  bring them back to former glory.


Dear Joe, Same is applicable to SOC and Jacobites.  Wherever there is an issue H.B. Thomas 1 of Jacobite church is there. Eventually the church will be closed even when Orthodox church has status quo there. See Thrikkunnathu Seminray in Alwaye, there Orthodox church has status quo, but H.B. Thomas 1 is camping there with people. Eventually the church will be closed down.  So, please try to understand the reality instead of only blaming IOC.   Had H.B. Thomas 1 did not seperate with a new consitution we would have seen permanent peace in our Church.  Who is following Christ's message of unity? Christ gave authority to all his disciples and Apostles taught people to remain united. In Apostolic canons the Church should remain united in each nation.

But who is followng these teachings today?  I believe that the true Apostolic model (Canon Slihe), which is also the practical model, is for the church to remain united in each nation. There is a practical aspect to this, especially when the Church is to exist among non-Christian majority.

Paul

Logged
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2005, 02:36:18 PM »

Paul you truly are a product of your church.  These half baked truths that are cooked up by you and your church doesnt make any sence. 

You stongly proclaim that the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch is not valid.  Then why the hell does your whole church pray for him by name in the first thubden.  If he is not valid why accept the bishops and priest ordained by this partriarch. 

Please do not twist the story around on what happened at Thrikunnathu seminary.  This seminary build by hard work of Mar Athanasius.  The decision to raise Mar Athanasius as a Saint by your church is mindbogling because he was openly aligned with the patriachal faction during his period. Interestingly, Mar Athanasius was the rival Malankara Metropolitan to Mar Geevarghese II till his death in 1953.  For you and your church it is always about accumulating for worlding things and capturing orther's property.
Please learn something about this saint and what he stood for http://syriacchristianity.org/bio/ValiyaThirumeni.htm

Coming back to what happened at thrikunnathu seminary.  Tension heated up at Aluva Trikkunnath Seminary premises, only after the defected Bishops Mar Milithios, Mar Athanasios and Mar Nicolovas of the indian orthodox church allegedly trying to capture the Seminary and associated buildings.  Mar Milithios, Mar Athansios and Mar Nicolovas were went inside the seminary and trying to occupy it, AGAINST the status-quo court order.

So who are the real makers of trouble in malankara today? Paul how long are you going to close your eyes in broad daylight and claim it is dark outside?Huh
Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2005, 05:27:22 PM »

Paul you truly are a product of your church.  These half baked truths that are cooked up by you and your church doesnt make any sence. 


No, I am originally from the Jacobite faction. Received my church education from your faction.  I am aware of both sides of the story.   The struggle of the Indian Church is very legitimate and a true believer ought to work for unity in Indian Synod - because that is the most practical Orthodox Christian solution for a community existing amidst non-Christians. I firmly believe in this.

Dear brother, you made many quotes about what happened after the 17th century. Indian Church passed through many intermediate stages. But give me a single quote from history of SOC written by authentic SOC fathers that they ordained a single bishop for India before 17th century, specifically the involvement of Patriarch in ordaining a bishop for India. 

The same eagerness you show about primacy of throne, the RC also show towards Rome. When RC tried to impose this primacy, Indian church rejected it and staged protest against imposing the law of St. Peter against the law of St. Thomas (canons of Synod of Diamper). Now if you come with same teaching with an Antiochian coating, there is no reason to accept it as genuine faith.

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

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2005, 05:36:42 PM »

were went inside the seminary and trying to occupy it, AGAINST the status-quo court order.


The status-quo is for the Orthodox Church, i.e. a priest from that Church was in charge. So, there is no reason for the head of Jacobite church to organize people infront of the seminary where Orthodox has status-quo.   If the priest is removed, then it is up to othe Metropolitan to decide who is the next priest in charge (without violating status-quo).   But the head of your church is teaching that it is people deciding the priest.  Actually it  is the Metropolitan who authorizes a priest.  H.B. Thomas 1 is trying to make your church more democratic so that he get more people to disrupt church services - a strategy to occupy churches.  He once declared that church is semi-episcopal in nature. Actually the Church should be fully Episcopla in nature.   It may satisfy current needs, but semi-episcopal nature in spiritual matters would affect the future. Currently it is 'one thing' causing people in your faction to be united. When that 'one aspect' cools down, eventually semi-episcopal, democratic nature in spiritual affairs would result in disintegration.

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

Posts: 480



« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2005, 05:42:54 PM »

Do you accept H.H. Abded Messih, the Patriarch of Antioch? He was buried in the same place all previous canonical Patriarchs were buried.
Do you accept him?

I would like to say that Indian Orthodox Church accepted him. If you do not, then there is no point in discussing further.

Inittially the Indian Chuch believed that Mar Abdulla is the legitimate Patriarch. But the Church sent a delegation to study the real stuation there and found that Mar Abdulla was an RC bishop who paid money to Turkey Sultan to become the Patriarch.ÂÂ  After learning this fact indian Church rejected Mar Abdulla and accepted Mar Abded Messih. But Jacobites accepted Mar Abdulla even after these events.

Mar Abded Messiah was buried in the right place canonical Patriarchs are buried.ÂÂ  So, the the present lineage accepted by Jacobites is not the canonical lineage.ÂÂ  We do not expect any justice from such an uncanonical lineage occupying Damascus.

Please include Patriarch Mar Abded Messih in you calendar and exclude the RC bishop Mar Abdulla who paid money.

-Paul

Paul,

Which Synod of the Indian Church rejected Mor Abdulla and accepted Mar Abded Messih?

 The truth is only the dissident Wattesseril Mor Divannasious and Murimatthathil Mor Ivanious (who was promised to be elevated as Catholicose) accepted Mar Abded Messih. The majority of the Indian Synod accepted Mor Abdulla as the canonical Patriarch of Antioch.

Now even if Mar Abded Messih is canonical, a Patriarch of Antioch unlike the Pope of Rome in the RC cannot take autocratic decisions to establish a Catholicate. There is a Synod decision required. So there is absolutely no legitemacy to the Catholicate established in 1911 because of three reasons.

1) it was done by a deposed Patriarch
2) The Patriarch didnt have the sanction of his Synod to establish such a Catholicate
3) The Synod of Bishops in India also didnt santion this.

Now Mor Elias III is in the Mor Abdulla lineage. Do you consider him a saint ? I know of atleast one IOC church that commemorates the memorial day of Mor Elias III.







« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 05:43:47 PM by dhinuus » Logged

NULL
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2005, 07:09:06 PM »

The status-quo is for the Orthodox Church, i.e. a priest from that Church was in charge. So, there is no reason for the head of Jacobite church to organize people infront of the seminary where Orthodox has status-quo.  ÃƒÆ’‚ If the priest is removed, then it is up to othe Metropolitan to decide who is the next priest in charge (without violating status-quo).  ÃƒÆ’‚ But the head of your church is teaching that it is people deciding the priest.  Actually it  is the Metropolitan who authorizes a priest.  H.B. Thomas 1 is trying to make your church more democratic so that he get more people to disrupt church services - a strategy to occupy churches.  He once declared that church is semi-episcopal in nature. Actually the Church should be fully Episcopla in nature.  ÃƒÆ’‚ It may satisfy current needs, but semi-episcopal nature in spiritual matters would affect the future. Currently it is 'one thing' causing people in your faction to be united. When that 'one aspect' cools down, eventually semi-episcopal, democratic nature in spiritual affairs would result in disintegration.

-Paul

I don’t know if you understood what happened in Kerala or you blindly not accepting what happened in kerala.  "The status-quo is for the Orthodox Church"...HuhHuh??
The Status-quo that the Supreme Court set for both the churches is that no metropolitan from either church will enter the premises until a court verdict is reached.  So defying this court verdict and forcefully occupying by the Indian Orthodox Bishops was to create chaos.

 ha ha i really don’t believe this.  Are you complaining that my church is too democratic?  Have you not seen your last bishop elections?  Priests and monks campaigning in media going around like politicians asking for votes to become a bishop.  Even politicians had more class and morals than what they shown!!!

And on what grounds does your church claim Thrikunnathu seminary.  This seminary build by the sweat and blood of Mar Athanasius Thirumeni.  The decision to raise Mar Athanasius as a Saint by your church is mind-boggling because he was openly aligned with the Patriachal faction during his period. Interestingly, Mar Athanasius was the rival Malankara Metropolitan to Mar Geevarghese II till his death in 1953.  For you and your church it is always about accumulating for worlding things and capturing orther's property.

Please learn something about this saint and what he stood for http://syriacchristianity.org/bio/ValiyaThirumeni.htm

Today your church is campaigning to close his tomb forever and denying entry of his own children to his tomb.

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2005, 12:10:00 PM »

And on what grounds does your church claim Thrikunnathu seminary.  This seminary build by the sweat and blood of Mar Athanasius Thirumeni.  The decision to raise Mar Athanasius as a Saint by your church is mind-boggling because he was openly aligned with the Patriachal faction during his period. Interestingly, Mar Athanasius was the rival Malankara Metropolitan to Mar Geevarghese II till his death in 1953.  For you and your church it is always about accumulating for worlding things and capturing orther's property.

Please learn something about this saint and what he stood for http://syriacchristianity.org/bio/ValiyaThirumeni.htm

Today your church is campaigning to close his tomb forever and denying entry of his own children to his tomb.



Mar Athanasius is included in the official calendar of the Church. Also only a priest from Orthodox Church can enter this Church.  It was very unfortunate that those who are not incharge entered and closed the Church by creating fight there. The Church would have remained open and liturgy celebrated regulalry if unauthorized parties did not create fight there.

-Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2005, 12:53:02 PM »

Dear Kefa,  I read today that one of the bishops from your side who joined Orthodox side three years ago, and later trying to retur  to your side is now considering joining Malankara Catholic Church.   This is sad, right?

Ultimately we do not achieve anything through this division, only non-Orthodox churches gain. It is my prayer that people of both sides realize this and agree to remain united. 

There is no canonical problem for Jacobite and Orthodox section to unite. We accept priesthood and faith of both sides, hence we do not rebaptise or reordain when bishops and people switch back and forth  between two factions or for marriage. 

But we need to stop the division considering the possibility of people leaving the faith. For all practical reasons, only permanent unity can help the faith to grow in India.  Most difficulties are of a personal or emotional nature. 

Let me know if you, Joe etc.  are in agreement with my thinking.

Paul
Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480



« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2005, 03:47:37 PM »

Dear Kefa,  I read today that one of the bishops from your side who joined Orthodox side three years ago, and later trying to retur  to your side is now considering joining Malankara Catholic Church.  ÃƒÆ’‚ This is sad, right?

Ultimately we do not achieve anything through this division, only non-Orthodox churches gain. It is my prayer that people of both sides realize this and agree to remain united.ÂÂ  

There is no canonical problem for Jacobite and Orthodox section to unite. We accept priesthood and faith of both sides, hence we do not rebaptise or reordain when bishops and people switch back and forthÂÂ  between two factions or for marriage.ÂÂ  

But we need to stop the division considering the possibility of people leaving the faith. For all practical reasons, only permanent unity can help the faith to grow in India.ÂÂ  Most difficulties are of a personal or emotional nature.ÂÂ  

Let me know if you, Joe etc.ÂÂ  are in agreement with my thinking.

Paul

Oriental Orthodox Unity in India is a must. There is absolutely no question about that. The question is under what terms is the unity going to happen. If it is a unity where the members who remain loyal to the Patriarch of Antioch have to completely abandon their current position and un-conditionally surrender to the Devalokam Administration and the Managing Committee, then it is highly unlikely to happen.

If it is a situation, where the canonical and historical ties with the Patriarchate is honored and respected, and a common constitution is drafted and accepted, then I am sure unity can be a reality. (The 1934 Methran Kakshi constitution and the various versions of the Bava Kakshi constitutions up to the 2002 should be scrapped. Up to this point these constitutions have not helped our church to stand united).

The Malankara Catholic uniate is a church was founded by one of the leaders of the IOC, Mar Ivanious, the right hand of Mor Wattesseril Divannasious. So I wont be surprised is one more Bishop from the IOC leaves IOC to join the Malankara Catholic.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2005, 05:18:28 PM »

Oriental Orthodox Unity in India is a must. There is absolutely no question about that. The question is under what terms is the unity going to happen. If it is a unity where the members who remain loyal to the Patriarch of Antioch have to completely abandon their current position and un-conditionally surrender to the Devalokam Administration and the Managing Committee, then it is highly unlikely to happen.

If it is a situation, where the canonical and historical ties with the Patriarchate is honored and respected, and a common constitution is drafted and accepted, then I am sure unity can be a reality. (The 1934 Methran Kakshi constitution and the various versions of the Bava Kakshi constitutions up to the 2002 should be scrapped. Up to this point these constitutions have not helped our church to stand united).

The Malankara Catholic uniate is a church was founded by one of the leaders of the IOC, Mar Ivanious, the right hand of Mor Wattesseril Divannasious. So I wont be surprised is one more Bishop from the IOC leaves IOC to join the Malankara Catholic.



Dear friend, The Bishops is originally  not from IOC. He was from your faction, he tried to return to your faction again. From what I heard currently trying to go to Malankara Catholic.

Regarding the conditions for unity - either it should be unconditional from both sides or both sides should agree their mistakes and adjust.  With the attitude that SOC is perfect and only Indian Church should blindly remain as a subordinate church unity is not practical. With a one sided attitude of perfection unity may not happen.  It requires evaluation of what went wrong from both sides.

-Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2005, 05:37:46 PM »

The 1934 Methran Kakshi constitution and the various versions of the Bava Kakshi constitutions up to the 2002 should be scrapped. Up to this point these constitutions have not helped our church to stand united).


I think some adjustments are needed from both sides.  As for the 1934 consitution, it was based on this that H.H. Gheevarghesee 11 conditionally accepted the Patriarch as canonical in 1958.  The condition was 'subject to the constitution of 1934'. So, the constitution  of 1934 is valid one. It guided the church until today. Also in 1965, when OO ecumenical council was summoned Church was following the same consitution of 1934.  If some adjustments to this consitution should be done, that should be addressed in a united Synod.  I think this was the purpose of Malankara Association proposed by the Indian Supreme Court - to have a united Synod. For whatever reason it did not happen.  MOSC has many times tried for adjustment, towards accepting all, even exchanged ring to Patriarch as a sign of mutual acceptance. 

Are we too late to appreciate what both sides stand for?  I do not know clearly what Jacobites stand for, because there is no unified opinion I have heard. Some say Malankara Church is subordinate, others say it is only one uniate under universal primacy of Antioch, others want more freedom of functioning, others are too much attached to the Patriarch even directly interacting with him for internal issues  without following any discipline etc.   What is the real position?

I know that the MOSC position is to safeguard the Indian identity (which includes the Apostolic identity) and exist as  any one of the sister Churches and at the same time giving special honor to Patriarch (subject to the constitution of 1934), as well as exist  in unity of faith. All spiritual and administrative issues internal to the Church are  handled by the Indian Church. H.H. Catholcos and Malankara Metropolitan is the head of the Church.  There is no need to always depend on Patriarch for ordination and other internal needs of the Church. In this view SOC and IOC are two churches existing in unity, honoring each other and at the same time primacy of honor given to Patriarch according to the constitution and historic connection which started in the 17th century.

Paul




« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 05:39:17 PM by paul2004 » Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2005, 05:54:45 PM »

You stongly proclaim that the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch is not valid.  Then why the hell does your whole church pray for him by name in the first thubden.  If he is not valid why accept the bishops and priest ordained by this partriarch. 


Dear Kefa, I do not want to start an argument on this. But just wanted to mention that we remember 'Mar Gregorios' in the same diptych though there is no primate in Jerusalem with that title. You also do this. When we do this, we are actually remembering past primates with that title.  So, it is still possible for a person from MOSC to remember all past Patriarchs with that title who remained in peace and unity. I am not ruling out the future possibility of unity.  A lot of our arguments are like this - both sides have some arguments to put forward which is believed as true.    As long as we are in one faith, I believe the Apostolic approach is to accept each other, because each believer is important for the Church.

Paul
Logged
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480



« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2005, 11:58:46 AM »

As for the 1934 consitution, it was based on this that H.H. Gheevarghesee 11 conditionally accepted the Patriarch as canonical in 1958.ÂÂ  The condition was 'subject to the constitution of 1934'. So, the constitutionÂÂ  of 1934 is valid one. It guided the church until today.

Dear Friend,
I have a question. Is the unity and love of the Malankara Christians more important or is it the 1934 constitution?

This 1934 document is a work of mortal humans and unlike the Holy Bible is not the inspired word of God. So for the sake of unity if 1934 constitution has to be completely scrapped and a new draft has to be written with a committee of eminent personalities and Bishops from both sides it has to happen.

This goes back to my comments of unconditional acceptance, which you also agreed. The acceptance and unity of 1958 from the Bava Kakshi point of view was 'unconditional'. The Bava Kaskhi expected the acceptance from the Methan Kakshi also to be "unconditional". I know it is Bava Kakshi's fault, they should not have assumed anything. However the acceptance of the "Methran Kakshi" was conditional, based on the 1934 constituion, which was drafted and accepted with no participation from the 'Bava Kakshi'.

You are right, the IOC is guided today by the 1934 constitution. But is this document serving its purpose. Does it guide the church to witness the message of Christ's love to others, forget others, even to its own members. If not, then it has not served its purpose and it has to be scrapped.

I am even taking a one sided approach here. I am saying scrap even the constitution drafted by the Bava Kakshi association. Lets start afresh.

There is no need to always depend on Patriarch for ordination and other internal needs of the Church. In this view SOC and IOC are two churches existing in unity, honoring each other and at the same time primacy of honor given to Patriarch according to the constitution and historic connection which started in the 17th century.

There is absolutely no question that the Malankara Church is headed by the Malankara Metropolitain. There is no need to always depend of the Patriarch for ordination of internal needs of the Church. Our Late Lamented Catholicose H.B Baselious Paulose II ordained several Bishops. H.G Thomas Mar Athanasious of Muvattupuzha who joined the IOC in 2000 was ordained by LL Paulose II. H.G Athanasious even took the Catholicate Aramana of the Bava Kaskshi in Muvattupuzha along with him when he joined the IOC.

The current Bava Kakshi Bishop for the Theological Seminary at Udayagiri, H.G Mar Theophiliose was ordained by our current Catholicose H.B Thomas I.

However the relationship between Malankara and Antioch didnt start in the 17th century. It is much more older than that. We from the Bava Kakshi believe there is only one Syriac Church, as taught to us by our saints St. Gregorious of Parumala and St.Athanasious of Aluva. The current day IOC leadership states that there are two Syriac Churches the 'West Syriac' and 'East Syriac' and the 'East Syriac' chuch is fully idependent of the 'West Syriac' etc. etc.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 12:05:29 PM by dhinuus » Logged

NULL
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2005, 02:50:00 PM »

Mar Athanasius is included in the official calendar of the Church. Also only a priest from Orthodox Church can enter this Church.ÂÂ  It was very unfortunate that those who are not incharge entered and closed the Church by creating fight there. The Church would have remained open and liturgy celebrated regulalry if unauthorized parties did not create fight there.

-Paul



Operation “Capturing Thrikunnathu Seminary” foiled for ayyoo church.

This episode that we witnessed in Aluva was a highly orchestrated plan by Mor Milithios to capture thrikunnathu seminary and associated property. 

A little bit on Thrikunnathu Seminary for those who don’t know.  Thrikunnathu Seminary was build on the blood and sweat of St. Athanasius Paulose   St. Athanasius Paulose popularly known as 'Valiya Thirumeni', is one of the luminous stars of the Syriac Orthodox Church, who as the head of our Church in India, successfully guided its destiny for nearly four decades. It was his firm faith, persistent efforts and ardent prayers that helped the Malankara Syrian community to maintain their ancient links with the Holy See of Antioch.  Kadavil Mor Athanasius Metropolitan entrusted St. Athanasius Paulose when he was a ramban the responsibility of completing the construction of seminary building. Within three years the seminary that is now known as Thrikkunnathu Seminary, was opened. Later when Pynadath Kochu Paulose Ramban (St. Athanasius Paulose) was ordained Metropolitan and assumed the charge of Angamali diocese, he expanded the Seminary building again. It was he who brought many people to Alwaye from nearby villages and gave them land to construct houses around the seminary.  He even sold his ancestral property at Akaparambu for financing the construction of this Seminary building, thus replacing the old, fragile and worn out structure.  Under him, Thrikkunnathu Seminary became a major theological centre in the north.
(Please check http://syriacchristianity.org/bio/ValiyaThirumeni.htm )

It was very interesting to note that Mar Athanasius was the Malankara Metropolitan to the orthodox faction’s rival Malankara Metropolitan Mar Geevarghese II till his death in 1953.  Mar Athanasius was recently beatified as Saint in the IO church.  From these actions one could assume that our H.B. Aboon Mor Baselios Thomas I would also become a saint in the IO church in the years to come.  The St. Mary's church, associated with Thrikunnathu seminary, where the mortal remains of Mar Athanasius was interred is remaining closed for almost 3 decades now. This is as per the special instruction from the State Government to avoid law & order problem.  Disputes in this church started in 1970's when a few parishioners together with the parish priest, Fr. Jacob Mannaraprayil Cor Episcopa, joined the Indian Orthodox Church. Though the vast majority of the parishioners were the Jacobite Syrian Christians, they were denied rights by the parish priest for the simple reason that they preferred to continue under the Patriarch. The Indian Orthodox faction who creates trouble in this church have a strength of only 3 % (11 families) while 97 % (365) belongs to the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church owing allegiance to the Patriarch. Of the 11 families of IOC most are from outside areas who settled there subsequently.  But on the pretext of status-quo benefit issued by the Government, Fr. Jacob Mannaraprayil Cor Eopiscopa who was in control of the Seminary property in 1970's was allowed to continuing as its manager, enjoying all its benefits, in spite of the Church's repeated request to evacuate him. Supreme Court ordered that no metropolitans from either faction are to enter the premises of thrikunnathu seminary.  St.Mary's Church located nearby, where the mortal remains of the Metropolitans are interred is remaining closed for many years now denying the faithful a chance to pray at the tomb of our Saint. The Jacobite Christians are greatly attached with this church because of the tomb of our beloved Metropolitan who led us for almost 4 decades. Through out his tenure the seminary was the head quarters of the Jacobite Syrian Church. Most of its properties and its buildings, including the Church were constructed with money provided by the Saintly Metropolitan and the Jacobite Christian faithful. 

IO at first rejoiced over annexing this thrikunnathu seminary and associated property from the Jacobite faithful, but was not fully satisfied because Fr. Jacob Mannaraprayil Cor Eopiscopa who was in change of these properties continues to occupy the seminary and enjoyed all its benefits solely.  Accruing Jacobite property by snatching its faithful and bringing them under the Kottayam Catholicose is the sole aim of existence for this dissident group.  Look how much property the defector bishops and priest who left this church took with them like it is their family property.  Fr. Jacob Mannaraprayil Cor Eopiscopa accruing lacks of rupees thru admission fees from the high school associated with this seminary did not sit well with the bishops for years, but they were unable to do anything because of the court orders. 

But couple of days back as you all know, Mor Milithios with their Catholicose made a surprise visit to that church during the Sunday mass and make him read two kalpanas.  One of the two suspended him from all positions at the Seminary.  Then along with the Kottayam Catholicose the three defector bishops Mar Milithios, Mar Athansios and Mar Nicolovas went inside the seminary and occupied it.  This is clearly against the status-quo court order. This drama was staged on that particular day foreseeing that all our bishops will be attending the 30th day service for the Late H.E. Markose Mor Koorilos which was scheduled to be conducted at St. Mary’s Jacobite Church, Pangada.  IO had everything cunningly planned out and they thought that nobody will be there to resist them.

To prevent this occupation, our Catholicos H.B. Baselius Thomas I and our faithful after loosing all patience assembled near the Kurissu pally.   It is beyond doubt that IOC had the full cooperation of the state government and the police officials.  It is evident in the fact that people including two priests were injured in the lathi charge against hundreds of faithful belonging to the Jacobite Syrian Church who had assembled near the Thrikkunnathu Seminary on Monday night. The police resorted to the lathi charge without any provocation as the Catholicos was chatting with journalists inside the Church Study Centre nearby the seminary. There was a battalion of police force preventing entry of anyone into the Seminary premises to protect the IO bishops who were occupied inside. 

Catholicos H.B. Baselius Thomas I began a sit-in in the middle of the road in front of the Aluva police station around 11.30 pm to protest against the lathicharge against those assembled in the compound of the Mar Athanasius Kurissuthotty in front of the seminary.  Knowing the injustice done to our people church bells were rung all parts of kerala and our faithful were informed of the situation.  KEFA boys and our faithful stormed from all parts of kerala to ground zero, but were denied entry into Aluva by various check points police established. 

But as you know Catholicose ended the sit-in protest after the government kicked out the bishops who illegally occupied the seminary and promised to maintain the status-quo court orders.  District Collector Mohammed Hanish, who is also the District Magistrate, clamped prohibitory orders under CrPC 144 within a radius of one kilometre of Thrikunnathu Seminary Church.  Our people withdrew from the area at 5 am on Tuesday after our Bava was allowed by the district administration and police to conduct doopa prarthana at the tombs of our metropolitans who were interred in the seminary church.  This was the first time we conducted a prarthana at their tombs after the dissidents denied us entry.  Funny how the children are denied entry to their own father’s tombs.  On what grounds do the Indian Orthodox people claim rights to Thrikunnathu seminary and the tombs of our holy fathers.  Do they even know who they are and the faith they lived their life for?  I urge the Jacobite faithful to fully support our church’s cause to reopen the tombs of our fathers.  The Fathers who made the path for us to walk in this true faith and who encouraged us to cling on to Holy See of Antioch.  Let there be many more doopa prarthanas at their tombs.  How long more we going to let ourselves to be extorted by the bullies of Malankara?
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2005, 03:57:42 PM »

I have not read about this in the decisions of First Ecumenical COuncils. There are several versions available for free, even canonical versions used by Churches. The above is not in the canons of First Ecumenical Council.


'Anatoli' in Greek means East. Greek was the language used by Antiochian Church, at least first few centuries. Antioch was given jurisdiction over Anatoli regions of Byzantine Empire. Outside Byzantine empire Antioch never enjoyed any authority and power.
People in Kerala, the Jacobites, exaggerate too much based on their borrowed ideas of universal primacy.

 

At the time of drafitng the consistution in 1934, 'Universal Syrian Church' has a different meaning.ÂÂ  It was much later the Western division alone adopted the title 'Universal Syrian Orthodox' exclusively for themselves.ÂÂ  As I said few times, it was Apostle Thomas and his brother Apostle Thaddaeus who founded Church in Edessa. This is the mother of all Syrian Churches.ÂÂ  Syrians in the West gor organized as "West Syrian Church' or the Antiochian Church and the Syrians in the East (keeping the lineage of Apostle Thomas) organized as East Syrian Church. Indian Church is in Syriac tradition and it is founded by Apostle Thomas in the East.

So, in 1934 there were two Syrian Churches - West SyrianÂÂ  (SOC) and East Syrian (Indian).

Kindly also read the later statements in the consitution. Indian Church is included in the 'Orthodox Syrian Church of the East' and the head of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicose of the East.

Currently there is only one 'Catholicos of the East'.

Please also give honor to the declaration of theÂÂ  Indian Supreme Court that the head of IOC is the true Malankara metropolitan.

There is no hope in any dialogues if any one ignores the above declaration of Indian SC.

Peace
Paul





Paul  if you read through the Hudaya canon about purohitha ganam  there it clearly say as part of Nicea  it is surprising you didnt know about  it was deffoenitly  the dicsion of Synod Nicea  to form 3 patriarch  and 1 catholicate and  5th patriarch (Jerusalem),it dose clearly say about the bounderies 2 its the  4th patriarch  patriarch of Constantinople formed by Kaldoon synod as new Rome.It dose clearly say that Cheif Metropolitan of east should be  called as catholicose from now and he govern the church outside roman empire who are under Patriach of Antioch and East;then again it says Catholicose should seat in the right next to Patriarch during synod below Patriach but baove all other Bishops.
BTW Brother Paul you dont have to acept it if you dont want but thats is the  part of canon if you read the canon your church submited in suprem court  things will be clear to  you and you will realise i am not making a false argument  about it.

                  And if my understanding about what you said here is right you saying the AKAMANA SURIYANI SABHA  menstioned in your Constitution is something you claim as east syrian church which found by St Thomas and headed by Catholicose of East;in that case Kottayam Catholicose himself is the head of that church within that you have another church thats malankara orthodox church which is headed by  Malankara Metropolitan who is also catholicose present time.
For God sake even 1934 constitution  founders never had a consept like that ;to be honest if your Kottayam catholicose  see this he wll be impressed by your new finding he might give an award and send you to suprem court to lead sabha case in suprem court.
                If your argument of this new east syrian and west syrian church righ then why did Suprem Court said malankara church is part of akamana suriyani sabha and its head is  HH the Patriarch of Antioch  so do you say suprem court was wrong or do you say  malankara church is part of west syrian church (as in your new terminology).
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2005, 04:05:10 PM »


Dear Joe, Same is applicable to SOC and Jacobites.ÂÂ  Wherever there is an issue H.B. Thomas 1 of Jacobite church is there. Eventually the church will be closed even when Orthodox church has status quo there. See Thrikkunnathu Seminray in Alwaye, there Orthodox church has status quo, but H.B. Thomas 1 is camping there with people. Eventually the church will be closed down.ÂÂ
Paul



Dear Brother Paul
                          how many IOC majority churchs closed down by SOC protests can you name few of them please.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2005, 04:12:57 PM »


.  So, please try to understand the reality instead of only blaming IOC.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Had H.B. Thomas 1 did not seperate with a new consitution we would have seen permanent peace in our Church.  Who is following Christ's message of unity? Christ gave authority to all his disciples and Apostles taught people to remain united. In Apostolic canons the Church should remain united in each nation.


Paul



               Paul i am glad they made that decision at the end  to separate and  follow what we belive is right at least i can say we not part of a catholicose and  managemnet commattie only intended to close church and grab the wealth of church which donot want accept them.
                  And can i ask you Paul which part of the canon say  church should remain untied in each nation  in that case catholicose of east  will be the head of which nation specialy with your east syrian verson of church.Church should remain united all over the world not in each nation a x'an church have nothing to do with nationalism it should be united in Christ.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2005, 04:25:33 PM »


The same eagerness you show about primacy of throne, the RC also show towards Rome. When RC tried to impose this primacy, Indian church rejected it and staged protest against imposing the law of St. Peter against the law of St. Thomas (canons of Synod of Diamper). Now if you come with same teaching with an Antiochian coating, there is no reason to accept it as genuine faith.

Paul

Quote

                      Paul they didnt accept RC teaching because they were not part of Roman  church,but they accepted Patriarch thats how AHathula bava arrived in India and Murdred by Porthghese in Cochin  when Malankara X'an realised that they broke away from RC and made Konan Kurish oath to remain under Holy see of Antioch.I stil dont understand if your argument of west and east syrian church is right why did you need Abdul Missah Patriarch to form Catholicate who is the head of West syrian church according to you?
And  if the church is national why did you need  Syrian church head to form catholicate in India?
Why did Catholicose who equal to Patriarch (according to you at leats ) ordined by Patriarch and signing salmusa to him not just once twice.
If you gonna say helping each other with preisthood their was no such emergency both occations Malankara church did have preisthood and all other accepted cicumstance to ordine their own chuch head if they were Inependent autocephalus church.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2005, 04:31:45 PM »

[quote He once declared that church is semi-episcopal in nature. Actually the Church should be fully Episcopla in nature.  ÃƒÆ’‚ It may satisfy current needs, but semi-episcopal nature in spiritual matters would affect the future. Currently it is 'one thing' causing people in your faction to be united. When that 'one aspect' cools down, eventually semi-episcopal, democratic nature in spiritual affairs would result in disintegration.

-Paul
Quote

ÂÂ  HI Paul is that the reasonÂÂ  you condectin gpublic electionsÂÂ to  elect bishops with media campign,and calling publicly for resignation of Catholicose (who is seated in the throne of St Thomas and His Hliness),and Bishops ,demanding power exchange from Catholicose to Catholicose designated(BTW what is a catholiocse designated meansÂÂ  never heard electingÂÂ  headÂÂ  andÂÂ  his suucessor togther,is it like President and vice president?)
« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 04:32:43 PM by joe77 » Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2005, 04:55:55 PM »

[
Ultimately we do not achieve anything through this division, only non-Orthodox churches gain. It is my prayer that people of both sides realize this and agree to remain united.ÂÂ  

There is no canonical problem for Jacobite and Orthodox section to unite. We accept priesthood and faith of both sides, hence we do not rebaptise or reordain when bishops and people switch back and forthÂÂ  between two factions or for marriage.ÂÂ  

But we need to stop the division considering the possibility of people leaving the faith. For all practical reasons, only permanent unity can help the faith to grow in India.ÂÂ  Most difficulties are of a personal or emotional nature.ÂÂ  

Let me know if you, Joe etc.ÂÂ  are in agreement with my thinking.

Paul
Quote


Dear Paul
                       I agree with second part but not with first part
i thik their are canonical reasons and practicle reasons to join  for
eg:SOC follow canonical patriachate and catholicate within in it    IOC  do not follow that
    SOC Patriarch is above catholicose IOC both equal which is against  canon
   SOC  folow catholicism (means universal ) and joned togther work togther ( i am not talking about temperal matters)
  IOC follow national church(which is not X'an or canonical view)
   like that their are many problems to sort out  before unity. Even if we do  unite  nobody knows how long will it last . From SOC point of view AUgan  violated things and declare eqality of HH and  Catholicose and formed St Thomas thorone and linage.
  I am not sure about IOC view about all these but at leats you belive HH violated things by  suspending and latter excomunicating Augan(which SOC think HH can and should do) ordined new catholicose  so and so.

    So if we unite again we still get in trouble like this in the futre and this  never gonna end.i think this fractional  problem wil lats for as long as chuch excist,their will be people from both side who could  cause trouble .
So my personal view we should split  peacefully  and function as sister church if we look through history this happend in Malnakara in the past with Marthomaite,Malankara catholics,Latin  invation so and so during those periods churchs  did fight each other  but now we all live in harmony accepting each other as sister church,so i think the best possible solution will be that ;to prevent further future trouble I know you may not agrree this but i cannot see any other way to avoid trouble permentaly for ever.with loads of similarities SOC and IOC will be able to function togther  and  have good relationship may  at the end of the tunnel  with some spiritualy filled divine leaders we may  unite again it may be in 100  years time .But i think the best way to heal the deep wounds wll be that.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2005, 05:51:13 PM »


Regarding the conditions for unity - either it should be unconditional from both sides or both sides should agree their mistakes and adjust.ÂÂ  With the attitude that SOC is perfect and only Indian Church should blindly remain as a subordinate church unity is not practical. With a one sided attitude of perfection unity may not happen.ÂÂ  It requires evaluation of what went wrong from both sides.

-Paul





  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Dear Paul
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  when you say  Malankara church  subordinate to  Syrians sounds like Indians  going to be slave to Syrians if  we say Syriac instead Syrians that itself change the tune a lot,so as separations Indian church and Syrianhurch .If we say Malankara Suriyani sabha and Akamana suriyani sabha i think it sounds much cool and acceptable.Its not about anybody subordinate or hihierarchal if we consider it as one church and  people who live in malankara,Europe,us so and so,it will be one Universal  church a true Orthodoxhurch with St Thomas and  St Peter trtradition with  literguy from apapostles.Don'tou think these orthodox x'ans united under one holy synod and one Patriarch beside him catholicose of east  will look bebeautifulaul if i say a member of Malankara church in kerala and US brothers will you disagree with me.We dont need national church we want a church united all over the world to proclaim  gospal and love with unity.
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ What unite Indians(not inIndianhurch)? we Indians do not have a common  language,cuculturally tototally different from one state to another some time  within state,different religions,different way of dressing,food everything but as Nehru  said we have Unity within Diversity  (the feeling of being Indian).
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  It is the same principle  applied to our church if we ignore what nationality or  geographycal areas we coming from church can be  united .If you think members of Syriac Orthodoxhurch from Malankara,other parts of India,Iraq ,Syria ,Turkey,Germany,Uk,rBrazil,Canada,Palestine US  all brothers and members of one church theire will be no room for for this separation  and Indians and Syrians  concepts.One church headed by patriarch of anAntiochnd Whole east joined by Catholicose of east,United synod it will be the first Orthodoxhurch ( i think any way)function  ÃƒÆ’‚ worldwide as one church.Temporal matters of each part of church can be done according to local trtradition  synod and  constitution.If we read the canon written by Holy spirit inspired  Fathers it says how should it function.As you think Patriarch  dont involve  in church  to violate things it only happens when canon and tradition violate.If you look at Bava Kashi H.B. and his synod with association function well HH do not interfire their he only do what we Indian ask him to do in local church.
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ I think concept of one universal church will be beautiful  as  a garden with different coloured  flowers.But we should be brothers in faith and we should have  spiritually  inspired fathers  to lead us.Then it will be possible.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2005, 06:02:03 PM by joe77 » Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2005, 06:17:58 PM »

I.ÂÂ  As for the 1934 consitution, 
11 conditionally accepted the Patriarch as canonical in 1958.ÂÂ  
The condition was 'subject to the constitution of 1934'. So, the constitutionÂÂ  of 1934 is valid one.

Paul








                Paul
                               every time when you say about  unity and patriarch you say subject to constitution,this  constitution is man made, spiritualy inspired fathers have clearly noticed about relationship in canon.Constitution can be changed any time that will bring trouble again.There will be people to violate things  again so subject to constitution never gonna work for a true  unity.Peple interpret constitution in different ways words will gain  meaning which we never thought.
In my personal opinion Universaly united one church dose not mean Patriarch going ot interfire in temporal matters.
But when you interpret constittution church became autocephalus,independent,not  beliving in unversaly united so subject to constittution will not  a  true view towards unity.
       Again it depends what you mean by unity if you mean union of both fraction under   Kottaym catholicose  and function as autocephalus independent church with no relation to HH(or may as you mentioned in the past First among equal which is against cnaon like EO),this subject to will be fine.But thats not what Bava kashi thinking we are thinking about united all over the world with out nationality.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2005, 06:31:41 PM »

Dear Friend,
I have a question. Is the unity and love of the Malankara Christians more important or is it the 1934 constitution?

This 1934 document is a work of mortal humans and unlike the Holy Bible is not the inspired word of God.

This goes back to my comments of unconditional acceptance, which you also agreed. The acceptance and unity of 1958 from the Bava Kakshi point of view was 'unconditional'. The Bava Kaskhi expected the acceptance from the Methan Kakshi also to be "unconditional". I know it is Bava Kakshi's fault, they should not have assumed anything. However the acceptance of the "Methran Kakshi" was conditional, based on the 1934 constituion, which was drafted and accepted with no participation from the 'Bava Kakshi'.

You are right, the IOC is guided today by the 1934 constitution. But is this document serving its purpose. Does it guide the church to witness the message of Christ's love to others, forget others, even to its own members. If not, then it has not served its purpose and it has to be scrapped.

I am even taking a one sided approach here. I am saying scrap even the constitution drafted by the Bava Kakshi association. Lets start afresh.


However the relationship between Malankara and Antioch didnt start in the 17th century. It is much more older than that. We from the Bava Kakshi believe there is only one Syriac Church, as taught to us by our saints St. Gregorious of Parumala and St.Athanasious of Aluva. The current day IOC leadership states that there are two Syriac Churches the 'West Syriac' and 'East Syriac' and the 'East Syriac' chuch is fully idependent of the 'West Syriac' etc. etc.





                  I  agree with this  1934 constitution is  writen by lawyers ,not spiritualy inspired( so as 2000) and it is interpreted  totaly opposite  what they meant,it is deffently working for administration in IOC( but you can see troubles  devoleping there  it, will happen SOC if we soly depend on 2000 constitution we should follow love and canons)
The unity in 1958 was unconditional to bava kashi(only one condtion X'n love and pace) we expected the same from methran kashi too.It proved latter it  was a foolish  step for bava kashi in front of law courts.
       Again Bava kashi didnt have  any role in making that constitution,unity of church should never be based on man made constituion which is changable any time it should be based on X'n love.

             
Logged

NULL
Kefa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49

KEFA


« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2005, 06:47:29 PM »

Paul
Do not forget, your ordination of  Singers (mzamrono) is from a
Jacobite priest. Is this also influence of RC and British? If that church and
the priest ordained you deviated from the orthodox faith then why you are
not getting a new ordination?
Logged
Tags: schism 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 0.194 seconds with 64 queries.