OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 10:03:55 PM *
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: Hudaya Canon  (Read 6651 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,425


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« on: July 08, 2005, 12:32:57 AM »

Dearly beloved,

I wish not to have a heated discussion.  My only request is that I would like to read the text of the Hudaya Canon, which was composed in the thirteenth century by Bar Hebraeus.

Thank you for your kind support and help.

God bless you.

Peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all.

Remember me in your prayers.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2005, 12:34:34 AM »

Mina,
Logged

Lord have mercy.
Cephas
There is no spoon.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: See of St. Mark
Posts: 288

γνῶθισε αυτόν


« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2005, 12:38:07 AM »

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the Hudaya Canon?
Logged

Cephas 

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed."
-- Isaiah 53:5

"He who knows himself knows God"
-- Pi Nishti Abba Antony
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,425


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2005, 01:45:55 AM »

 Wink Thank you Stephan  Grin

Cephas,

Canon composed by an extremely famous Maphrian (Indian Metropolitan) compiling the canons and beliefs of the Ecumenical councils with some additions as to the state of the Patriarchates.

In it, I'm interested in the status of the Patriarchates as it is written and how it words the status of the Indian Patriarch as compared to the other ancient sees.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2005, 06:24:42 AM »

Dear friend
                        Bar Herbraya  the maphiriano(catholicose)  based in  Middileeast(Iraq)? Hudaya canon comprised by him contains  decrees of  General councils (first 3 councils) and some loacl councils as well as teachings of Apostles.It belived he mainly depended on local canons called Arbi canons instead of synod decrees.
Its available in syriac and malayalam.Not sure about english versons.
Logged

NULL
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,425


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2005, 09:59:41 AM »

Can anyone translate it for me if they readily have it?  I just want to read the parts that have anything to do with the Universal Patriarchates and the state of the Maphrianate in India.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2005, 06:16:29 PM »

Dear friend
                    I have read it (well most part of it) it says  about  5 Patriarchates(including Jerusalem),but there is an argument about this Bar Herbraya depended on rbic canon thats why this mistake happened.It dose not say anything about Maphrianate of India(infact it dose not use the word Maphrianate as part of general synods)
Hudaya canon says 5 Patriachates  as part of  Nicea (but  hisoryns suggesets 3 +1 thats Rome,Antioch and  Alexandria plus Jerusalem).But it dose says about Maphrianate as part of  Local synods.(bare in mind Hudaya cnaon describe things as part of each synod and unknown synods,including apostolic synod)Universal Patriachate it dose not using that  word,hudaya canon concider all Patriachates Equal (thats 3 /4patriachates) plus Patriachate of jerusalem which is not equal its under metropolitan of Kasriya(not sure i spelt it rght).It says about  catholicate of East and latter excommunicated(which beacame Patriarcahte of East of nestorians),Catholicate and Maphrianate  are equal. I think Bar herbraya him self  was Maphriyano.
Unforthunatly i havent got the copy with me Udayagiry MSOT seminary in kerala may  have Malayam verson dont know they will be able transalte it for you,there is a Syriac verson also available
Logged

NULL
Thomas Daniel (Reji)
Chevalier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Proud to say belongs to Syriac Orthodox Church


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2005, 04:40:53 PM »

Dear friend
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Bar Herbraya  the maphiriano(catholicose)  based in  Middileeast(Iraq)? Hudaya canon comprised by him contains  decrees of  General councils (first 3 councils) and some loacl councils as well as teachings of Apostles.It belived he mainly depended on local canons called Arbi canons instead of synod decrees.
Its available in syriac and malayalam.Not sure about english versons.

The Life of Bar Hebraeus http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/BarcEbroyo/Budge.html
Maphryono Mar Gregorious Youhanon Bar Ebroyo http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/BarcEbroyo/TarziMhadyono.html
Logged

Oh.. Morth Mariam Yoldath Aloho (Mother Of God)Pray For Us
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,425


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2005, 07:01:04 PM »

When I said Universal Patriarchates, I meant the patriarchs of the Universal (Catholic) Church.ÂÂ  Wink

Quote
But it dose says about Maphrianate as part ofÂÂ  Local synods.

What does it say about the Maphrianate?

Quote
hudaya canon concider all Patriachates Equal (thats 3 /4patriachates) plus Patriachate of jerusalem which is not equal its under metropolitan of Kasriya(not sure i spelt it rght).It says aboutÂÂ  catholicate of East and latter excommunicated(which beacame Patriarcahte of East of nestorians),Catholicate and MaphrianateÂÂ  are equal.


Forgive me brother.ÂÂ  I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying in these sentences.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2005, 08:34:05 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2005, 07:35:15 AM »

it says Maphrianate is within patriarcate of Antioch and all east,Maphriano is head of Maphrianate,he is above all bishops but below the Patriarch.He can ordine bishops,he is second in synod his offcie is dependent to Patriarch but at the same time Patriach cannot interfere in church under him,Maphriano should be ordined with consent of patriarch  and ptriarch should be ordined with his consent,many Maphrinos became Patriarch  too.
i can remember everything it says but these are some of it.I have  a copy of it back home in India i will try to get it and transalete best as i can in couple of months time.
All patriarch which is patriarch of Rome,Antioch and Alexendria (?Constantinople) as equal but Patriarch of Jerusalem is  not equal to them  it has given the postion because of its impotant  in Christ's life ( i think)not because its  big enough to be Patirachate.
Catholicose/Maphriano are equal its same postions just two different names.Hudaya canon says 'from now  the great (cheif) metropolitan of east should be called as catholicose (and its  says about his jurisdiction areas),he should take seatright  next to patriach in synod and above all bishops but below Patriach.People in east can ordine their  catholicose when its not possible for patriach to travel.
 hope its clear for you.
Logged

NULL
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,425


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2005, 02:43:09 PM »

Excellent...That was very clear.

Thank you Joe.  And looking forward to the translation.

God bless you. Smiley
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Thomas Daniel (Reji)
Chevalier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


Proud to say belongs to Syriac Orthodox Church


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2005, 03:43:54 PM »

Catholicos / Maphriyono (Maphrian)

The term ‘Catholicos’ (Katholikos) is derived from the Greek words ‘Kath-Holikos’, meaning ‘General Primate’ or ‘General Vicar’. Even before the primates of the Church adopted this title, it existed in the Roman Empire where its Government representative who was in charge of a large area was called as ‘Catholicos’. The Government servant, who was in charge of State treasury, too was known in that name. In due course, the secular administrative heads in Persian Empire also adopted this title.   

The Churches (mainly outside the Roman Empire) started to use this term for their chief Bishops much later, probably by 4th or 5th centuries.  Now the primates of the Orthodox Churches in Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and India, use the title ‘Catholicose’.

‘Maphriyono’ (Maphrian) is derived from the Syriac word afri, “to make fruitful’, or "one who gives fecundity". This title came to be used exclusively for the head of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the East (Persia), after the prelates who occupied the office of the Catholicate since late 5th century adopted Nestorian Christology and separated from the mother Church. From the mid 13th century onwards, a few occupants of the Maphrianate were referred also as ‘Catholicos’, but the title never came into extensive usage. However in the 20th century when this office of the Maphrianate under the Holy See of Antioch was reinstated in India, the chief of the local church assumed the title ‘Catholicos’. It is this title that is being used in India today, while the title ‘Maphriyono’ (Maphrian) is no longer used.

To understand more about Maphriyono, please visit http://www.catholicose.org/PauloseII/Catholicate.htm

Logged

Oh.. Morth Mariam Yoldath Aloho (Mother Of God)Pray For Us
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2005, 03:59:50 AM »

Hi Reji
                   thanx for that explanation,its sounds much clear and understandable.I prosume catholicose and  maphiriyano have  same rights and authority am i right ? or is there any difference
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2005, 05:53:12 PM »

According to Hudaya Canon Apostle Thomas is the first in the lineage of Catholicoi of the East.   Hudaya Canon depends on Doctrine of Addai among other traditional works. Apostle Thomas and his twin brother established the Syrian Church of Edessa. The successors of these two Apostles are the Catholicoi fo the East.

Patriarch of Antioch and Catholicos of the East are equals, but primacy of honor is given to the Patriarch. Patriarch cannot intevene in internal affairs of the Church of the East (the breach of this protocol resulted in issues).  The title 'Catholicos' was used by the Church of the East (which always had an Orthodox section) for the chief bishop of the Eastern Synod. If my understanding is correct, it is from the time of Mar Babai  (Catholicos) that the Eastern Church was organized.

The word "Katholkos' has the meaning 'universal' or 'catholic'. Catholicos of the East  is the univeral or catholic head of the Eastern Church.  Churches outside Byzantine empire (e.g. Armenian) used this title for the Patriarch Bishop (i.e. head of the Bishops).  Catholicos is the 'Patriarch' (meaning chief father) of the Eastern Church.

Now one may wonder what is 'Patrarch of Antioch and all the East'. The confusion results from English usage. In Greek (original language used in Byzantine Antioch), East is 'Anatoli'. Anatoli is a region south east of Turkey in Byzantine empire. Canon is very clear that the authority of Patriarch did not go beyond Antioch and regions within Byzantine empire.

Primary reason for the formation of Catholicate was spiritual, to take care of the needs of the Eastern Church. Superiority - inferiority arguments did not exist in the early centuries.

Both Nestorian and Orthodox Churches of the East follow the same lineage (which begins with Apostle Thomas) until Nestorian faith was formally adopted. After this, the Orthodox Church requested the emperor to allow establish a Catholicate for the Orthodox (St. John of Ephesus writes in detail about this in his ecclessiastical history. St. John does not mention Antioch in the context of revival of Orthodox Catholicate). The revival of Orthodox Catholicate was done by St. Jacob (called Baradaues) who received ordination from Alexandrian Patriarch.  The title 'Maphriyan' did not exist at this point and the Orthodox Catholicate was understood as a position parallel to that of Nestorian Catholicate.

A change to this happened when the Eastern people requested help from the West after the persecution started by Nestorians. The Antiochian connection resulted in reducing the Orthodox Catholicate to the new title called 'Maphriyan' (aim to bring the eastern church under Antioch) and later the posotion of 'Maphriyan' was abolished in a local Synod.

It was revived in India due to the interest of St. Thomas Christians of India. With their strong faith in Apostolic heritage, the Indian Orthodox Christians restored the Catholicate with the support of canonical Patriarch of Antioch. (there was split in Antioch at this time one Mar Abdulla who defeted to Roman Catholicism became Patriarch by paying money - this resulted in two parties, the Indian Orthodox Church rejecting him and another group accepting him).


There are four Catholicates of the East today.

1. Orthodox - Orthodox Syrian Church of the East (Indian Orthodox)
2. Assyrian Church (new calendar Nestorian)
3. Assyrian Church (old calendar)
4. Chaldean Church (in RC  communion)

For all the above churches the lineage begins with Apostles Thomas and Thaddaeus.

There is another position recently created in india by current SOC called 'Catholicos of India'. And in last few months the Malankara Catholic Church is also using the title though Pope gave them only the title 'Major Archbishop'.

Only a Church truly believing in the priesthood of Apostle Thomas can follow the lineage of Apostle Thomas. 


More details later.

Peace

Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2005, 06:16:51 PM »

Wink Thank you Stephan  Grin

Cephas,

Canon composed by an extremely famous Maphrian (Indian Metropolitan) compiling the canons and beliefs of the Ecumenical councils with some additions as to the state of the Patriarchates.

In it, I'm interested in the status of the Patriarchates as it is written and how it words the status of the Indian Patriarch as compared to the other ancient sees.

God bless.


Dear brother Mina,   Persian regions (Iraq) and India is the canonical territory of Apostle Thomas. This is according to Hudaya Canon and other traditional works (such as Didascalia, Doctrine of Addai etc.).   In India, an important part of our heritage and faith is the baptism of ancestral fathers by Apostle Thomas. Consequently we are known as "Mar Thomas Christhyanikal' or St. Thomas Christians.

It is believed and written in historical documents (including Coptic Synaxarium, please check the entry for the feast of Martyrdom of St. Thomas) that Apostle Thomas ordained bishops in Persia and India.

For a long time Indian church was part of  the Church of the East. Roman Catholic  and Antiochian connection happened later. This is why in Antiochian church history there is absolutely no mention of any bishop ordained by Antioch for India. These are all later connections resulting from specific situation, which western churches used as an opportunity to exploit the Indian church and bring Indian Church of Apostle Thomas under their supreme rule.

It is very unfortunate that in my absense people started writing interpretations of Patriarch and Catholicos. Same people teach RC idea of Petrine primacy, i.e. Indian church should be under Antioch or Rome because of universal primacy of Apostle Peter and they are in frienship in India acceptig communion from each other.

We Indian Orthodox reject such teachings and hold on to our faith in the lineage of Apostle Thomas (as it is written in Hudaya Canon) and our unity in faith with sister Orthodox Church. We honor and give primacy of honor to Patriarch of Antioch canonically appointed with the knowledge of Catholicos (we do not recognize the lineage of Antioch after Mar Abdulla because Mar Abdulla defected to RC faith as a bishop and payed money to Sultan of Turkey to remove the Patriarch Mar Abded Messih who was in good relationship with Indian Orthodox).  We can understand this truth from one thing, that after departure Mar Abded Messih (who was supporting Indian Orthodox) was buried in the place were only canonical Patriarchs are buried, while Mar Abdulla (the dissident Patriarch) was buried in a different location.

We Orthodox hold on to the truth about Apostle Thomas, the lineage in the East and Orthodox lineage of Antioch.

I could not help writing this truth due to other misleading messages.

Peace

Paul



Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,425


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2005, 06:49:42 PM »

The reason why I ask this, and I wish this not to be a debate, since both sides interpret history differently from one another, is that I want to look at this objectively.ÂÂ  So I saw two websites, one was IOC and the other was SOC, and both said that in 1958, there was a unity based on the 1934 Constitution.

At first I assumed that the 1934 Constitution granted autocephaly, since the SOC website said that it was accepted "at last minute" implying some sort of deception.ÂÂ  But when one person showed me the Constitution, he showed me that it didn't grant autocephaly.

In the Constitution, it is mentioned

Quote
The Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church. The primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch

So to the SOCs this implies non-autocephaly.

Then I read something else:

Quote
The Malankara metropolitan is the administrative head of the church and in him “ the prime jurisdiction regarding the temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of the Malankara church is vested”.


So I raised the question, how can you be a "division" of a Church while having all the powers of a autocephalous Church?ÂÂ  Then I read this:

Quote
The approved canon of the Church is the Hudaya Canon written by Bar Hebraeus


So I thought to myself, perhaps the Hudaya Canon will clarify it, but I couldn't find this canon anywhere online.

So, before this turns into a debate, I wish to read the Hudaya Canon myself to give an objective conclusion.

God bless.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2005, 06:50:47 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2005, 06:55:43 AM »

Dear Mina
               frogive me if i am starting a debate,i do not want to comment to each and every arguments made here as there are pleanty of thread  with similar arguments and deabte.But if your intention is to learn about Hudaya canon not the split between IOC and SOC.
First of all the Hudaya canon do not mention anything about  linage or succession,eitehr for catholicose of east or any other Patriarch.It do not say either St Thomas first catholicose of east or St Peter is first Patriarch of Antioch or any other Patriarchate (at  least its not in the copy i read it will be greta to see one if available)
           about the word patriarchate of east it clearly use the word east (i never read the greek worsion so i dont know what it says in greek and again i cant read greek  even if i get a copy any way.)Any body who read it its crystal clear thet Catholicate of east was part of Patruachate of Antioch and East you will understand it if you read(no point i a saying this  when you never read it).It dose give independent authority for catholicose in his region to ordine bishops and making mouron ect.But  it do not mention anything about relationship between each patriachate,it do not say one is above other,as far as i know they were equal but Patraich of jeruslam was not equal his postion was below al Patriachs.

It clearly say about catholicose they declare from now the cheif(major/or great) of eats shall be called as catholicose  and it gose on and define his postion in Synod with Patriach of Antioch (but it dose not say the same with other patriach when they meet that give you an idea it wasnt equal to other patraichates),it dose define his authoritys and authority of Patriach again it dose not say the same with other Patriachs,canon dose say ?cheif metroplitan of sycilia(not sure about it as i havent got canon with me) depart during high tidal  wave they should be allowed to creat a bishops(not using the word ordine)
with consent to patraich so as the people in east,and partiach should not prevent as it will cause too many  vicarates(parishes the word used ) to function with out with out bishop(word used is Vadaviaym in malayam means widow).
                       It certaintly do not concider catholicose equa to patriach there many decrees to  understand this point neverthless catholicose can enjoy many powers  equal to patiarch and he have authority in his region too,and he is not equal to other bishops in synod.
                 about maphrinate mapriyano was more dependent to Patriach a she crated it and abolished it(obviously with synod permission).And Bar Heberaya was a maphriyano.And  general synod (not synod of Antioch) abolished catholicate of east after catholicos ebecame nestorian thats also in Hudaya canon,hudaya canon dose not mention any arrangement they made  after this.If you read history this catholicate became an independent Patraichate called themslfs patraichate of East(mind when they became completely independent they called themselfs Patriachate not Catholicate) and they claim st Thomas linage (  i am not sure howmnay maphriayanos cliamed St Thomas linage and not sure IOC use linage from Nestrian Patriarchate of east or maprinate under patriachate of Antioch and east)
                   Again i dont know can Patriarch of Antioch can reestablish catholicate of east as in Nicea decree;as IOC now says Patraichate of Rome cannot  reestablish Catholicate of East,there are Catholic Patraichate of Antioch but they not equal to Patraich of Rome as in Hudaya,if you read catholic encylopedia online you can see a patraich cannot take auhtority over another patriarch  but at the same time Patriarch of Rome do take authority of many patriarchate in Roman catholic rights.
              i would imagine Post chaludian era Patriachate of antioch can reesatablish Maphriyano rather than the first catholicate as general synod didnt  do it specialy as IOC claim  catholicat eof east  was an equal postion to Patraichate(hudaya canon says a Patriarch cannot be ordined by a ptriach from another throne he should be ordined by  bishops,preists and laymen of his church at the same time Catholicose can be ordined by Patraich this will give you an  idea that catholicose was not equal to Patriach)

                                I thonk you better not  get  cofused by reading arguments between IOC and SOC untill you read Hudaya canon so can read it with a fresh mind  and come to conclusion.I will try my best to get it for you keep in touch.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2005, 11:24:17 AM »

The reason why I ask this, and I wish this not to be a debate, since both sides interpret history differently from one another, is that I want to look at this objectively.  So I saw two websites, one was IOC and the other was SOC, and both said that in 1958, there was a unity based on the 1934 Constitution.


Dear brother Mina, You are absolutely right.  Even the Supreme court of India found this reference point.  Indian Orthodox Church is still following the same consitution of 1934. When Catholicose of the East H.H. Baselius Gheevarghese 11 reconciled with Patriarch, it was explicitly stated as 'subject to the constitution of 1934'.    But Jacobite church wants to give more powers to Patriarch than what is in the consitution.  According to the consitution of 1934, the head of Indian synod has authority over dioceses and parishes.  Patriarch is honored, but he can do anything in the Church only when invited to do so.


Let me quote from Hudaya Canon (Chapter 7):

"Let the See of Seleucia which is one of the Eastern cities be honored like-wise and have the title Catholicos and let the prelate thereof ordain Archbishops as the other Patriarchs do, so that the Eastern Christians who live under the heathens, may not be wronged by waiting the Patriarch's leisure or by going to him; but may have a way opened to him to supply their own necessities. Neither will any injury be done to the Patriarch of Antioch thereby, seeing that he has consented to its being thus upon the Synods having desired it of him."

"the Great Metropolitan of the East hereafter shall have powers similar to those of Patriarch to consecrate Metropolitans for the East. He shall be called Catholicos."

It is very clear that the equality of power enjoyed by the Catholicos was purely for spiritual reason, to help Christians living among heathens.  Supreriotiy inferiority arguments did not exist as it is exaggerated today. Also, it is total waste of time and energy and great shame to Christians living among majority Hindus to fight in the name of supremacy of West.  What is important is how smoothly the Church can function in a region and the unity of the Synod in each regional Churches.  In OO we only have regional churches, but primacy of honor given to regional Churches of Byzantium.

So, Catholicos  is a position equal in power and authorities to that of Patriarch, but primacy of honor is given to Patriarch of Antioch  (primary reason is the legacy if Byzantine empire, the honor churches within Byzantium enjoyed).

Let me also quote from the united counil of Antiochian  and Eastern Church (Council of Kaphthurtha AD 869):

"The Patriarch of Antioch shall not enter the See of Maphriyan for administrative purpose unless invited."

Let us see how Bar Ebraya reacted.

"In 1283, when the Anthiocene hierarchy installed Mar Philoxenos as Patriarch, Bar Hebraeus, the Maphriyan of the East, was not invited as required under the council's (Kaphthurtha council) terms. The latter was very sore at this violation of a convention. The prelates of the Patriarchate from monastery of Bar Sawma came to the Maphriyan to tender apologies. Bar Hebraeus refused to receive them."


Between Eastern Church and Antioch it is a history of violation of canons and consitution. SOC has own consitution which they locally revised (without involving Indian Church) to increase the power of Patriarch. Indian Church follows the consitution of 1934 (it was not amended except some internal administrative issues as recommended by Supreme Court). SOC consitution was amended many times. They adopted the name "Universal Syrian Orthodox'.  Current argument of supremacy based on petrine primacy is another thing.
So, what we see today is the net result of all violations in the past.  Also we need to examine if the consitution of SOC is consistent with that of IOC, since these consitutions are revised in local Synods of respective churches.  A mismatch can lead to various interpretations.


Let me give you one concrete example. There was only one Indian Synod in 1970 (the same Catholicos who participated in OO ecumenical council of 1965).  In 1972 Patriarch appointed his delegate to India. The delegate, a bishop started giving ordination without the permssion of Indian Synod. The Indian Synod unanimously sent a letter to the Patriarch not to send such a delegate. But Patriarch ignored the letter.

Looking from all angles what I see is a power struggle.  There is every right for Indian Church to enjoy unity of its Synod and similar powers enjoyed by Patriarch based on Canon and consitution, yet not affecting the dignity and honor given to Patriarch.

For us Indians, this division is pain.  Recent incidents clearly teach us that contiuing to remain in a divided state is not at all a good witness.

Peace

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

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2005, 11:37:14 AM »

Dear brother Mina,

I would like to summarize the following:

- According to Hudaya Canon the lineage in the East (Catholicos) begins with Apostles Thomas and Addai. (It is the Apostolic See of the East)

- After Chalcedon an Orthodox Catholicate was established (similar to establishing an Orthodox non-Chalcedonian  lineage in Antioch) (St. John of Ephesus does not mention any Antiochin involvement in this act. St. John only uses the title 'Catholicos').

- Due to persecutions by Nestorians the Orthodox Catholicate of the East later requested the support from West. It was reduced to Maphriyan and later abolished in a local Synod.

- We need to take in to consideration the constituion of SOC and the constitution of Indian Church of 1934. Just as SOC does not encourage anyone to adopt a new consitution, it is rightful that Indian Church also does not want any one to create a division violating the consituton of 1934.

- There is also emotional issues based on past events that may hurt the feelings of each other. We need to consider what the Christian approach to deal with such emotions of a worldy kind. Christians can forgive each other.

- Existence of Catholicate of the East (and Patriarch of Antioch)  is for spiritual purpose, to help Christians of respective regions with ordination, consecration of Holy Myron, and all other spiritual needs. Arguments of universal supremacy based on primacy did not exist in Oriental Orthodox faith.  It is a great need to preserve the integrity of the ancient Church in the East to help future growth of the Church in Eastern regions. 

Peace

Paul

Logged
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2005, 12:00:30 PM »

If you read history this catholicate became an independent Patraichate called themslfs patraichate of East(mind when they became completely independent they called themselfs Patriachate not Catholicate) and they claim st Thomas linage (  i am not sure howmnay maphriayanos cliamed St Thomas linage and not sure IOC use linage from Nestrian Patriarchate of east or maprinate under patriachate of Antioch and east)

Dear Joe, The St. Thomas lineage is same for Orthodox and Nestorians.  Even the Roman Catholic Catholicos-Patriarch of the East follows this lineage.   Hudaya Canon also agrees to this. A lineage is understood as succession of Bishops.  We cannot appreciate this due to exaggerated authority given to succesoors of St. Peter. Here is the lineage followed by Orthodox Syrian Church of the East (INdian Orthodox):

1. St. Thomas the Apostle (founder) - AD 35-72
2. St. Addai 72-120
3. Mar Aggai 120-152  According to the Doctrine of Thaddeus, an ancient Syriac document popular in Eastern Churches, Mar Aggai succeeded Mar Addai in the "chair" which means 'throne'.
4. Mar Mari 152-85
5. Mar Abrosius 185 - 201
...

7. Mar Yako 1  172-190  (Alexandrian father Pantaenus visits India and records about Christians and existence of Gospel in India.)
8. Mar Ahha d'Aboui   190-220 (According to Tertullian, by AD 200, there were several bishoprics in the East during this period.)

VACANT (240-317) (But bishops existed. In AD 300, Bishop David of Basra visited India. In AD 311 Emperor Constantine accepted Christian faith.)

10. Mar Papa   (Mar Babai) 317-329  (A famous Catholicos of the East.  In AD 315 Emperor Constantine sends a letter to Shapur II urging him to protect Christians in his realm.  Mar Papa restored as bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon with the title "Catholicos of the East".AD 325: First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. James of Nisibis and a Persian bishop from "India" recorded as attending the council.)

11. Mar Shimoun Bar Sabba'e 329-341 (After the departure of Mar Papa and Mar Shimun bar Sabbaeas succeeded as Catholicos. In AD 344, Catholicos Shimun Bar Sabbae suffered Martyrdon along with 5 bishops and 100 priests .  KNANAYA migration to India with the permission of Catholicos Mar Shimoun)

12. Mar Shalidoste 341-345  (Suffered Martyrdom in 344. Knayi Thoma and immigrants lead by him arrived Indian coast in AD 345.)

13. Mar Barbashmin     345-346    Suffered Martyrdom in 346

.....

21. Mar Dadisho I     421-456    (AD 431: Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. AS 424 Third General Synod of the Persian Church (Synod of Dadyeshu) confirms Catholicos of the Church of the East as "Patriarch of the East" and asserts him  as equal to all other patriarch.


 Mar Aqaq-Acace     485-496     (AD 486 Fourth General Synod of the Persian Church (Synod of Acacius) officially adopts Nestorian Christology)

NON-CHALCEDONIAN ORTHODOX REVIVAL

30. Catholicos Mar Ahoudemme     559-77 Elevated Catholicos of the East by St. Jacob Baradaeus.  St. Jacob was appointed by Patriarch of Alexandria. Suffered Martyrdom. When St. John of Ephesus reports about this, there is no Antiochian involvement mentioned.

....


33. Mar Morooso (Tigris)     628 - 49    Reduction of Catholicate to Maphriyanate.

...

83. Mar Baselios Bahnam in India 1850-60    In the year 1860, after the death of Maphryono Mor Baselios Bahnam IV, the Maphrianate was abolished by a decision of a local synod held by the Antiochian Church.

84. Mar Baselios Paulos 1912-13  (Catholicate revived as St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church, Niranam, believed as one of the Churches established by Apostle Thomas in India. Catholicate legally and canonically revived with the support of Patriarch H.H. Mar Abded Messih)

...

86. Mar Baselius Gheevarghese 11  1929-64 (Consitution of 1934 adopted and reconciliation with later Patriarch subject to the consitution).

...

88. Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 1  1975-1991  (elected according to the consitution of 1934. The position of Malanakra Metropolitan (Mar Thoma) and Catholicos combined)
89. Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 11 1991 - present (elected according to the consitution of 1934).



-Paul


Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2005, 12:34:01 PM »

Dear Mina
                    i think i better stop here about  Hudaya canon ,Hudaya canon  changing subject to  IOC SOC arguments again;i think there are pleanty of threads here allready about  it.I dont want to dig up all that again if you intrested i am sure you will be able to find it.So i am not commenting anything about IOC SOC arguments
                          I didnt see the linage and absolute equality between Catholicose and Patriach ,i must admitt i read it more than 4 years ago so i have to wait untill i read it again  before i comment on it.Just can i remind you suprem court of Inda studied these arguments  both accoring to canon and constitution  for long time but in their final judgement  they refused to accept that Patriach and Catholicose are equal,it refuse to accept malnakara church is autocephalus what it said was Malnakara church is part of Akamana suriyani sabha(uneversal syriac orthdox church)and its head is Patraich of Antioch.
                           The reason why patraich violated costitution was  the claim of Catholicose  as mentioned above which latter refused by suprem court.in my personal opinion what else HH could have done to prevent violation by catholicose as stated above,if he didnt do that the malnakara church would been an Autocephalus church with no connection to antioch  a  large fraction of church which is against our tradition an canons(and 1934 constitution which will not bind me anyway).So violation was from both sides .
                              So dear Mina i would like to stop here about Hudaya canon before it start another spark and rest of the Orthodox world laugh at us.If you couls forward me your  email  as  apersonal message i will let you know when i get the canon copy.I am sure Paul also will be able to help you with a copy with his wast knowledge about church affirs.

               One more thing before i stop  there is an argument about 2 canons and one is wrong one i belive IOC concider false and ameded for personal gain by SOC(but just remind if it was amended it was when both fraction was togther to fight against Marthoma church in Kerala before split),so respected Pullikottil thirumany made a false canon accordng to IOC if thats true SOC and IOC togther (when they were one church)cheated Marthoma church and gained the wealth which should have gone to  Marthoma church.So i hope when people make allegation think twice did our beloved Pullikottil thirumani
cheated marthoma church if thats the case dont we have a responsibilty to give what we gained  through cheating back to Marthoma church.
                      with love in Christ Joe
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2005, 05:37:40 PM »


                           The reason why patraich violated costitution was  the claim of Catholicose  as mentioned above which latter refused by suprem court.in my personal opinion what else HH could have done to prevent violation by catholicose as stated above,if he didnt do that the malnakara church would been an Autocephalus church with no connection to antioch  a  large fraction of church which is against our tradition an canons(and 1934 constitution which will not bind me anyway).So violation was from both sides .


There were two reasons why the Synod decided tnot to accept the Patriarch Yakub 111 (in the lineage of Mar Abdulla).

1. Mar Yakub wrote letter to Catholicos, which was read in parishes by Jacobites that Apostle Thomas does not have priesthood similar to Apostle Peter.  The Synod rejected this teaching and affirmed the priesthood and throne (lineage) of Apostle Thomas (this being integral part of our faith in India).

2. Mar Yakub appointed a delegate against the decision of the Synod and this delegate worked against the synod.


According to Indian position, after Patriarch Mar Abded Messih, the lineage of Antioch is not proper. Mar Abdulla, who was RC bishop of Homs payed  money to Turkey Sultan and became Patriarch with the support of three other bishops.  Indian Church derecognized Mar Abdulla after learning about this. Similalry the Church derecognized Mar Yakub 111 after he taught false teachings in India.

Church was not blindly rejecting any one, but after careful study by the Synod. Thus when we learn the truth we stick to the truth.

We believe in the Apostolic heritage of St. Thomas, the lineage in the East, the one consitution of the Church.

Let us examine our sister Churches. Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Syrian and Armenian Churches are all autocephalous churches. Our Indian Church is also Apostolic and autocephalous - it has a head of Synod and a procedure to adminster the Church in the same unity of faith as sister Churches. This is what we believe as autocephaly.  I have difficulty accepting the concept of only Indian Church remaining subordinate.

I think it is due to ego issues that our Jacobites brothers are not able to accept it. Otherwise even the Jacobite church is existing as an independent church these days. They love freedom, otherwise why they detached from the Indian Synod?

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

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2005, 05:40:33 PM »

Dear Joe, There is no Church for SOC in the city of  Antioch. There is no diocese in Antioch. So, Antioch is today just a titular see or an imaginary see.  There is no meaning in trying to establish universal supremacy of a non-existent see.  We have to accept present realities.  We know SOC ia an autocephalous Church. In the same way the ancient Church in the East also should enjoy freedom. Our unity is understood as unity in faith.  I firly believe that all our sister churches believe in unity, which is resulting from confession of one faith.   We do not have the concept of universal primacy as in RC.


Peace
Paul
Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2005, 04:49:07 AM »

Dear Paul
                    we discused this in many threads again and again,i dont want go through that road again specialy the aim of this tread isnt that.so far  what i undersatnd from all this either side never going to change their veiws,both will argue with pleanty of quote but i can tell you one we not  preaching true X'n love and gospal.I only joined in this forum recently after  reading many messages from you (i dont know all IOC belive that)the divison is far too much than what i anticipated.Every one not just IOC or SOC have the right to follow what they think better and right for them.The problem arise when one fraction trying invade another once  church(not saying any specific fraction either way its not good)

 We have four options   here Paul
1)Follow the path we following now  non x'n way not loving each other ,hate each other,close churchs,do not let faith full to reciive decent respectfull funeral,goverment involvements,more and more court cases and let other X'ns and non X'ns laugf at us,let us loose our  faithfull orthodox x'ns to protastantsa and RC,lety us ashame Christ in a non x'n country,Jews crusified him once let us crusify him again and again.

2)Or we can split decently with majority as they done in nothern dioceses,live in harmony as sister church
3) we can ask SOC faithfull to accept Kottayam catholicose unconditionaly and forget about their feelings and  faith
4)Unit and live togther as we lived till the begining of last  century

              I will not be part of plan 3,i dont think you will be happy with plan 4,i thtink plan 1 is horrible and non x'n the decent and practical option to me is 2 i am sure you will have different opinion
 
We can cary on argue with points and points   but what is the point if we not getting any where and we not proclaiming x'n love?I allways hoped once we will join togther  and function as  atrue x'n church.unforthunatly after reading from both side i dont think this will ever happen.Paul i am a knanaite you know that we are in  a safe zone with protected constitution so as simhasana churchs and evangalical association perosnaly either way of  church will not affect me but i hate to see my fellow orthodox x'ns  crusifying Jesus again.We all know court cases never going to bring peace we paid millions of money to lawyers which should been used for spreading of gospal and needs of fellow humans.What is the end results nothing we still  figthing nobody gained anything .You may say you won and  other side may argue not but at the end  for x'n faith either side won nothing,  nothing but unhappynes,blood shed,hate teachings thats all.I dont know how we gonna justify us on the last day.
Even the minority commesion said the same today we should not encourage it we should  sit togther and discuss this and if we cant come to a joint conclusion of unity then split formaly as we allready is and trying bring peace into our community.

Paul sorry about long letter in this thread  i didnt want but i couldnot resisit i will try not replay on this thread again with this issue.
Logged

NULL
paul2004
Paul
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 314

OC.net


« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2005, 11:01:38 AM »

Dear Joe, We believe it is essential (perhaps the most important) part of Christian life to remain united in faith.  Now the issue is about faith. We believe that our sister Oriental Orthodox churches do not have any faith in universal primacy of successors of Apostle Peter. We believe our Church in India is founded by Apostle Thomas (as written in the consitution also).  So, the Christian approach is to remain united. After the Jacobite church seperated in 2002 with a new consitution, the aim now is to convince people that these are two independent churches and properties previously in the authority of Malankara metropolitan should be either given or shared with the Jacobite church.  The real solution is to stop division and remain united in one faith.

I believe that we have only one faith in the Church. Otherwise St. Severios will not go to Egypt when exiled. He died there. So, it is the same faith in all OO churches. There is no special faith known as SOC faith or Antiochian faith and the resulting division. Petrine primacy and communion with RC are not accepted by sister OO churches.  I have two recommendations to Jacobite brothers like you.

1. Stop the communion with RC and the company with them in India unitl OO churches together accept any such unity in the future. Ecumenism should be viewed positively, but it should not disrupt existing unity.

2. Develop the understanding that there is only one OO faith common to all sister Churches. Currently each church has the freedom to work in respective regions based in own consitutions and our unity in faith.

Peace
Paul
« Last Edit: July 13, 2005, 11:12:28 AM by paul2004 » Logged
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2005, 12:32:19 PM »

Dear Mina
  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  as  i told before i checked with my copy of Hudaya canon .I will try to translate it  as best as i could(bare in mind its written in Malayalam  and my mother tongue is Malayalam but my English may not be the best).
Before i start this i would like to say i am not here for an argument about SOC and IOC all i want do a favour to Mina;just let himÂÂ  know what i read in Hudaya canon.

7th kappalavon(chapter 7)
 
Regarding sects of priests

First Pozuko: About parishes and every one should obey and followÂÂ  call about them.

Nicaean:There must be four Patriarchs as per the number of four part of the world(that is)the person of Rome,with him person of Alexandria,the person of Constantinople (kusthanthenosepolice) which is called as new Rome to where the Patriarchate of EphesusÂÂ  is moved to,the person of Antioch who have authority over whole east.
-about Urslem(Jerusalem)it was an Episcopal center under metropolitan of Kiseria.But from now it should have the respect of 5th patriarch.The authority of it should be for metropolitan ofÂÂ  kiseria.FromÂÂ  today the chief metropolitan of East must be named as Catholicose.He is been given authority to ordain Metropolitans in East LIKEÂÂ  patriarch.When he attend in the synod in west his seat must be arranged above all metropolitans with Patriarch of Jerusalem.He must be one who obey Patriarch of Antioch;he must not disobey his patriarch.Abyssinians are not given authority to ordain patriarch for them.but Patriarch of Alexandria should ordain metropolitan for them.He must sit in the synod below the person of east but aboveÂÂ  above all other metropolitans.Like this Indians under the authority of Antioch are not given authority to ordain patriarch for them;their patriarch or catholicose of east who is under his authority shouldÂÂ  ordain metropolitan for them.If the Reich(chief)episcopa of Kupros island die when the see in high tide during raining season all episcopas of that island together can raise upÂÂ  a metropolitanÂÂ  due to emergencyÂÂ  as per the order of patriarch of Antioch.Like this Indians also should do as ordered by Patriarch of AntiochPatriarch should not prevent them to avoid the widowhood of many parishes.


  ÃƒÆ’‚ : There  is an opinion  there was only 3 patriarch Constantinople formed by Kaldoon (Chaldean) synod Bar Abrayo made a mistake by depending Arabi canon

ÂÂ  I tryed my best spell and transalate it right plese ignore spelling mistake or transalation mistake if there is anyÂÂ  it was not purpuse minded.I dont knowÂÂ  wher eis Kuprose Island there may be naother name for it.
 the word used in canon is widowhood may be meant the sate with out any cheif
« Last Edit: October 08, 2005, 12:38:35 PM by joe77 » Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2005, 01:04:37 PM »

Continue::
 First Pozuko

Ankara's:If an episcopa not been accepted  where he is called to  and he don't like to serve as a priest where he was before he must not be taken of from his respect.But if the episcopa quarrel with the patriarch who ordained him and his brother episcopas then he must taken off from his respect  even as a priest.

Yuohanon Patriarch:Episcopas and Dayaros(monks) of  Dayara(monastery) of Mathai(mathew)should obey the Maphriyano  who is seated in Tigris  under the authority of Antioch.Maphriyano is Catholicose and Catholicose is maphriyano.When the  Maphriyano of East  present with his leader Patriarch of Antioch he must seat on his right as first.And  his name should be said after the patriarch and he must receive communion after the patriarch.if the maphriyano is alive then Patriarch must not be ordained with out his consent. People of East  are not authorised to ordain Maphriyano,metropolitans or episcopa for them  Against  the will of Patriarch of Antioch .Episcopans and Metropolitans who are excommunicated by Maphriyano  are excommunicated by Patriarch too.


  There are other parts too i will try to send it as soon as i can
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #27 on: October 17, 2005, 10:25:06 AM »

Pozuko 2
   Antioch:An Episcopa who carry on his service against his excommunication will not have  the hope for return or appeal  for another synod.

Hudaya: A metropolitan who dose like this  and episcopas or priest who  who keep the relation with him  even after knowing his excommunication  should also be excommunicated with him.A metropolitan or episcopa  who go to the king or city authority and asking to  listen to him  with out the permission of patriarch  should be cautioned and removed from his respect and right to receive communion.Even in the oldage a metropolitan or episcopa   are not given authority to  raise a successor for him.But after his death patriarch  ordain the person whom the synod and patriarch together  elected.
Logged

NULL
joe77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #28 on: October 17, 2005, 10:49:30 AM »

Pozuko 3

  Niccia:A patriarch is not ordain by a patriarch of another throne;but by  his subordinates Catholicose,metropolitans,episcopas,priests,other priestly members,and faithfull members of church.Like our Lord received baptism from  his servant John.A mapriyano is ordained by patriarch,maphriyano have authority to ordain metropolitan,and episcopa.If there is no maphriyano ;metropolitans are not allowed ordain each other.But patriarch  should ordain them.But if there is an emergency and difficulty to get to patriarch then  3 metropolitans together can ordain a metropolitan or episcopa as ordered by patriarch.If patriarch have given authority  to  a metropolitan to ordain episcopa through his  susthathicon(letter of authority) then he can ordain  an episcopa.A metropolitan should not be given authority to ordain another metropolitan.

Hudaya :A metropolitan from a metropolitan or episcopa from episcopa  ordain against the authority of patriarch then the person who  receive and give  should be deposed.

Antioch:A metropolitan or episcopa should not receive their  priesthood with out the presence of the synod or another metropolitan.But the patriarch invite through letter to be present with him,if every one cannot come then they should send the acceptance letter.
Hudaya:---- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - When the catholicose been ordained as catholicose is subordinate to patriarch's authority patriarch should  everything for it(regarding ordination protocols)
Logged

NULL
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 0.13 seconds with 55 queries.