Which Indian/Syrian/Malankara Church Communes with the rest of the Church?

[minasoliman]

Dear Matthew G M,

Thank you for your answer.  The reason I say this is because I find that you give straightforward answers without any hint of anger or annoyance.  I read the posts here sometimes, and I just get lost and confused and frustrated, especially since this is an issue I personally care about since I dealt with it when creating an Orthodox club in my university.

Just wanted to ask one other question concerning your post:

In the Divine Liturgy (Holy Qurbana) in the 4th 'dypthic' (Thubden) initially only the names of St. Peter and St. Paul was mentioned by name. It was the Syriac faction AND NOT the Catholicate faction that added the name of St. Thomas also to the Thubden as per a Patriarchal Encyclical.

Why if I may ask?  And when has this been added?  The reason I ask is perhaps the Catholicate faction may confuse this as if the Syriac faction accepted the Indian Orthodox Catholicose as sitting on the throne of St. Thomas.

I also am interested in one other point.  Can or "should" the issue of upholding the throne of St. Thomas be a hindrance to unification of the Indian churches?

God bless.

Mina

[dhinuus]

Why if I may ask?  And when has this been added?  The reason I ask is perhaps the Catholicate faction may confuse this as if the Syriac faction accepted the Indian Orthodox Catholicose as sitting on the throne of St. Thomas.

Dear Mina,

For the when question, the name of the St. Thomas was added to the 4th Thubden of the Divine Liturgy per the deliberations of the Holy Synod and issued as a Patriarchal Encyclical in 1987. The only other apostles mentioned by name are St. Peter and St. Paul.

I can only speculate as to the Why question.

In the late 70's and the early 80's the Catholicose faction had printed thousands of copies of this private letter from Patriarch Yakob III to Catholicose Augen I, and distributed it widely. This letter was blown out of proportion, and mis-interpreted as a statement of faith from the Patriarch, while all it was a correspondence between two individuals.

My guess is, the 'Patriarchal Encyclical' to remember the name of St. Thomas also along with that of St. Peter and St. Paul was to dispel any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Syriac Church does not respect or venerate St. Thomas the Apostle.

Can or "should" the issue of upholding the throne of St. Thomas be a hindrance to unification of the Indian churches?

It probably should not.

Here is where it could be a problem; the Patriarch faction while having a Catholicose (Maphrian) in India, recognizes and respects the canonical connection between the Church in Malankara to that in Antioch and considers him as the supreme spiritual leader of the church. It teaches that ever since the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, India is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. It is true that there was an office of Catholicose (Maphrian) in the Syriac church, but this office always functioned under the Patriarchate of Antioch.

However the teaching of the Catholicose faction is not the same. They teach that St.Thomas established a See in India and the Church in India was always autocephalous. Their interpretation of the Syriac connection was that of a foreign church trying to subvert the autocephaly of the Indian Church.

The position of the Patriarch faction is that there is tradition of St. Thomas ordaining priests in India, however there is no accepted history or tradition about St. Thomas ordaining Bishops in India. So there was no See of St. Thomas in India. But for the sake of peace and unity if the Patriarch faction did accept the teaching about the 'Throne of St. Thomas' then they will also be denying the canonical relationship between the Church in Malankara and See of Antioch, which they have been teaching for centuries.

There was a revolutionary concept for peace put forward by H.H Zakka Ist in 2004 after the Second Synod of Mulanthuruthy. He said the Syriac Church will accept the Indian Orthodox Church as a sister church which will end schism. But those who choose to stay with the Patriarchate should be allowed to do so. Individual parish churches where the majority choose to stay with the Syriac Church should be allowed to do so, and should not be dragged to civil courts. Ofcourse this will mean parallel oriental orthodox jurisdictions in India, but that’s not anything new. There are several places where we have a Coptic Bishop and a Syriac Bishop and an Armenian Bishop and these three churches functioning as sister churches.

However this proposal was not accepted or followed thru by the Catholicose faction.

In Christ,
Mathew G M

[deaconzach]

This discussion is a brilliant one because it seems that both sides are able to post their respectful, sincere points for open debate. Passion is a good thing, but it is heartening to note that name calling is minimal. Unfortunately, most forums are run by either faction A or faction B and people are not able to gain insight into the true state of affairs. Kudos to the moderators.

I wonder if the original creator of the thread has had his questions answered?

Additionally, I wonder if there is such a thing as actionable "truth" in this discussion. Meaning - if one side is "wrong" or at least "dubious" in its position, how should this be dealt with? (One side must be less right than the other from the Christian point of view because the two viewpoints are diametrically opposite.)ÂÂ  i.e. If the IOC is truly autocephalous, shouldn't the Jacobite Church cease to exist? Why are these agitators continuing to cause trouble? If the IOC was created and sustains itself in an un-Christian fashion, shouldn't those sincerely seeking Christ and His kingdom return to the Syriac Communion? Who would then perpetuate the "throne of St. Thomas?" Jacobites of course believe they belong to the mother church, and the true blue IOC member believes that his Catholicos and Bishops are all direct successors of St. Thomas. You be the judge of who is right.


  As a member of the SOC, I would like to ask 2 questions I have not seen answered before: If the IOC believes that the "Synod" is the governing body, and the Catholicos is a functionary of the Synod, then how can they accept a unilateral action by Patriarch Abdul Mashih II in ordaining Mor Baselious Paulose I and starting this whole mess? No legitimate Synodal decision was made here. In fact, the Universal Synod rejected the actions of Mor Mashih II (not to mention that he was deposed in 1905). What about the Persian Synod? They did not approve this ordination either. The legitimate Indian Synod also rejected this act. How does the current IOC respond - they made Mor Vaterrserril, a chief instigator in this saga, a saint?

If the IOC believes it is the "people's church" (indigenous to S. India), then why do the bishops own all the property? In the supposedly "autocratic" SOC, where the "Patriarch wants to meddle in day to day affairs," the members of each parish own the parish, with the Bishop presiding over the spiritual matters and appointment of Vicars. The people make day to day decisions because they actually own the places of worship. Who really is with the people?

  P.S. I again appreciate "Mor Ephrem" and the opportunity to post in this forum.

I am very disappointed in his answers to my last posting, however. I find his responses evasive, and I think he smugly "misunderestimates" the simple nature in which I pose questions. He seems to want to raise doubts instead of answering specific questions clearly, and is dismissive when those simple answers cannot be brought to light. For example, I did not ask for pictures of hierarchs to be “juvenile,” but to illustrate the point to the Coptic brother that the IOC Catholiocs is not welcomed openly by Pope Shennouda. I mentioned the Middle East Council of Churches joint meeting because my Catholicos and church WAS represented by the Patriarch (indeed, I was there too in spirit),ÂÂ  but that the IOC Catholicos or his church was not there in any fashion, underscoring the nature of the situation.

Again, the point of this thread was to communicate to a uniformed Coptic believer the status of the church in India with respect to being in communion with the main body of Oriental Orthodoxy. I presented evidence that the IOC is not in communion and that only the Jacobites are in full, open communion. I then proceeded to bring up facts as to the formation of the IOC and alluded to others who brought up facts. I was met with "I don't trust anyone who says they know the whole truth" concerning this matter? What's the point in studying history, and again, what's the point in clinging to the historical "throne of St. Thomas" if we can’t trust anything we hear concerning these matters? The truth must be that devastating, because no Jacobite is afraid of it at all.

What Phil and others espousing his views do not get is that when his priest, bishop, and/or Catholicos do things that are uncannonical - mind you, I realize everyone makes mistakes and everyone needs forgiveness, but not too many people do things that are "uncannonical" and get themselves excommuinicated -ÂÂ  then he (Phil) is with them hand in hand if he takes communion from them and/or their supporters. Will Phil refuse communion from Mor Nicolovos, who split the American Jacobite Church and is under excommunication? I doubt it.

If you are not publicly against the untoward and unChristian actions of your group after all this time (the locked up churches, etc.), THEN YOU ARE TACITLY FOR THEM, DESPITE YOUR INTELLECTUALIZATIONS AND RATIONALIZATIONS. Period and end of story. If you believe these actions are unjust, then how can you take communion from these people if they constantly repeat their offence? What concretely have you done to combat the unjust actions you admit to?

You must expect that the IOC will roll over the innocent Jacobite faithful who will finally be forgotten, glibly dismissed in the fog of history you mention?

If my church was acting in blatant non-Christian activity, as a clergyman with a "duty to the truth," I would have to vigorously stand up against it, privately at first, publicly (after 150 years?), and follow Christ outside said church as a last resort if needed.

Do your duty, Phil. Godspeed.

P.P.S. Much of our faith and tradition is "anachronistic." Indeed, to make our faith and traditions credible in a "modern" world, a reverence for the truth and good practice is wantonly necessary. You evaded the point in your response to my mention that your "handlesake" would not support your views.

[Mor Ephrem]

As a member of the SOC, I would like to ask 2 questions I have not seen answered before: If the IOC believes that the "Synod" is the governing body, and the Catholicos is a functionary of the Synod, then how can they accept a unilateral action by Patriarch Abdul Mashih II in ordaining Mor Baselious Paulose I and starting this whole mess? No legitimate Synodal decision was made here. In fact, the Universal Synod rejected the actions of Mor Mashih II (not to mention that he was deposed in 1905). What about the Persian Synod? They did not approve this ordination either. The legitimate Indian Synod also rejected this act. How does the current IOC respond - they made Mor Vaterrserril, a chief instigator in this saga, a saint?

It has been my observation that Patriarchal faction members focus their efforts on the events of the early twentieth century, and this is why I've always been willing to allow, at least for arguments' sake, that the "IOC" was wrong back then.  After the reconciliation, however, the same does not hold.  But no one from the former faction seems willing to consider it in this way, and I believe this is because no one has seriously considered this argument.

If the IOC believes it is the "people's church" (indigenous to S. India), then why do the bishops own all the property? In the supposedly "autocratic" SOC, where the "Patriarch wants to meddle in day to day affairs," the members of each parish own the parish, with the Bishop presiding over the spiritual matters and appointment of Vicars. The people make day to day decisions because they actually own the places of worship. Who really is with the people?

"People's Church" sounds like a democratic movement, and I don't think the Indian Church is such.  As for why the bishops own the property, well, I've never heard of people owning all the property of the Church in any jurisdiction as anything other than a deviation. 

P.S. I again appreciate "Mor Ephrem" and the opportunity to post in this forum.

I am very disappointed in his answers to my last posting, however. I find his responses evasive, and I think he smugly "misunderestimates" the simple nature in which I pose questions. He seems to want to raise doubts instead of answering specific questions clearly, and is dismissive when those simple answers cannot be brought to light. For example, I did not ask for pictures of hierarchs to be “juvenile,” but to illustrate the point to the Coptic brother that the IOC Catholiocs is not welcomed openly by Pope Shennouda.

Allow me to restate my point.  Lots of people can use photographs in order to convey an idea that doesn't exist.  For example, there is a vagante sect that uses pictures of its "bishop" with certain officials of our Church as evidence that they are in full communion with us, when the reality is to the contrary.  So I don't think pictures really ought to serve as "nails in coffins". 

It is interesting that Jacobites usually focus on H.H. the Pope of Alexandria in this matter, to the exclusion of the heads of the other Orthodox (Oriental) Churches.  Why is that?  I could present evidence, if not pictures, that our Catholicos has participated in official functions of the other Churches openly and fully.  But somehow, the other heads are not as important as the Pope.  With no disrespect intended for the Pope, I think this underscores a certain understanding of ecclesiology in the Patriarchal faction. 

I mentioned the Middle East Council of Churches joint meeting because my Catholicos and church WAS represented by the Patriarch (indeed, I was there too in spirit),  but that the IOC Catholicos or his church was not there in any fashion, underscoring the nature of the situation.

Neither were the Ethiopian or Eritrean Churches, nor the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzin.  So am I to presume that you view the nature of their situation in the same way as the nature of ours?

Your Church was not represented at the Middle East Council of Churches because a) you claim to be autonomous and b) you are not in the Middle East.  If you claim it was represented, one of these two must be not completely true. 

Or another possibility exists.  Your Church was represented, in spite of lack of representation, because you share the same faith as the hierarchs.  Well, I could claim the same. 

Again, the point of this thread was to communicate to a uniformed Coptic believer the status of the church in India with respect to being in communion with the main body of Oriental Orthodoxy. I presented evidence that the IOC is not in communion and that only the Jacobites are in full, open communion. I then proceeded to bring up facts as to the formation of the IOC and alluded to others who brought up facts. I was met with "I don't trust anyone who says they know the whole truth" concerning this matter? What's the point in studying history, and again, what's the point in clinging to the historical "throne of St. Thomas" if we can’t trust anything we hear concerning these matters? The truth must be that devastating, because no Jacobite is afraid of it at all.

Not quite.  You (and/or your fellow Jacobites) haven't demonstrated that the IOC is not in communion with the main body of Oriental Orthodoxy, only that the Church of Antioch is not in communion with it and that Bishop David of the Coptic Church in the USA feels the same way.

It's not for no reason that I don't trust what I hear.  Partisans on both sides have an axe to grind, and so, knowing that, I don't take anything and everything they have to say as gospel truth.  It's not that the truth is devastating, it's that it has to be sifted out of the polemic.   

What Phil and others espousing his views do not get is that when his priest, bishop, and/or Catholicos do things that are uncannonical - mind you, I realize everyone makes mistakes and everyone needs forgiveness, but not too many people do things that are "uncannonical" and get themselves excommuinicated -  then he (Phil) is with them hand in hand if he takes communion from them and/or their supporters. Will Phil refuse communion from Mor Nicolovos, who split the American Jacobite Church and is under excommunication? I doubt it.

No, I have never refused Communion from him (or from any Orthodox hierarch) unless it was for my own unpreparedness. 

Excommunication, as I've said before and will say again, is a double edged sword.  It can be applied, but if it is not recognised, or it is made for the wrong reasons, it can actually hurt the issuer.  It is a fact that the Syrian Church considers him excommunicated.  But if our Church does not recognise the validity of that action, then what?  I had this argument once before with one of our mutual friends, and the conclusion seemed to be that "if the Patriarch does it, it's right".  Unfortunately, it's not that simple, in this specific case and in general. 

And I haven't even begun to talk about the "uncanonical" actions of the Church of Antioch. 

If you are not publicly against the untoward and unChristian actions of your group after all this time (the locked up churches, etc.), THEN YOU ARE TACITLY FOR THEM, DESPITE YOUR INTELLECTUALIZATIONS AND RATIONALIZATIONS. Period and end of story. If you believe these actions are unjust, then how can you take communion from these people if they constantly repeat their offence?

Um, because I'm not a Donatist?  I can (and in some cases do) insist that certain policies are not the best, but this doesn't mean that I reject priesthood.

What concretely have you done to combat the unjust actions you admit to?

I haven't done anything concrete except to make my views known to various people.  What have you done? 

You must expect that the IOC will roll over the innocent Jacobite faithful who will finally be forgotten, glibly dismissed in the fog of history you mention?

This assumes that I hate Jacobites.  That is not true. 

If my church was acting in blatant non-Christian activity, as a clergyman with a "duty to the truth," I would have to vigorously stand up against it, privately at first, publicly (after 150 years?), and follow Christ outside said church as a last resort if needed.

Do your duty, Phil. Godspeed.

Hehe.  I don't think my Church is acting in a blatantly non-Christian manner, otherwise I wouldn't have elected to join it.  But you're right, I might have to leave and serve elsewhere if what you mentioned actually came to pass.  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you view it ), this would probably not lead me into the arms of the Syrian Church. 

P.P.S. Much of our faith and tradition is "anachronistic." Indeed, to make our faith and traditions credible in a "modern" world, a reverence for the truth and good practice is wantonly necessary. You evaded the point in your response to my mention that your "handlesake" would not support your views.

My point was that its nonsensical to insist that St. Ephrem would've supported your side or mine.  On what basis do you claim he would reject my views? 

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear Mathew,

Here is where it could be a problem; the Patriarch faction while having a Catholicose (Maphrian) in India, recognizes and respects the canonical connection between the Church in Malankara to that in Antioch and considers him as the supreme spiritual leader of the church. It teaches that ever since the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, India is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East. It is true that there was an office of Catholicose (Maphrian) in the Syriac church, but this office always functioned under the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Everyone alludes to the Nicene canons, but no one ever cites them.  Which specific canons are being invoked here?   

However the teaching of the Catholicose faction is not the same. They teach that St.Thomas established a See in India and the Church in India was always autocephalous. Their interpretation of the Syriac connection was that of a foreign church trying to subvert the autocephaly of the Indian Church.

As I was telling one of your clergymen earlier, certain concepts are anachronistically applied in certain contexts, and autocephaly is one of them.  Certainly, no one declared the Indian Church autocephalous from its beginning, but no one declared it dependent on another Church either.  St. Thomas came, established the Church in India, and that was it.  I would argue it was autocephalous functionally, if not officially. 

The Syriac connection was not about a foreign Church trying to subvert this autocephaly.  If I had to weigh in on this, I would argue that it was about seeking help in a time of need. 

The position of the Patriarch faction is that there is tradition of St. Thomas ordaining priests in India, however there is no accepted history or tradition about St. Thomas ordaining Bishops in India. So there was no See of St. Thomas in India. But for the sake of peace and unity if the Patriarch faction did accept the teaching about the 'Throne of St. Thomas' then they will also be denying the canonical relationship between the Church in Malankara and See of Antioch, which they have been teaching for centuries.

Here, again, we are using terms which are anachronistic, IMO.  St. Peter never establlished a See in the way we would imagine it in Antioch.  He simply established and headed the first Christian community there.  Functionally, I would argue this is the same thing as establishing a See, because it establishes a Christian community around the local bishop.  In the same way, we can affirm that St. Thomas established Christian communities in India in local areas--the tradition that he built seven churches in India has never been called into question by anyone that I know of. 

"Bishop" also is a questionable term.  Where in the apostolic age was there a clear-cut distinction between priests and bishops?  This is something that developed later, but the terms were much more interchangeable back then. 

There was a revolutionary concept for peace put forward by H.H Zakka Ist in 2004 after the Second Synod of Mulanthuruthy. He said the Syriac Church will accept the Indian Orthodox Church as a sister church which will end schism. But those who choose to stay with the Patriarchate should be allowed to do so. Individual parish churches where the majority choose to stay with the Syriac Church should be allowed to do so, and should not be dragged to civil courts. Ofcourse this will mean parallel oriental orthodox jurisdictions in India, but that’s not anything new. There are several places where we have a Coptic Bishop and a Syriac Bishop and an Armenian Bishop and these three churches functioning as sister churches.

However this proposal was not accepted or followed thru by the Catholicose faction.

I disagree with this proposal on the basis of certain canonical principles.  However, for the sake of peace (a more important goal than canonical exactitude), I would support such a proposal, and wish it was adopted when it was suggested.  Litigation would be over, and it would afford an opportunity for reconciliation and, hopefully a few generations after the passing of all this bitterness, would allow for a more canonically proper model of peace to come into being. 

[Mor Ephrem]

2) This above letter was NOT a Kalpana (Patriarchal Encyclical) to Bishops, Priests and Laity NOR was it a declaration about faith. It was ONLY a private letter sent from the Patriarch Yakob III to Catholicose Augen I .

Dear Mathew,

The letter, as I've found it, ends with "Our Father, who art in heaven, etc.", which I was always given to understand was the way official letters ended.  I certainly wouldn't see the point in putting it in a private communication.  Maybe you know more about the history of this practice? 

[deaconzach]

More of the same, I see. No substantive answers, just the endless roundabout of pointless handwaving and smokescreen. Godspeed, sir. I hope one day you might "fall into the arms of the Syrian Church" before your church stops trying to break them. In the mean time - Matt 7:6

Rev. Dn. Zacharia Poycattle Varghese, M.D.
St. Ignatious Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, Carrollton (Dallas) Texas
zvarghese@gmail.com

P.S. I find it comical that you "could claim the same" with regard to the SOC faith in the exchange over the MECC meeting before. What is all this ink spilt for then? We have no throne of St. Thomas, w/o a throne of St. Thomas your church has nothing to coalesce around and has no raison d' etre. No one in this forum questions the legitimacy of the SOC. Doesn't that tell the esteemed readers something? You claim we minimize the Eithiopians and Eritreans (who would like nothing more than to kill each other, btw), yet you don't address the point - Where is a joint declaration btwn any other hierarch and the IOC Catholicos? Where is the fraternal correspondence, or joint functions, or anything other than hot air?

You aren't claiming that the Syrian Church is doing anything wrong, so what would you have me stand up against? Obviously, I am standing up against people like you and those more militant than you publiclly. Additionally, besides just studying theology, I am actively engaged in nationwide ministry. Also, I am a physcian, by the grace of God. I hope this answers your question as to my Christian stand and witness. As a suggestion, you could refuse to take communion from Mor Nicolovos, for starters. I do. Just a suggestion. If you think you can explain why your church behaves in the way it does citing Jesus' actions, Scripture, and moral sense, send me an email.

FINALLY: A quote from Mor Augen I - a distant relative of mine :

When ordained, Mor Augen said in his salmoosa (oath of office) " I the feeble and meek Augen Mor Themotios chosen for ecclesiastical office of the Catholicose confess my belief before the Synod, and before the head of the Synod His Holiness 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 Holy Apostles up to your Holiness all the canonical Patriarchs who reigned on your Throne and all those who come after your Holiness. Once again I repeat my canonical connections with the Holy Throne of Antioch. I swear that I shall not depart from this solemn oath. ” He later renounced this oath and split the Malankara Syriac Church in the 1975.

AND from the Wed. midnight prayers of the Syrian Orthodox Church (Second watch Qolo)

Apostles! adversaries have encircled the Church from all sides to hinder the spread of the gospel that you have preached. Therefore, intercede for us before the Lord who chose you, so that there may be no divisions and disputes in the Church and among the children of the Church. O Lord! let Your truth be a furnace that keeps Your word as pure as gold. May the priests cry aloud in purity that, blessed is the Lord who sustains the growth of the Church.

[Mor Ephrem]

For example, I did not ask for pictures of hierarchs to be “juvenile,” but to illustrate the point to the Coptic brother that the IOC Catholiocs is not welcomed openly by Pope Shennouda. 

Dear Dn. Zach,

This is your lucky night...  Although I've already told you about my view of pictures, one of my brother seminarians has brought some pictures to my attention, and I provide links to them here for your perusal.

The first is of the current Catholicos of the East, H.H. Mar Baselios Marthoma Didimos I (back then he was the Catholicos designate, H.B. Thomas Mar Timotheos), with H.H. Pope Shenouda III, during His Holiness' visit to Missouri in 1994.   

http://www.stmarystlouis.bizland.com/H.H.%20Pope%20Shenouda%20receiving%20a%20gift%20from%20H.H.%20Patriarch%20Bassellious%20of%20the%20Indian%20Orthodox%20Church.htm

The second page contains pictures of H.H. Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II, who recently stepped down, at the celebrations commemorating the 1700th anniversary of Christianity in Armenia.  You will note that, in each photo he is depicted in, he is standing immediately to the right of H.H. Catholicos Karekin II.  He is also shown conversing with H.H. Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow. 

http://aypfm.leserveur.com/NGAR_F.htm

The following picture comes from (I believe) the consecration of Parumala Church by H.H. Mar Baselios Marthoma Mathews II.  In the picture is an Armenian bishop I have yet to identify.

http://www.parumalachurch.com/html/photo_gallery/130.htm

Finally, an album of pictures of the late H.G. Paulos Mar Gregorios.  You will see pictures of him with various Oriental Orthodox leaders. 

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/PHOTOS/IMAGE/album/album/index.html

Enjoy the photos! 

[Mor Ephrem]

Obviously, I am standing up against people like you and those more militant than you publiclly. Additionally, besides just studying theology, I am actively engaged in nationwide ministry. Also, I am a physcian, by the grace of God. I hope this answers your question as to my Christian stand and witness.

But your original question was not about my Christian stand and witness, it was about what I was doing in a concrete way to combat unjust actions.  That is what I asked you--your own question--and your answer is insufficient. 

[deaconzach]

Since I am still online -

Again, what injustice would you have me stand up against? If my answer was insufficient (your words), then you are admitting that your actions are as well, for you are doing nothing more. My answer was to suggest that by the grace of God I am doing something positive in the church to build it up while studying, as opposed to merely attacking one faction or trying to find stilts to prop up the schismatic side. BTW I am not claiming that others aren't doing positive things. Tell me what you're doing. Maybe we can exchange notes.

Thanks for the pictures. See, that was not so hard. You're right that pictures can be manipulated, but they speak volumes in context. I admit I am somewhat surprised to see a few of these, but I venture to state that these pictures are abberations and not the norm. But good for you. However, none of these are taken at Oriental Orthodox Forums or Meetings, but either at non Oriental Orthodox functions or Armenian general celebrations (nothing clarifying positions or doctrine). The general pictures of Paulose Mor Gregorious are good ones for your side in any context (though they are not dated, 1964-1975 the church was one). He was an able worker in the WCC and beyond. BTW, where are the Eithiopians and Eritreans you so cherish?

Do you think if the Patriarch of Antioch asked the Pope of Alexandria to stop appearing with those excommunicated, he would? Do you think the Pope can readily identify those excommunicateed from Jacobite prelates without guidance? I mean, the Copts remember the Patriarch in the Diptychs, but of course there is no mention of the IOC Catholicose. BTW, anything more recent? I mean, the present IOC Catholicose was just ordained. What about a felicitation or two? Now that would be someting.

What about a joint declaration? As you allude to - these instruments are much more substantive. I can point to many. Again, is the IOC a bastard child kept in a corner and treated gingerly (KJV terminology), or fully loved and respected in full public view? I think the former is closer to the truth when it comes to inter-church relations since the Copts generally respect anathemas pronounced by Antioch.

A quote - "Um, because I'm not a Donatist?  I can (and in some cases do) insist that certain policies are not the best, but this doesn't mean that I reject priesthood." "Insisting" that "certain policies are not the best" "in some cases" is not what we are speaking of here. We are talking about your Bishops violating scripture right and left by coveting property that they nor their followers built and in the process engineering the DESTRUCTION of the church from which they derive they entire faith system. We are talking about MAKING UP THEOLOGY and ecclesiology with the throne of St. Thomas and its corrollaries. You really don't get this, and until you do you are part of the cycle of degradation the church is experiencing, driving faithful to other churches like pentecost in droves.

I'm glad you're not a Donatist though. What about a follower of Jesus? He never made anything up nor coveted his neighbor's property, and no one claims that the SOC is engaged in such activity.

BTW, I hope it has been made clear in the "church documents thread" that the letter Patriarch Ya'qub sent questioning  the use of the term "Throne of St. Thomas" was immediately rescinded and never read in any church, and as pointed out was not a bull expounding doctrine. Regardless - this is in no way sufficient to serve as the crux of the reason for the 1975 schism unless the schismatic party was looking for an excuse.


Farewell. Remember, Matt 7:6

[minasoliman]

I mean, the Copts remember the Patriarch in the Diptychs, but of course there is no mention of the IOC Catholicose.

Just a clarification, since people like to use the Coptic Church as "an example."  We do commemorate the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Eritrea along with our Pope.  WE DO NOT commemorate the Armenian Catholicos, the Ethiopian Patriarch, or any Indian Catholicose normally.  Therefore, please, if you must use the Coptic Church as an argument, the diptychs is not a good argument, for that would mean, "logically," that the Armenians and Ethiopians are not sister churches.

About one or two months ago, the Coptic Church in Atlanta, Georgia hosted a conjoint Oriental Orthodox liturgy with priests represantative of the Coptic, Indian (Catholicose faction), and Ethiopian churches, communing together.  This hasn't caused any problems, which seems to mean that parts of the Coptic Church include the Indian Orthodox Church into communion:

http://www.suscopts.org/stmaryatlanta/orientalliturgy.html

Dear Matthew,

Like Mor Ephrem said, that would indeed cause problems, for it is uncanonical.  Recently, I have been criticized for wishing a unity among the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Alexandrian Orthodox to temporarily have different patriarchs at the time.  This is considered an ecclesiological "error" called "phyletism."  In addition, it might continue to cause problems where on the outside the unity is achieved, but on the inside, fights may still sadly continue.

I still however wish, and am hopeful, that HH Mor Ignatius Zakka Awas who seems to seek peace still wants unity.  I wish then that "temporarily" we could have an "uncanonical" union until further talks may consumate a full canonical unity under one Indian Church.

Thank you Matthew for answering my questions.  You have been very helpful, dear brother. 

God bless you and Merry Christmas (or Merry Theophany, depending on the calendar )

Mina

[deaconzach]

Dear Mina,

You beg the question - why don't you remember the Eithiopians, Eritreans, and the IOC in the Dyptch? There is a strong reason that undercuts the gist of what you are trying to say. You don't remember the E & E's even though you have an official agreement with those churches. No such agreement, BTW, exists with the IOC in any context.

You admit a "partial" communion. What is that? There is no such thing. The entire church is in communion, or it is not. People may make individual decisions to do this and that, but these decisions are not necessarily canonical.

If you mean "limited" communion - I understand this term. This means an official agreement has been worked out clarifying points of agreement and disagreement. There is no such thing in this context.

Why didn't the Copts in Atlanta invite representatives of the Jacobite faction? This seems like a slight if the others were invited? There is no 'communion' question. We have 3 churches there.

I appreciate your sincere desire for truth in this matter. I do not relish the fact that the communion is broken. Long live Pope Shenouda, Patriarch Zakka, and the Hierarchs of Armenia, Eithiopia, and Eritrea!

Farewell Again.

[minasoliman]

I do not know why we don't commemorate the Ethiopians or the Armenians.  It is very strange to me as well, but the Pope's orders have mentioned only two churches and nothing else.

What I mean by "partial" communion is that some bishops accept communion with the IOC.  In fact, Bishop David is the ONLY bishop that I heard that does not.  I know of no other.  The two other bishops in the American land allow it, as well as HE  Metropolitan Seraphim of the BOC.  There's also a picture of HG Bishop Antonious Markos of the African missions with an IOC priest on the welcoming of a new priest in their new church in South Africa, of which HG partook of the liturgy.

So, if the question is whether or not the IOC is allowed communion with other OO counterparts, the answer is yes.  Whether it is justified is part of the debate here.  I have no answer for the latter.  IMHO however, I wish for unity and I see nothing but strict faithful Oriental Orthodoxy in both Indian church's members, seeking to spread the Orthodox faith here in the US, and that is desirable and quite influential to me, and I wish that the air of confusion around this division may disappear some day.

God bless.

Mina

[Kefa]

I want to know if this is true or not.ÂÂ  Was there another intention of the Patriarch for writing this, or did he truly believe and defend (or did he say otherwise in other letters) that St. Thomas was not a priest?

this letter is something malankara orthodox syrian church falsely use to promote its heresy.
plese visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/message/7306 to learn more on this.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/message/7306

The Syrian Orthodox Church considers St. Thomas as an Apostle.  So this title of an Apostle is greater than a bishop or a priest.  So this whole letter is in no way trying to degrade the Apostle of Malankara, St. Thomas.  So quoting Gospel of Saint John 20:21-24 to define priesthood is a theological issue.  This same theology was taught by the Saint of MOSC Mor Vattaseriel when dealing with priesthood.  Please refer to 'Mathopadeshasaarangal' by Mor Vattaseirel.   MOSC still quotes Saint John 20:21-24 in their seminaries while dealing with subjects related to priesthood.

So this private letter written to Mor Augen is shamefully being circulated by MOSC just to have some kind of stand in their quest to promote heresy.

[Kefa]

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church never included St. Thomas in their Thubden untill very recently.  As a matter of fact, Syrian Orthodox Church included St. Thomas in their Thubden even before the MOSC.  Can this be seen as MOSC has something negative about St. Thomas?  Ofcourse not.

[Mor Ephrem]

Again, what injustice would you have me stand up against? If my answer was insufficient (your words), then you are admitting that your actions are as well, for you are doing nothing more. My answer was to suggest that by the grace of God I am doing something positive in the church to build it up while studying, as opposed to merely attacking one faction or trying to find stilts to prop up the schismatic side. BTW I am not claiming that others aren't doing positive things. Tell me what you're doing. Maybe we can exchange notes.

Again, your original question seemed specifically aimed at my actions or lack of actions to end unjust actions, and not "what are you doing to advance the kingdom of God", which is what you seem to have turned to once I asked you the same question.  Very well.  I suspect that, with the exception of your ordination, which gives you more opportunities to "do" things, we are pretty much in the same business.  I don't wish to get into my activities because I don't really see the point.  You have someone in your parish who knows me.  If you're really interested, ask him.  If that doesn't satisfy you, email me privately. 

Thanks for the pictures. See, that was not so hard. You're right that pictures can be manipulated, but they speak volumes in context. I admit I am somewhat surprised to see a few of these, but I venture to state that these pictures are abberations and not the norm. But good for you. However, none of these are taken at Oriental Orthodox Forums or Meetings, but either at non Oriental Orthodox functions or Armenian general celebrations (nothing clarifying positions or doctrine). The general pictures of Paulose Mor Gregorious are good ones for your side in any context (though they are not dated, 1964-1975 the church was one). He was an able worker in the WCC and beyond. BTW, where are the Eithiopians and Eritreans you so cherish?

Of course, you would argue that they are abberations, which is why I knew when posting those links that they wouldn't really accomplish anything.  You asked specifically for pictures with the Coptic Pope, and I provided one.  IIRC, you never asked for anyone else, but I provided other pictures anyway, though not of the Ethiopians and Eritreans.  Why?  My source didn't provide any.  Even if he did, I don't think it would improve anything. 

Do you think if the Patriarch of Antioch asked the Pope of Alexandria to stop appearing with those excommunicated, he would? Do you think the Pope can readily identify those excommunicateed from Jacobite prelates without guidance? I mean, the Copts remember the Patriarch in the Diptychs, but of course there is no mention of the IOC Catholicose. BTW, anything more recent? I mean, the present IOC Catholicose was just ordained. What about a felicitation or two? Now that would be someting.

Other points have been addressed already by a member of the Coptic Church.  I will simply add that I like to give the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches credit: I don't think they are idiots, I think they are very capable of figuring out who is who.   

What about a joint declaration? As you allude to - these instruments are much more substantive. I can point to many. Again, is the IOC a bastard child kept in a corner and treated gingerly (KJV terminology), or fully loved and respected in full public view? I think the former is closer to the truth when it comes to inter-church relations since the Copts generally respect anathemas pronounced by Antioch.

Joint declarations arise out of need, not because two bishops just had tea, and the biscuits were so good they sent their priests out to draft an encyclical about how good they were.  For hundreds of years, our Churches had virtually no contact with each other, and the only "joint declaration" they shared was their common faith, the "rock of the Orthodox faith of the three Ecumenical Synods".  I fail to see how joint declarations, and/or their absence, define anything.  Applying your logic to some of these joint declarations, I would have to say that certain members of the Church were not really so, as our friend Mina rightly noted. 

A quote - "Um, because I'm not a Donatist?  I can (and in some cases do) insist that certain policies are not the best, but this doesn't mean that I reject priesthood." "Insisting" that "certain policies are not the best" "in some cases" is not what we are speaking of here. We are talking about your Bishops violating scripture right and left by coveting property that they nor their followers built and in the process engineering the DESTRUCTION of the church from which they derive they entire faith system. We are talking about MAKING UP THEOLOGY and ecclesiology with the throne of St. Thomas and its corrollaries. You really don't get this, and until you do you are part of the cycle of degradation the church is experiencing, driving faithful to other churches like pentecost in droves.

I'm glad you're not a Donatist though. What about a follower of Jesus? He never made anything up nor coveted his neighbor's property, and no one claims that the SOC is engaged in such activity.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  The only reason I have limited myself to what you and other of your faithful have said is because I don't want to get into this fight.  Don't misinterpret my silence as a confession of your Church's lack of wrongdoing. 

As for making up theology and ecclesiology, you (plural...not simply participants in this debate [and even here, some may be excused], but others with whom I've spoken in the past) haven't demonstrated to my satisfaction that you have a thorough understanding of these.   

BTW, I hope it has been made clear in the "church documents thread" that the letter Patriarch Ya'qub sent questioning  the use of the term "Throne of St. Thomas" was immediately rescinded and never read in any church, and as pointed out was not a bull expounding doctrine. Regardless - this is in no way sufficient to serve as the crux of the reason for the 1975 schism unless the schismatic party was looking for an excuse.

What does "immediately rescinded" mean in terms of a "private letter"? 

Farewell. Remember, Matt 7:6

Why stop there?  Let us read the whole chapter and ask for God's mercy. 

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear Mina,

You beg the question - why don't you remember the Eithiopians, Eritreans, and the IOC in the Dyptch? There is a strong reason that undercuts the gist of what you are trying to say.

I would be interested in hearing more about this.  What is this "strong reason"? 

You admit a "partial" communion. What is that? There is no such thing. The entire church is in communion, or it is not. People may make individual decisions to do this and that, but these decisions are not necessarily canonical.

If you mean "limited" communion - I understand this term. This means an official agreement has been worked out clarifying points of agreement and disagreement. There is no such thing in this context.

Where are you getting your definitions from?  I have my suspicions that your definition for the latter comes from the Syrian Church's agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. 

Anyway, if you read on, Mina, when admitting a "partial communion", went on to say that he knows of only one bishop in the Coptic Church that does not commune with us.  If true, that's a lot more than partial.   

Why didn't the Copts in Atlanta invite representatives of the Jacobite faction? This seems like a slight if the others were invited? There is no 'communion' question. We have 3 churches there.

All the news reports I read about this event were specific that there were representatives of the Indian and Syrian (once referred to as "Antiochene") Churches present.  I don't know if they appeared in any of the photos, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.  If they were absent (even after they were invited, and I don't think they would be intentionally ostracised), that wouldn't surprise me either (although I wonder why it was reported that they were there).   

http://www.orthodoxherald.com/diocesenews29.asp
http://www.orthodoxherald.com/diocesenews31.asp

[surajiype]

This is with reference to the use of  pictures of various hierarchs in the arguments.

There are two things I would like to say. 

I think it was last Jan, our church (IOC) hosted a group of Armenian clergymen from their  See in Echtmiadzin, they  participated in the liturgy:, there is a Jacobite church, 10 mins drive away. I understand that they did not visit there. 

Also the historical Armenian church in Mumbai has been handed over to the IOC, and one of our priests celebrates there. There are a couple of wonderful Armenian grandmas and they do participate.

As I understand it, none of the churches in the OO communion have openly stated their position. As of now they are considering both sides to be canonical.

Surely if the IOC is seen as uncanonical they rest of the communion has to make it official. As such the precense or absence of pictures does not prove anything. 

I hear in SA , the coptic bishop Mina mentioned is helping to set up a IOC church . Also I heard that at the consecration of the Jacobite church in Abu Dhabi, the vicar of the IOC parish who was Present in the Church, was called into the sanctuary by HH, from what I understand HB Mor Thomas I was also present.
Also I remember that Paulos Mar Gregorios and HH the Patriarch, then Mor Severios Zakka concelebrated in Geneva after one of the WCC meetings.

I hope Dn Zach can confirm this, let us accept one thing the situation is fluid as of now.

suraj

[paul2004]

Sorry I am a little late (perhaps this helped the Jacobites a lot   I know you guys don't like me writing my opinion as I write against division in the Church    ) 

I would lilke to tell you the official Oriental Orthodox position:

- According to the official Oriental Orthodox family of Churches there are seven Churches - Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Eritren Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian (aka Indian Orthodox), Armenian Orthodox Church of Etchmiadzin and Armenian Orthodox Church of Cilicia. All these seven Churches sent representatives to official dialogues of OO with other Churches.

So, Indian Orthodox church is sending representatives/ contributions independently to all OO councils with other Churches. Jacobite Church also participate, but on behalf of SOC representing SOC Church in India.

- The meetings in New Jersey area organized by Metropolitan H.G. Mar Karim is a local event. All OO churches are free to organize such events.  There is another assembly of OO churches in Atlanta in which both Indian Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox participate along with Coptic and other sister Churches.

- I know the Malankara Jacobites are always tempted to prove their identity (and at the same time they want to be known as SOC). In my opinion this is not practical. You should be known in one identity and name. Otherwise ordinary people will be confused about the identity and we will continue to have conflict between Church identifying itself as Malankara Orthodox and the church identifying itself both as SOC and Malankara. Our Lord taught us that we cannot have two masters. One master for each church is a reasonable rule which avoida a lot of confusion and bring a lot of peace to all. Afterall we are all giving improtance to one and only one thing - that is our common confession of the same OO faith of three Ecumenical Councils.

-Paul

A note to Jacobites: I think the approach of trying to exclude Malankara Orthodox Syrian church (or writing such messages to mislead others is not good for anyone). You do not gain anything by talking against millions of people in India believeing in Oriental orthodox faith (if that faith is of any importance for you).  Perhaps only when we are persecuted in the name of OO faith we will understand the importance of remaining united in that faith. For example in the 5th and 6th centuries our Churches accepted anyone who believed in OO faith without bias. In our times we have more freedom hence we engage in fighting within OO believers in the name of numerous unimportant issues.

[Puneboy]

Kefa,  I'm amazed that you don't know what the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (autocephalous) has accomplished.  Just go to their main Indian website and you will see the hospitals, orphanages, ashrams, training schools, colleges and seminaries they operate.  This church way outshines all the Orthodox in America put together!

[Matthew777]

I don't see the present status of the Indian Orthodox Church as any way unique.
Other Orthodox Churches, such as the Church of Greece and the Orthodox Church in America, have claimed autocephaly. How is the Indian Orthodox Church in error for doing the same? 

Peace.

[sinjuvarghese]

The indian orthodox church under the catholic of the east,based in kottayam,kerala is truely an apostilic church and is in communes with all the orthodox churches namely russian,ethopian,greek,bysapatian and oriental.

[deusveritasest]

The indian orthodox church under the catholic of the east,based in kottayam,kerala is truely an apostilic church and is in communes with all the orthodox churches namely russian,ethopian,greek,bysapatian and oriental.

LOL

For one thing, no, it's not a universally agreed upon contention that the Methran faction is truly in communion with the other OO churches. It is the standard teaching of the Syriac Orthodox Church that it is indeed not, and some from other OO churches have come to agree with this opinion.

Secondly, the fact that you say that you are in communion with the Chalcedonians is hilarious.

[Father Peter]

In the UK the chairman of the Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches in the UK and Ireland is Dr Mathews Mar Thimothios, Metropolitan of UK, Europe and Africa Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

The President is His Grace Bishop Angaelos of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Other members of the Council include His Grace Archbishop Athanasios Dawood of the Syrian Orthodox Church, and bishops and priests from all the other Orthodox Churches. At present due to various circumstances there is not a representative of the Jacobite Orthodox community, but there had been for many years.

The relations between all of the Orthodox communities in the UK is entirely fraternal.

Father Peter

[kijabeboy03]

In reply to the original question, in Ethiopia the only Malankara Orthodox clergy present in the country (teaching at Holy Trinity Seminary in Addis Abeba) belong to the independent Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) and from what I remember from news of Ethiopian Orthodox hierarchs visiting Kerala they always seemed to concelebrate with the catholicos and metropolitans of the MOSC, not the patriarchal Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church.

I think the Addis Abeba Patriarchate's perspective lines up with that of the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Churches - the schism in Malankara Orthodoxy is an internal matter to be resolved by Antioch and Kottayam and not their sister churches outside India.

[Father Peter]

When my bishop, Metropolitan Seraphim, visited India, he was received as a welcome guest by the hierarchs of both communities without any suggestion on either part that he should have to choose to visit only one community. 

[Shanghaiski]

This sort of reminds me of the Antiochian schism that was in America before Metropolitan Philip. The two communities didn't want anything to do with each other, but the leading hierarchs were best friends, and both sat on the Holy Synod of Antioch. I suppose the only way to know for sure what's going on is for the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch and his Holy Synod to issue a definitive statement.

[Father Peter]

That wouldn't really solve anything since the Syrians are one party to the ongoing dispute.

[deusveritasest]

I think the Addis Abeba Patriarchate's perspective lines up with that of the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Churches - the schism in Malankara Orthodoxy is an internal matter to be resolved by Antioch and Kottayam and not their sister churches outside India.

No, there simply is not consensus agreement on this issue; there are two parties of thought: HG Bishop David and HE Metropolitan Aphrem Karim being two perfect examples of the other school of thought.

[Mor Ephrem]

I think the Addis Abeba Patriarchate's perspective lines up with that of the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Churches - the schism in Malankara Orthodoxy is an internal matter to be resolved by Antioch and Kottayam and not their sister churches outside India.

No, there simply is not consensus agreement on this issue; there are two parties of thought: HG Bishop David and HE Metropolitan Aphrem Karim being two perfect examples of the other school of thought.

I think this particular example is less "another school of thought" and more a unique situation in the Northeastern US hierarchical scene.  As recently as the late 2000's (2008?) our Catholicos and his delegation were received as a delegation from a sister Church by HH Pope Shenouda III, and visits have been exchanged back and forth.  The Coptic bishop in the Southern US has worked closely with our bishops here, I've been communed in Coptic churches without having to lie about who I am, etc.  Similar things can be said about all the other OO jurisdictions.  I think the situation of HG Bishop David and HE Metropolitan Karim is more "SCOOCH politics" than a representation of another point of view widely held in the OO communion. 

[Father Peter]

Representatives of both parties to the disagreement are full and participating members of the Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches in the UK.

Father Peter

[deusveritasest]

I think this particular example is less "another school of thought" and more a unique situation in the Northeastern US hierarchical scene.

Oh please. Given that the position is also upheld by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch and most likely also the Catholicos of the Patriarchal faction, it is quite clear that this is an underestimation of the strength of this side of the disagreement.

[Father Peter]

Since the Syrian archbishop in the UK, and clergy of the Jacobite party, and the Metropolitan of the Indian Orthodox are all on the council of the Oriental Orthodox Churches without problems then it would seem that the controversy is not universally accorded the same weight.

[deusveritasest]

Since the Syrian archbishop in the UK, and clergy of the Jacobite party, and the Metropolitan of the Indian Orthodox are all on the council of the Oriental Orthodox Churches without problems then it would seem that the controversy is not universally accorded the same weight.

True enough. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is a party of opposition to union with the MOSC within the OO Tradition.

[Salpy]

I think the Addis Abeba Patriarchate's perspective lines up with that of the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Churches - the schism in Malankara Orthodoxy is an internal matter to be resolved by Antioch and Kottayam and not their sister churches outside India.

No, there simply is not consensus agreement on this issue; there are two parties of thought: HG Bishop David and HE Metropolitan Aphrem Karim being two perfect examples of the other school of thought.

I think this particular example is less "another school of thought" and more a unique situation in the Northeastern US hierarchical scene.  As recently as the late 2000's (2008?) our Catholicos and his delegation were received as a delegation from a sister Church by HH Pope Shenouda III, and visits have been exchanged back and forth.  The Coptic bishop in the Southern US has worked closely with our bishops here, I've been communed in Coptic churches without having to lie about who I am, etc.  Similar things can be said about all the other OO jurisdictions.  I think the situation of HG Bishop David and HE Metropolitan Karim is more "SCOOCH politics" than a representation of another point of view widely held in the OO communion. 

It's good to see you again!  We've missed you.   

[Irish Melkite]

It's good to see you again!  We've missed you.    

I've nothing to add to the discussion, but I refuse to miss the opportunity to agree with Salpy and say hello to my brother and friend. Phil, I pray that you are well; it's great to see a post from you!  

Many years,

Neil

[Mor Ephrem]

Since the Syrian archbishop in the UK, and clergy of the Jacobite party, and the Metropolitan of the Indian Orthodox are all on the council of the Oriental Orthodox Churches without problems then it would seem that the controversy is not universally accorded the same weight.

True enough. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is a party of opposition to union with the MOSC within the OO Tradition.

Sure there are those that oppose us, otherwise there would be no dispute.  But the dispute is between the Syrian Patriarchate and the Church in India.  The other Churches maintain communion with us and vice versa, as can be demonstrated in any number of ways to those who are willing to give less credence to myopic polemical statements and more credence to reality and truth. 

Anyway, I've covered a lot of this in previous posts I've made here over the years, I don't think I need to repeat what hasn't changed.  But I am grateful to Salpy and Neil for their kind words and wish to greet them: Christ is risen!   

[Salpy]

But I am grateful to Salpy and Neil for their kind words and wish to greet them: Christ is risen!   

Orhnyal eh Harootyoonun Krisdosee!

Please visit us more often.   

[Irish Melkite]

al-Masīḥ qam! Ḥaqqan qam!

[minasoliman]

I think this particular example is less "another school of thought" and more a unique situation in the Northeastern US hierarchical scene.

Oh please. Given that the position is also upheld by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch and most likely also the Catholicos of the Patriarchal faction, it is quite clear that this is an underestimation of the strength of this side of the disagreement.

Considering that I know HG Bishop David in person, I can agree very well with Fr. Deacon Phil's assessment.  So, oh please, don't talk about anything you don't even know.  Fr. Dn Phil and I are both in the same diocese and vicinity of HG Bishop David and I personally had to deal with the situation very badly.  I tried to challenge him on the issue, but for my luck, neither of the other American Coptic bishops were available.

I'm sure he knows that the other Coptic bishops commune with the independent faction.  But he's obviously stuck with SCOOCH politics.

Great to see around here, Fr. Dn. Phil :-)

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: Which Indian/Syrian/Malankara Church Communes with the rest of the Church?