Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Centenary of "Karingachira Udampady".

അടിമത്തത്തിന്റെ 100 വര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍

പുലിക്കോട്ടില്‍ തിരുമേനിയെ അനുകൂലിച്ച പള്ളി. പത്രോസു പത്രിയര്‍ക്കെസു വാഴിച്ച മെത്രാനെ കയറ്റാതിരുന്ന പള്ളി. A Quotation about Karingachira Church from Mar Deevannasiosinte Nalagamam (Kandanad Grandhavary).

Kandanad Grandhavary

101 comments:

Geogy Abraham said...

Dear Readers,
I dont have any comments. It is the decision of Parishioners; and it is 100% Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church.

Regards,
GA

Paul said...

Dear Geogy, I would agree if you said that majority is Jacobite; But it is not 100%. I know it well because have stayed for 30 years in the vicinity of the church. Orthodox people are minority there; silent also.

Avarachayan said...

സ്വയം ശിഖണ്ടികള്‍ ആയതിന്റെ ആണോ?

george cherian said...

Karingachira church is not 100% Jacobite church. There are several orthodox believers are part of the membership of this church or now called cathedral. But we all beleive in peace and we do not claim anything special from the church. We just go along with everthing going on in the church and try to be a part of it. In belief, we all are the same whether Jacobite or Orthodox. But I don't understand why should any body be proud of giving church property to a foreigner and then celebrate it after 100 years. I wonder when will these people get their sense back! There is a history to this church, and one should know that this is the church where the trustee of the church refused to give any church money to the visiting Patriarc, Abdulla from Antiochia. He was demanding money is spite of the court order not to give any money to the foreigener. Thus Kunjicheria,(elder brother of late H.G.Petros Mar Osthatios) the trustee saved lots of money for the church. He also redeemed church properties from the hands of several tenants and the financial position of the church was stabilised.He also saw the reconstruction and extension of the old church to the west. He also helped to build several Kurish pallies of the church, including the one in Thiruvankulam junction. These historical facts cannot be destrorted from Karingachira church history. But Kunnjicheria was punished by the Abdulla Patriarch for not giving the church money (collected from hard working poor Indians). However, his services were recognised and he was elected as a member of the Malankara Sabha Managing committee at the meeting held at Kottayam in 1907, presided over by Pulikottil Mar Dynisius.
I wish all success to Karingachira church but it is silly for you to celebrate giving away the church to a foriegner.

Ravi George said...

Celebrating anniversary of SLAVERY document? How SAD!

Just like an old Indian princely kingdom celebrating their surrender to British!

These people are blind with devotion to Antioch who are just FOOLING them. The spirituality which Antioch has is far far inferior to the people in Malankara. Led by devotion to Antioch masters, these people need our prayers, I think . We should tell them why is FREEDOM important for Growth. In fact most church leaders are poorly educated and lacks wisdom. Then any intelligent person can manipulate them. Some leaders are so cunning that they look for an opportunity to come to limelight and please some masters too. What a tragedy!

I do not know when these people will develop a sense of SELF WORTH and ESTEEM. It may take at least one generation!

rinsam2002 said...

DearMTV
Please Make Available "the Udampady" as many of us are not aware of such agreement/udampady.rinsam2002

Ravi George said...

Dear friends

Let us also discuss how to help these people develop a sense of identity and confidence in Christ rather than Antioch which is crumbling 'empire'. Aana melinjalum thozhutthil kettumo ennu oru jacobite friend chothikunnu. Ana cherinjaalo?

Ana ennokke chilarude thetidhaarana aanu. Kothuku pole ayirunnu nammal bandhpetta kalam muthal. Malnkara vannu alaukale pattickuka ayrunnu paripadi. Ippol janangalkku karynagal manassilayi varunnu.
It wil take another generation to create awareness.

Ravi George said...

One team should go to Antioch and study. Then write a book on the present condition of the Church there.
I think the church should send a FAT FINDING COMMITTEE to Antioch

Avarachayan said...

ഹ ഹ ഹാ !!!!!!!!! ഈ യകൊബയക്കാര്‍ ഇനി എന്ന് നന്നാവും എന്നാണ് .ഇതിലും മാന്യത റീത്കാര്‍ക്ക് ഉണ്ടല്ലോ. ഹോ , എന്തൊരു കൂട്ടങ്ങള്‍. ഇങ്ങനെ പാവങ്ങളെ പറ്റിക്കാന്‍ എങ്ങിനെ തോന്നുന്നു ഈ ആട്ടിന്‍ തോലിട്ടവര്‍ക്ക്.

Thomas said...

THESE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO CELEBRATE THE CENTINERY OF " PARATHANTHRYAM " without any shame.

THOMAS KUTTIKANDATHIL.

mohanmathew said...

I think this Church is now ruled by certain grops which accept slvery under Antioch as 'decoration'.

I simply do not understand whatis there to celebrate.

mohanmathew said...

Abdulla Patriarch

Was this Patriarch who jioned teh Catholic Church ana then returned later after some years? Then how come an poortunistic person became a Patriarch?

mohanmathew said...

Ye, Mr Thomas Kuttikandathil,

All over the world you wil see people celebrating independence and cheer freedom

This is a special class of people who will

1. celebrate surreder to another church (BUT NOT Surrendering to CHRIST)

2. Proudly say that "we are under another race"

3. Fight and kill people who cherish their freedom to worship and self-rule under Christ

4. practice opportunistic policies to please political masters whoever is in power and REWARD ungoldly people with medals for material ends

5. Try to spoil the image if the nation and faith.
For istance: Force the Head of the Syrian Church receive athiestic Books from political party leader and faithful to follow principles in that ungodly book.

Joshy said...

Dear george Cheriyan,

There are some inconsistancy in your arguement. First Patriarch Abdulla (as a Patriarch) visited Malnakara only once and that was in 1910. So in no way He and the parishners had any fight over money becuasue during the same visit the Church signed agreemnet and gave it to the Patriarch. And if I am right, then Karingachira church was the first church signed such agreement after Vattasserikl thirumeni's objection to the Patriarch.

And secondly Patriarch's visit happend after the demise of HG Pulikkotil Thirumeni(Vattasseril thirumani was the Mlankara Methran at that time and the visit was to ask explanation from Vattasseril Thirumani about HG's anti-Church activities) so in what way HG Pulikkotil Thirumeni elevate Kunjicheria to the Managing Commitee after said problem with the Patriarch.

So should not try to make history negatively and ignorantly.

Joshy said...

Dear All
Some Orthodox People tend to pretend that they are the masters of wisdom, intelligence, God-worshipping and master crookers!.
The real elightenment is to have been upon these people because bible says "Thannathan Uyarthunnavan thazhthapettirikkum". And not the Jacobites, who believe Antioch is the fountain of the Priesthood . So jacobites are not ashamed and will never be of such agreement.

Ravi George said...

All these Patriarchs and their cronies and their cronis could SHINE in Malankara due to one special genetic property of Indians.

When Britsish was here there were people who showed. In our genes we had a SLAVERY GENES.

But there were people like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhas Bose, Pandit Jawaharlala Nehru and many other nationla leaders who were proud of our national heritage.
In Malankara too, when WHITE skinned people came there were people who surrendered everything. It is said that we had surrendered to vasco da gana who was a special kind of thief. History says he had to spend soem days for cheating some local people.


Our people, some were innocents, and some thought they could get something if these people are in power. So they raised these white skined fatty people to heavsn and declard them as Heads.

It was all unfortunate. Now we know that our fathers did terrible mistakes in the past.

Celebrating a document of surrendering everythig to an outsider! What a non-sense!


The fact is that these Antiochina people have NO special powers. They just played NEELA KURUKKAN HERE!

It is time we realise it now! I believe the Orthodox Churh is doing a wonderful job by defending our India.

If these people are great saints, lok what is happenng in their country! When their lambs are suffering they'll enjoy opulent life style an dhave dinner with all sorts of powerful people.

NOMBU natkan polum vayya...

Ravi George said...

@Joshy

Your statement: "Antioch is the fountain of the Priesthood"

WHO ARABS, the children of Ishamael? What non-sense you're talking? What about Aaron, Levites.. Nowhere in the BIble you wil see that Arabs hold that position

This kind of stupid theories are misleading many poor innocent Jacobites.

There are many who think that Arabs takes the seat next to divinity. Avar ninna sthalam polum avare ariyuka illa.

In fact, they are the CAUSE OF ALL SICKNESS in MALANKARA.Is that why Arabs are being wiped out?

I am absolutely sure that their power is on the vane
and Thank God WE WILL HAVE AN INDEPENDENT CHURCH WITHOUT ANY RACIAL SERVITUDE.

If you plot a GRAPH, you can see that their glory in Malankara is almost nearing an end

I am working on a title "20 reasons why FUTUE will not hold for ANTIOCH in India"

mohanmathew said...

ONE PERSON SAID "Antioch is the fountain of the Priesthood"

WHAT A JOKE!

HA HA HA HAHHHHHAAAHHA

NEVER HEARD SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE!

THAT MEANS CHRIST, MOSES, AND ALL WHO BELONGED TO LEVI TRIBE ..all GOT THEIR PREISTHOOD FROM ANTIOCH.

ST THOMAS also got from these Antiochians. ..sorry ONE ANTIOCHIAN great fellow said in a Kalpana that St THOMAS IS NOT EVEN A PATTAKKARAN.

SOP Except St Thomas everybody...OK?

Reni said...

In India people have just celebrated the independence day last month.

Lot many people are watching. Here some 'Christians' celebrate the 100th anniversary of the surrender of their Church to a foreigner.

It reflects badly on all Christians because others can say we are anti-national people.

Convincing these people that National view is important for a Christian is not an easy task. This is due to the fact that they have been taught that Antioch sits next to God and what they say and do is final.

What a non-sense!

mohanmathew said...

I PRAY THAT TEH NEXT GENERATION OF JACOBITES DO NOT HAVE SLAVERY GENES AND SYCOPHANCY, BUT HAVE SELF-ESTEEM AND REVERENCE FOR GOD

Joshy said...

Dear Ravi,

Many times you people say Christains must believe in God only(true, no doubt) and Under Him there is no race, creed,etc, but when it comes to Jacobites u say Arab, Indian, money, slaves etc.. Is in't hypocracy????

And remember that we are not Jews. The priesthood of Levi had continued till Jesus Christ was born. After Christainity emerged the leneage of Levi tribe ceased to exist. And no Christan bishops claims he belongs to Levi tribe, but Jews have never accepted Jesus Christ so does keep continue the leneage of Levi Tribe with them.

And your dream about the ending of relationship with Antioch, it is nothing but a "malarpodikkarante Swanam Mathram"... Under Antioch's leadership supported by Malalankara Synod under the leadership of HB Thomas I, Jacobite Church is flourishing than any other Oriental churches.

Why are u people so jolousy??

rajan said...

Dear Readers,
I am pasting here some sites details having different Apostololic Tradition and authority other than St. Peter which some ignorant people claim that St. Peter is the head and others have no apostolic authority.
Is the Yoke only applicable to the Malankara Orthodox Church? Why the antiocian’s valattykal try to impose on us? Yes once our forefathers made a mistake, saipine kandapoll kavathu marannu. They gave them the chief guest and celebrant positions in olden days. It was in harmony and considering one body but did not recognize the Antiocian’s greedy eye on the wealth of Malankara like Judas the betrayer.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew.
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[18]
The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew[19]
The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Thaddeus (Jude)[20]
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[21]
The Church of the East, including the Saint Thomas Church (e.g., Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church[22]) claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas the Apostle
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas[23]
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip[24]
The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just,[25] although this line includes Patriarchs in exile.[26] (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )
The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Peter called "Prince of the Apostles" (see Petrine Succession
contd....
Varghese Mathai
member of SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

Are they independent or not? Or are they under the supremacy of Pope and Antiocian Patriarch?
Further the writing form a prominent writer shown below explain in deep about the authority of all the Apostels that our Lord has given to them and to their ancestors. Vague discussions and blunders are never the solutions. One can make darkness by selves by closing his eye. But, others too can’t be like him.
Four Marks of the Church - by Kenneth D. Whitehead
We can show how the Church of the apostles resembles in all essentials the Church of today by showing how the early Church already bore the marks, or "notes," of the true Church of Christ which are still professed today in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed declares the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Thus, the Church of the apostles was definitely one: "There is one body and one spirit," Paul wrote, "just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5). Paul linked this primitive unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).
(Note: A body got different parts, like different church as a whole is His bride and one body)
Similarly, the Church of the apostles was holy. When we say that, we mean among other things that it had the all-holy God himself as author. We do not mean that all of its members have ceased to be sinners and have themselves become all-holy. On the contrary, the Church from the beginning, on her human side, has been composed of sinners: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). The Church was founded for no other reason than to continue Christ's redemptive and sanctifying work with them in the world.
Contd....
Varghese Mathai
member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

One of the things implicit in the appellation "holy" as applied to the Church, then, is that the Church from the beginning has been endowed with the sacramental means to help make holy the sinners who are found in her ranks. The Church has been given the sacraments along with the word precisely in order to be able to help make sinners holy.
It was in this sense that Paul was able to write, "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). The holiness of the Church, of which the creed properly speaks, has always had reference to her divine Founder and to what the Church was founded by him with the power and authority to do, not with the condition of her members.
The third great historic mark or note of the one true Church was that this Church was Catholic. "Catholic" means "universal." It refers as much to the fullness of the faith which it possesses as it does to the undeniable extension in both time and space which has characterized it virtually from the beginning. At the very beginning, of course, it was no doubt difficult to see how the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) of which the Church then consisted could by any stretch of the imagination qualify as "universal." Still, just as the embryo contains in germ the whole human being, so the Church already contained the universality that would quickly begin to manifest itself.
It is not without significance that the Holy Spirit came down upon the Church at Pentecost at a time when "there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). It was to them that the Holy Spirit temporarily enabled the apostles to speak in the languages of all these various nations--a powerful sign that the Church was destined for all men everywhere, represented at that first Pentecost in Jerusalem by those of many nations who had come there from afar. Many accepted the faith then and there and presumably began forthwith carrying "the Catholic Church" back to the four corners of the earth.
(Note: Every one present on that day has given the authority to spread and establish the church representing the twelve tribes)
contd....
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Shajrah

rajan said...

The Catholicity of the Church in any case resides as much in the fact that the Church is for everybody at all times as it does in the fact that it was indeed destined to spread everywhere throughout the whole world. Within a few years of the foundation of the Church, Paul was writing that "the word of truth . . . in the whole world . . . is bearing fruit and growing" (Col. 1:5-6).
Finally, the Church that issued from the commission of Christ to the apostles was necessarily apostolic. Christ founded the Church upon the apostles and in no othe way: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" he asked them (John 6:70). The apostles of all people understood perfectly well that they did not set themselves up in their own little community, as we sometimes today see "gospel churches" set up in store fronts or in the suburbs. The New Testament teaches, "One does not take the honor upon himself" (Heb. 5:4).
(Note: Like the protestant do not stick to once stanza of the bible “you are rock and I built my church on you”. Read the whole part and then understand the mystery hidden in it)
Nothing is clearer, then, that the Church started out as "apostolic." The question is whether the apostles had the power and authority to pass on to others what they had received from Christ. We have already seen that they very definitely did have this power and authority; the New Testament evidence is clear about that. The subsequent historical evidence is equally clear that they did pass it on to successors (the bishops). Indeed there are already references in the New Testament itself to the appointment of bishops by the apostles, as well as to the appointment of further bishops by them (Titus 1:5-9).
(Note: St. Paul did not insist that St. Peter should come and ordain the Bishop. Don’t get confused with the word leaders, because this portion clearly attributes the qualities that a priest or bishop should adhere in his life)
contd...
Varghese Mathai
member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

When we ask where, if anywhere, is to be found the same Church which the New Testament tells us Christ founded, we have to reformulate the question to ask: What Church, if any, descends in an unbroken line from the apostles of Jesus Christ (and also, not incidentally, possesses the other essential notes of the true Church of which the creed speaks)?
Further, to introduce a point we have not dwelt upon at all up to now, What Church, if any, is headed by a single recognized designated leader, just as the apostles of Jesus plainly functioned, on the evidence of the New Testament, under the headship of Peter?
To ask these questions is to answer them: Any entity or body claiming to be the Church of Christ would have to be able to demonstrate its apostolicity by demonstrating an organic link with the original apostles on whom Christ manifestly established his Church. Nothing less than this could qualify as the "apostolic" Church which Jesus founded.
As much for our instruction as for the assurance he intended to give to the apostles to whom he was actually speaking, Jesus said, "He who hears you, hears me" (Luke 10:16). Do we take these words seriously today? Do we listen to the teachings of the successors of the apostles of Jesus, the bishops, in union with and under the successor of the apostle Peter, the pope, as if these teachings were the words of Christ himself?
If we do, we are properly members of the Church which Jesus Christ founded on the apostles and which has come down to us from them. If we do not, how can we pretend that we take anything seriously that Christ said and taught?
He said nothing more solemnly and categorically than these words, in which he declared that the apostles and their successors would speak for him in the serious business of gathering in and sanctifying his people and leading them toward the salvation he offers. Jesus intended that the fullness of his grace should come to his people in a Church that, from the beginning, was what the creed still calls it today: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
(Note: I hope people with clear vision and insight and the wisdom (the gift of God) can understand above write ups. People may have knowledge, but the blind can’t lead another blind. Only the remedy is to pray for them so that the enlighten one let guide them to the clear vision).
Varghese Mathai
member SGOC Shajrah

rajan said...

If we do, we are properly members of the Church which Jesus Christ founded on the apostles and which has come down to us from them. If we do not, how can we pretend that we take anything seriously that Christ said and taught?
He said nothing more solemnly and categorically than these words, in which he declared that the apostles and their successors would speak for him in the serious business of gathering in and sanctifying his people and leading them toward the salvation he offers. Jesus intended that the fullness of his grace should come to his people in a Church that, from the beginning, was what the creed still calls it today: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
(Note: I hope people with clear vision and insight and the wisdom (the gift of God) can understand above write ups. People may have knowledge, but the blind can’t lead another blind. Only the remedy is to pray for them so that the enlighten one let guide them to the clear vision).
Varghese Mathai
member SGOC Sharjah

george cherian said...

Dear Joshy,
Thank you for pointing out that I did not present the events in a chronlogical order. It is correct that Kunjicheria was elected to the Malankara Sabha Management committee in 1907 in a meeting presided by H.G.Pulikottil Mar Dynisius before the visit of Abdulla Patriarch to Karingachira church. He was a member of the committee that denied the ownership of Indian churches by Antochia Patriarch.
Patriarch Mor Ignatios Abdel-Aloho II (Abdulla in Arabic) became Patriarch after desposition of Patriarch Abdul Masih. He had visited India in 1874-77 with Patriarch Peter IV. Then after becoming Patriarch in 1906, he visited India again via, London in 1908-12 (available information in Syriacorthodox resources & Patriarchs of Antioch). During this visit, he did not get permission from Malankara Managing committee to own churches in India (which he had requested). In order to challenge this decision, H.G.Abdulla Patriach came to Karingachira church to ask for the ownership of the church. There were lots of objection to this request within the church members, including the trustees. Only few of the priests and members, some of them did not even understand the Patriarch (he did not speak malayalam), agree to sign off the church and signed the document. Thus, this was not a peaceful process with unanimous consent.A priest of the church was even arrested for taking the church money away from the trustees and giving to the Patriarch. It is correct that Karingachira Church was the only church (foolish enough) to sign the agreement, giving away the church property to a foreigner. The Patriarch might have known that he cannot get such an agreement from any other church in Malankara and left India.
The futuure generation of the Church should decide whether anyone should celeberate such unholy acts by a foreign Patriarch. It may be interesting to find out what H.G. Patriarch Abdulla could have done with Indian money those days and his role (if any) in the deposition of his predecessor, Ignatis Abdul Masih. These things may be interesting for the history of the church but have no meaning to the present generation.

rajan said...

Dear Readers,
I am pasting here some sites details having different Apostololic Tradition and authority other than St. Peter which some ignorant people claim that St. Peter is the head and others have no apostolic authority.
Is the Yoke only applicable to the Malankara Orthodox Church? Why the antiocian’s valattykal try to impose on us? Yes once our forefathers made a mistake, saipine kandapoll kavathu marannu. They gave them the chief guest and celebrant positions in olden days. It was in harmony and considering one body but did not recognize the Antiocian’s greedy eye on the wealth of Malankara like Judas the betrayer.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew.
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[18]
The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew[19]
The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Thaddeus (Jude)[20]
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark[21]
contd...
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

The Church of the East, including the Saint Thomas Church (e.g., Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church[22]) claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas the Apostle
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas[23]
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip[24]
The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just,[25] although this line includes Patriarchs in exile.[26] (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )
The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Peter called "Prince of the Apostles" (see Petrine Succession
Are they independent or not? Or are they under the supremacy of Pope and Antiocian Patriarch?
Further the writing form a prominent writer shown below explain in deep about the authority of all the Apostels that our Lord has given to them and to their ancestors. Vague discussions and blunders are never the solutions. One can make darkness by selves by closing his eye. But, others too can’t be like him.
Contd...
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

Four Marks of the Church - by Kenneth D. Whitehead
We can show how the Church of the apostles resembles in all essentials the Church of today by showing how the early Church already bore the marks, or "notes," of the true Church of Christ which are still professed today in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed declares the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Thus, the Church of the apostles was definitely one: "There is one body and one spirit," Paul wrote, "just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-5). Paul linked this primitive unity to the Church's common Eucharistic bread: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17). Jesus had promised at the outset that "there would be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16).
(Note: A body got different parts, like different church as a whole is His bride and one body)
Similarly, the Church of the apostles was holy. When we say that, we mean among other things that it had the all-holy God himself as author. We do not mean that all of its members have ceased to be sinners and have themselves become all-holy. On the contrary, the Church from the beginning, on her human side, has been composed of sinners: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15). The Church was founded for no other reason than to continue Christ's redemptive and sanctifying work with them in the world.
One of the things implicit in the appellation "holy" as applied to the Church, then, is that the Church from the beginning has been endowed with the sacramental means to help make holy the sinners who are found in her ranks. The Church has been given the sacraments along with the word precisely in order to be able to help make sinners holy.
Contd...
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

It was in this sense that Paul was able to write, "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). The holiness of the Church, of which the creed properly speaks, has always had reference to her divine Founder and to what the Church was founded by him with the power and authority to do, not with the condition of her members.
The third great historic mark or note of the one true Church was that this Church was Catholic. "Catholic" means "universal." It refers as much to the fullness of the faith which it possesses as it does to the undeniable extension in both time and space which has characterized it virtually from the beginning. At the very beginning, of course, it was no doubt difficult to see how the "little flock" (Luke 12:32) of which the Church then consisted could by any stretch of the imagination qualify as "universal." Still, just as the embryo contains in germ the whole human being, so the Church already contained the universality that would quickly begin to manifest itself.
Contd...
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

It is not without significance that the Holy Spirit came down upon the Church at Pentecost at a time when "there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). It was to them that the Holy Spirit temporarily enabled the apostles to speak in the languages of all these various nations--a powerful sign that the Church was destined for all men everywhere, represented at that first Pentecost in Jerusalem by those of many nations who had come there from afar. Many accepted the faith then and there and presumably began forthwith carrying "the Catholic Church" back to the four corners of the earth.
(Note: Every one present on that day has given the authority to spread and establish the church representing the twelve tribes)
The Catholicity of the Church in any case resides as much in the fact that the Church is for everybody at all times as it does in the fact that it was indeed destined to spread everywhere throughout the whole world. Within a few years of the foundation of the Church, Paul was writing that "the word of truth . . . in the whole world . . . is bearing fruit and growing" (Col. 1:5-6).
Contd...
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

Finally, the Church that issued from the commission of Christ to the apostles was necessarily apostolic. Christ founded the Church upon the apostles and in no othe way: "Did I not choose you, the twelve?" he asked them (John 6:70). The apostles of all people understood perfectly well that they did not set themselves up in their own little community, as we sometimes today see "gospel churches" set up in store fronts or in the suburbs. The New Testament teaches, "One does not take the honor upon himself" (Heb. 5:4).
(Note: Like the protestant do not stick to once stanza of the bible “you are rock and I built my church on you”. Read the whole part and then understand the mystery hidden in it)
Nothing is clearer, then, that the Church started out as "apostolic." The question is whether the apostles had the power and authority to pass on to others what they had received from Christ. We have already seen that they very definitely did have this power and authority; the New Testament evidence is clear about that. The subsequent historical evidence is equally clear that they did pass it on to successors (the bishops). Indeed there are already references in the New Testament itself to the appointment of bishops by the apostles, as well as to the appointment of further bishops by them (Titus 1:5-9).
(Note: St. Paul did not insist that St. Peter should come and ordain the Bishop. Don’t get confused with the word leaders, because this portion clearly attributes the qualities that a priest or bishop should adhere in his life)
Contd...
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

When we ask where, if anywhere, is to be found the same Church which the New Testament tells us Christ founded, we have to reformulate the question to ask: What Church, if any, descends in an unbroken line from the apostles of Jesus Christ (and also, not incidentally, possesses the other essential notes of the true Church of which the creed speaks)?
Further, to introduce a point we have not dwelt upon at all up to now, What Church, if any, is headed by a single recognized designated leader, just as the apostles of Jesus plainly functioned, on the evidence of the New Testament, under the headship of Peter?
To ask these questions is to answer them: Any entity or body claiming to be the Church of Christ would have to be able to demonstrate its apostolicity by demonstrating an organic link with the original apostles on whom Christ manifestly established his Church. Nothing less than this could qualify as the "apostolic" Church which Jesus founded.
As much for our instruction as for the assurance he intended to give to the apostles to whom he was actually speaking, Jesus said, "He who hears you, hears me" (Luke 10:16). Do we take these words seriously today? Do we listen to the teachings of the successors of the apostles of Jesus, the bishops, in union with and under the successor of the apostle Peter, the pope, as if these teachings were the words of Christ himself?
Contd....
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Sharjah

rajan said...

If we do, we are properly members of the Church which Jesus Christ founded on the apostles and which has come down to us from them. If we do not, how can we pretend that we take anything seriously that Christ said and taught?
He said nothing more solemnly and categorically than these words, in which he declared that the apostles and their successors would speak for him in the serious business of gathering in and sanctifying his people and leading them toward the salvation he offers. Jesus intended that the fullness of his grace should come to his people in a Church that, from the beginning, was what the creed still calls it today: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
(Note: I hope people with clear vision and insight and the wisdom (the gift of God) can understand above write ups. People may have knowledge, but the blind can’t lead another blind. Only the remedy is to pray for them so that the enlighten one let guide them to the clear vision).
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC Shajrah

Ravi George said...

Joshy

You got it wrong.

We are for equality. We are fighting against this mentality of ARAB Christians.

So that is why we say the supremacy which Arab exhibits is a terrible mistake. Orthodox church do not accept while yo keep praing the Antochians.

While we have the lost tribes of Israel among us in Malankara, we are not going to claim any supremacy But we wil say it fight the Arab supremacy theory supported by some people in Malankara.

Joshy, if you too think that RACISM is against Faith and practice of Christinity will you please demand that cluase to be removed form the constitution of teh Antiochian Church.

I am sure your next generation of Jacobites (if they exist) will react strongly aginst it.Most probably Antioch will vanish evern before that.


Thanks, Joshi

Ravi George said...

If you think Isrealites have no special importance, Why did Jesus told apostles FIRST GO TO THE LOST TRIBES OF ISREAL"?
In fcat Thomas Sleeha cam to Malankara in search of the lost people of isreal, obeying hisaters's command (THE MASTER was NOT PETER, I hope you understand why St. Thomas is more important to India). It exactly obeyed by Orthodox Church. Antioc church tried to break by issuing Kalpana :"Thomas is not even a Pattakkaren"

WHO IS THIS PATRIARCH TO SAY IT? What right he got to dishonour Christ who made St Thomas his own Thomas

I STRONGLY CONDEMN THIS STATEMENT OF THAT SO CALLED PATRIARCH

Reni said...

@Joshy

You have taken so much pain to narrate when we have Jesus (GOD IS FOREINGER?), St Thomas, all foreign .. why can't you have Foreign Head.

OK, Joshy.. we are ready to have foreigner....

BUT JOSHY, Will you please anser THIS QUESTION?

WHY CAN"T THE SAME LOGIC BE APPLICABLE TO ANTIOCHIAN CHURCH who have especilly included in their econstitution THE CHURCH HEAD SHOULD ONLY SELCTED FROM MINORITY ARAB? When others should accept their Heads, why can;t they have an INDIAN member of the Church as the Patriarch?


IF any member of the Antiochian Church (jacobite too are membes of the Antochian church) i seaqully eligible to be considered as the Patriarch, JOSHY< i am ready to become a member of the Jacobite Church

Reni said...

NO DOUBT THAT IF WE CONSIDER THAT THE ARABS CHRISTIANS ARE ISHMALITES AND WE IN MALANKARA HAVE ISRAELITES AMONG US, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WE ARE A SUPERIOR RACE.

BUT WE DO NOT USE IT TO CLAIM SUPREMACY. NOT DO WE HAVE IT IN OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE RACIAL THINKING IS AGAINST GOD AND I SBAD FOR THE CHURCH.

IT IS ARABS WHO HAVE WRITTEN IN THEIR CONSTITUTION THAT NON-ARAB MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH DO NOT HAVE TEH ELIGIBILTY TO BECOME THE HEAD OF THE CHRUCH.

SEE WHO IS RACIAL!

WE CONDEMN THSI RACIAL EVIL MENTALITY OF ANTIOCH AND ALSO THEIR SUPPORTERS IN MALANKARA

Reni said...

THANK YOU, Mr Varghese Mathai

I am surprsied that the Jacobites who are born citizens of India do not understand the reality.

They blindly support the Antioch. See how they contradcit themselves

JACOBITES BELIEVE:
In the case of India, everything foreign (read ANTIOCH) should be acceptable

In the case of Antioch, foreigners (READ INDIANS) are not acceptable.

(IS THIS BECAUSE ANTIOCH WAS LOWERED STRIGHT FROM HEAVENS just liek Peter's dream???)

EE kalla logic onnu ini ivide natakilla Joshi. Some cronies wil cry out fro some more years: ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH ANTIOCH

It will die a natural death in the near future

mohanmathew said...

In the past, before independence was won, some kings had donated their STATE to British. I do not know if anybody is celebraiting it. Such gifts are invalid now.

Ithu nammde duryogam aanu. Anthyokyaayude chila araadhakar innum avarkku sthuti padi kazhiyunnu.

Such people who support Antioch in all activities do not have a sense of wisdom.
In fact thee people have spoiled Antioch.

Also Antioch supporters have become so much insensitive to the demands of a great nation.

It will take many more years before these people reaslise that it was a shear waste of time and energy that they supported Antioch.

rajan said...

Dear Brother George Cherian,

You have pointed out the real facts and the truth that has happened. Let the supporters defend this? They cant as truth can,t be hidden for a long time.
We can only console about our brothers as to dilute their hearts as our Lord Himself said "wouldn't be able to see and hear as they are rough hearted and do not allow the Light and Truth (God) to work"
Further it was so proud to note that our Fathers patiently sustained all these humiliations. Who is a Patriark to ask explanaions to the Apostolic Throne of any of the followers of Christ. Defenitely he has disobeyed the commandments of our Lord and His desiples because of his greedness.
But now we do not want our neighbor, above the head of the family any more even though we have erroneously gave a corutsey in the past. But he thought to spoil.......?
Leave them aside. Lord has said to us if one beat you on your left show him the other one. But if he beat again and again. There is limit seven seventy times. But it has gone beyond seven seveny million times. We can't tolerate more.
Varghese Mathai
Member SGOC, Sharjah

rinsam2002 said...

Dear Joshy
Are you A Day Dreamer! You say Antiochea is the Foundain of Priesthood!Have you Ever read Bible! especially read 1 St.Peter epistle2:9.St.Peter Caimed himself an elder(kaseesa) among other elders of early church(1peter:1)
Thr Christian Priest hood were given to All Apostles By Jesus Christ!Again Read Acts13:1-2 Who Ordained Saul(apostle Paul) and Barnabas!
The Christian priest hood started functioning from Jeusalem!Not From Antioch.
Please refrain from making baseless Comments!

sam said...

The Primacy of St.Peter as "head of Apostles" had always been taught by Syrian orthodox/Jacobites in their church.Which is Contrary to Jesus Christ's teachings!
This "Primacy"is Man made by twisting the meanings of Verses In Scripture,so as to suite one's need and an answer to Man's greed to exert authority over his fellow being!Luke 9:46-48,22:24-26, and mark 9:33-37 if we read and learn carefully we can understand what eas Jesus Christ taught his disciples!Mathew 16:19 is really mean like this"Peter your faith is like rock,and on this like faith I will build my Church"! One needs a faith as hard as rock in order to establish Christ's church!
Jesus knew all his apostles(except Iscariot) had that faith!That is the unique reason Why Jesus Christ told his disiples "go and preach the gospel to all nations and make disciples of them"Which implies that Jesus Christ 'Authenciated' all his disciples to establish his church to glorify God In all nations!Jesus Christ did not make Peter an overseer over the churches established by other disciples!
St.John 21:15,16,17,these authority Jesus gave to simon Peter,on his 3rd appearance at sea of Tiberias ,is being used By The Beloved Disciple in his epistle 1John 2:12,2:13,2:14.All apostles are equal and they have same authority and position!

Ravi George said...

THE ONLY INELIGIBLE DISCIPLE JUDAS was removed and MATHIAS took his place.

To teach that ONE MORE DISCIPLE is ineligiblel is against CHRIST and is being taight with malicious motives. This came as a kalpana isseud by patriarch was inspired asn part of the evil plan by the jacibite in Malankara.

Now they know well that their plan is not working.

THE SINGLE KALpANA IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE ANTIOCHIAN THRONE IS NOT a GODLY INSPIRED ONE anymore!

THIS KALPANA AGAINST CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLE is a permanent BLOTON THE ANTIOCH

Ravi George said...

Earlier only the Roman Church used to say that St peter is the head of the apostles. None of the Orthodox churches accepted it as it was only part of a greedy design by ROME.

Antochian Church, inspired by certain croonies in Malankara, raise this to suppress the St Thomas Christians. BUT AS PROVED LATER, IT BACK-FIRED on them. Now it is only a blot on Antioch themsleves.

Joshy said...

Dear Reni & All,
First of all why the clause of "Arab origin only" Patriarch in the Consti'tion. The reason is simple, in many West Asian countrties foreigners (Indian) cannot own land, administer property, claim head of the people or the church, while some Arab Mulsim rulers(secular) have give some basic rights to minorities(Christains: Marinite, Coptic, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Cathiloc etc..) Other than an Arab origin,no bishop would get recognition from the poltical ruler of these countries. remeber that for long time Pope appoints an arab as the Patriarch for the Syriac Catholic in the Middle east. And also untill SOC Patriarchate was establised in Syria it had to be shifted to many places from Mardin of Turkey. That is why such close has been put in place in the Consti'tion, it is not for colonialism or aginst the wishes of the Malalnkara jacobites.

And again to all commentators, it is not SOC impose St. Peter upon MOSC rather MOSC tries to scuttle St. Pepetr's Throne. If you want St. Thomas is the throne of MOSC , no problem you can claim, conitue and worship. Nobody is going to question about it. But remember that it is the fundamental right of the Jacbite to worship of their own believe(St. Peter). The simple reason if this blog is to negate the believe of Jacobites, is it Chrisatian way??

Don't try to impose your teaching upon the Jacobite.

Reni said...

Joshy

Your non-Arab Patriarch is not acceptable in the Arab countries. Fine. We haev no problsm. ]

Then why he wants to rule other nations?

Also, WHY SHOULD WE INDIANS ACCEPT A NON-INDIAN AS CHURCH HEAD?
Don't we have the right to be patriotic just like the Arabs?

As you said "Don't try to impose your Patriarch on Indians"

Our forefathers made many blunders - one was accepting the leadership of Arabs. But in this generation we understadn itis wise to be PATRIOTIC. We will dump a non-Indian in theh Arabian sea. Jacobite will take a few more generations to underastand as they are a bit SLOW

Reni said...

Joshy,

WHAT HAVE YOU TO SAY ON THE KALAPANA OF YOUR PATRIACH THAT THOMA SLEEHA IS NOT EVEN A PATTAKKARAN

(which means Thomas Sleeha is of lower dignity than Fr Varghese Thekkekkara who was the SEcreatary of Angamali diocese)

My question is: Why is Thoma Almeni?

ONNUKIL THOMA KALLANA, KAARANAM THOMA IVIDE PATTAKKARE VAZHICCHILLE?

ALLENKIL ITHU KALPANAYAKKIYA PATRIARCH KALLANA.

AARA KALLAN, JOSHI?

Reni said...

Dear Joshi

We do not worship St Thomas, we worship only Lord Christ. We only say that St Thomas has EQUAL DIGNITY like any other apostle. THEY ARE ALL BROTHERS as Jesus said in Matthew 23:10.

if you thnk Peter can be worshipped, underastand that we have every right to preach aginst it and we are doing the same.

We wil also condemn the irresponsibel Patriarch who issued a Kalpana that Thomas is just an ALMENI. (We will also say this Patriarch is not of Lord christ).
We are ashamed that some of our own people have turned REBLES and are supporting this FALSE Patriarch

mohanmathew said...

BY THE END OF THIS DECADE, THE SAME JACOBOTES WHO NOW SAY THAT ST THOMAS DOES NOT HAVE A THRONE,WILL SAY THAT THE THRONE OF ST THOMAS IN IN PUTHENKURISHU.

WAIT FOR A FEW MORE YEARS. MAY BE SOON AFTER HB THOMAS'S REIGN

rinsam2002 said...

DearJoshy
Your Jacobite fathers are not teaching you right/true things in Christianity! For their own existence and self glory they misinterpret Bible or teachings of Christ! You Must read Bible( not Kaniamparabil Achan's translation),then yu will understand What Christ said about position of Apostles in Church!
Can You Tell me any Bible verse supporting your alleged claim That St.Peter established his Throne in Antioch?You Must Read Acts 11:19-25 It was after St.Paul(saul) and Barnabas Combined mission/Gospel work for more than a year The Name Christianity were given to Followers of Christ In Antioch!
You must understand It is not Peter alone who preached Gospel in Antioch!There is No Petrine Supermacy in Orthodox Churches!Only Antiochean fathers show it to Malankara people!
It is not Orthodox people in Malankara who Are Claiming to be Superior/boss to Jacobites! It is your Antiochean fathers and their Allies in Malankara who are posing superior to MOSC!

Avarachayan said...

എടാവേ ഈ ചങ്ങായിമാരോട് വേദാന്തം പറഞ്ഞു സമയം കളയേണ്ട. മലങ്കരയുടെ ശാപം ആണ് ഈ യാക്കൊബായക്കാരും അവരുടെ നേതാവ് തോമസ്‌ പ്രഥമനും. ആ പുള്ളിക്കാരന്‍ എന്തിനാണ് തോമസ്‌ എന്ന പേരില്‍ നടക്കുന്നത്. തോമാശ്ലീഹാ ക്ക് പട്ടത്‌ാമില്ല എന്നും പറയുന്നു.

george cherian said...

Dear friends,
Please read what is in the Bible: Read Jeremiah Chapter 5.31;

"The phophets prophessy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

If we all are christians, let us not fight over all man made things, divisions and calling others names but decide what we can do to have peace among christians and in the world. This is the only thing that we can do for our future generation. When I read all these evil comments at this web site, I am sad. Some of them have the same comments for everything. We should be above all these bad temptations.
I suggest that we start a peace movement at this site and try to unite, irrespective of our differences. Let us see where we can have common grounds to unite. I like to see a united Orthodox/Jacobite church in our life-time. May be our Bishops & priests don't want this to happen. We should tell them their ideas are not acceptable to us. OK, where to start, at each church let us form a small group for peace; invite few people from nearby church with opposite view to join you for a meeting with no shouting/calling names but use your brain to see how we can all unite and form a group for peace. If we can achieve this from bottom up, we can convince our church leaders that they cannot fool us any more. They all have to join us for peace and give up their agendas,status and positions for a united and better Christianity.
This is what we have to do to answer " What will ye do in the end thereoff?".
I hope that I did not offend anyone with extreme views. Let us be a useful model for our future generation, and attract them to christianity. I hope that everyone at this site will start thinking positively and stop calling names and finding fault with people with a different belief. We all have the right to live in this world peacefully for a short time, may be 120 years!

Reni said...

Joshi's post on September 13, 2010 11:36 AM is very important for continuing the discussions.


Joshy says: Foreigners (Indian) cannot own land, administer property, claim head of the people or the church, while some Arab Muslim rulers (secular) have give some basic rights to minorities (Christains: Marinite, Coptic, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Cathiloc etc..) Other than an Arab origin, no bishop would get recognition from the poltical ruler of these countries. But Joshi also says it is not for colonialism or aginst the wishes of the Malalnkara Jacobites.

Dear dear brothers Mathew & Joshy,
I appreciate your love for your church. But let us look at the FACTS too

According to the above statement, I understand that Arabs have no problems in accepting Jesus and St Peter (Both are of Jewish origin and racially both enemies of Arabs). But Arabs cannot accept foreigners as bishops or head of the church.

Just like the Arabs, myself being an Indian and a patriot, is hesitant to be led by a foreigner. Hindus who are 85 % of Indians also think that India should not be under a foreign bishop. But we like Arabs, have no problem in acepting Christ (GOD) and his messenger St Thomas.

We just demand to GIVE US THE SAME FREEDOM WHICH YOU HAVE PERMITTED TO ARABS, not even an inch more and not even an inch less. (NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS)

I understand the BIBLE prophecy that all nations, all races will come to believe in Christ. Then how does it happen to the Indian nationalists who are not willing to be under any foreigner bishop? BUT SOMEHOW THIS PROPHECY MUST HAPPEN.

Therefore while accepting Christ (God) and St Thomas (founder father of Indian Church) we MUST have an Indian as our HEAD HEAD. We are glad that Arabs have that system there. We are glad that system has alreay begunis already here now. We cannot agree with the Jacobite people who says "IT IS OKAY FOR ARABS, BUT NOT OKAY FOR INDIANS"

mohanmathew said...

JACOBITES WILL CLEARLY EVADE ANSWERING ANY QUESTION REGARDING THE PATTATHVAM OF ST THOMAS because if they the TRUTH it is against Patriarch who was inspred by Jacobites themselves.

Dear Joshi & friends

WHAT IS THOMAS, an Almeni or a Pattakkaran?

Ravi George said...

From the postings of Joshy, I understand that he agrees that national pride and self-respect can be approved by the church. He says it is the Arabs who have not permitted foreign bishops in their land. I think he finds no injustice in doing so.

If the Antioch church thinks this is against the spirit of teachings of Christ we will be happy if Antochina church could move the Antiochian throne to Puthunkurissu (since they are not happy it being in Kottayam.)

ANY COMMENSTS from Joshy, or Mr Mathew?

Reni said...

WE in MALANkARA should focus 80 per cent of of discussions on FUTURE INDIA CHURCH.

BUt living in the PAST, here we are fighting for 'foreigners'.

What is advantage for fighting for foreigners?

IN THE PRESENT WORLD, we have so many churches and so many nations....Can we find any church, any nations in the world which accept the leadership of any other nation or Church?

THE ONLY ADVANTAGE: WE are making the life of our future generations miserabale. If we don't do something about it NOW, there is no doubt that coming generation will throw all our past in the ARABIAN SEA. That wil end of the past. So better FOCUS on future now.



FUTURE GENERATIONS OF CHRISTiANS IN INDIA SHOULD Grow up as independent asd free Christians BUT CONNECTED TO THE WHOLE WORLD (world is becoming smaller) on the principles of equality and equal dignity.

Joshy said...

Dear Mohan Mathew,
I had already written about St. Thomas here and in another Orthodox forum. See the Throne of St. Thomas is not a centrury or millenium old phenomina, it is recently (decades)emerged to negate the role of Patriarch of Antioch in Malankara. Jacobites beielve St. Thomas brought Christainity to India but the priest hood is with St. Peter. You can claim opposite to that, as one author wrote above there are many churches who claim priesthood from different fathers ; St. Andrew, St. Mark etc, similarly you can claim (for MOSConly) St. Thomas brought priesthood to India. If St. Thomas had brought priesthood to India then why do you claim the relationship with East Syrian Church during the pre-Koonan Kurishu Satyam. Almost all other Oreintal churches flourished by their own rituals and believes, not its relationship with another. On the other hand Jacobites see the relationship Malankra enjoyed had only with Antioch. In a securlar nation like India,you can profess your conviction, it is upto you.

And to Reni,
We dont see any problem of having an Arab at the head our church. See the notion on "nationality" comes when the person(foreigner) at the top enjoyes ulitmate power over the deciples, but in Jacobites we have a regional synod headed by a Catholicose to do day-to-day admin. Importanly, whenever Malankara church faced preoblems from different quarters, the Patriarchate of Antioch actally was ready to suffer for the malankara people and sent bishops from time to time. We love them as the apostles of Jesus Christ loved Him.

rinsam2002 said...

Joshy
East Syrian Church is not Syrian Orthodox Church! East syrian Church is Church in Persia founded by St.Thomas the apostle!Malankara had Realy relation with Persian/ Alexandrean churches! Prior to Coonan Cross oath WE(Mosc)had no relation with Syrian orthodox church/Antioch!Jacobites believe That Antiocheans are the one brought Christanity in India!
We are not imposing anybody any thing here! Jacobites need not bother about MTV blogs they can keep away themselves!

Reni said...

Joshi

Adding to what Rinsam has written, relationship with another chruch can be of diffrent levels. Ouor relationship with the Persian church was not for ordination.

You people being UNDER Antioch can only understand a superior-inferior relationship. There an eb relationship on EQUAL terms.

Reni said...

Malankara Sabha latest issue has an article written by Fr Dr jacob Kurian. It says about the presence of decendants of Isreal in Malankara.

If Jacobites start talking about Arabs who are ISHMAELITES understand that we are superior to them by the presence of ISRAELITES in MALANKARA. Therefore we do not need any Arab as our head

Reni said...

Joshy says Jacobites do not have any problem in having an Arab at the head their church.

THAT IS THE CASE WITH SLAVES.

BUT WHEN WE DISCUSS THE FUTURE OF INDIAN CHRISTIANITY WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT AN ORDINARY INDIAN WOULD THINK ABOUT AN ARAB BEING THE HEAD OF THE INDIAN CHURCH. SO OUR OPINION WAS BASED ON IT

(We are least bothered what slaves want though their own future generations may find it hard to diget)

Reni said...

Joshu thinsk that Malnkara Church was closely related with Antioch from the very begining of Christianity in India. I request him to read KERAL CHARITHRAM by well-known historain Padmabhooshan Prof.SREEDHARA MENON.

I REQUEST ALL ORTHODOX FRIENDS TO BUY and keep A COPY OF THIS BOOK published by DC books and see how it goes with the history as taught by Orthodox Church. Not only that you can fight LIARS with this book. I have found it to be very useful and have silenced many liars incluiding one well-known Jacobite.

Another good book is Malabar Manual published by Mathrubhoomi ( this book costs about Rs 400 I think)

Dr Herman Gundert's books on Kerala History, published by Mathrubhoomi is also very good.

Reni said...

Joshy, my question was whether St Thomas a PRIEST or an ALMENI?

Your Patriarch said St Thomas was not even a Priest which means he was just an Almeni.

Ravi George said...

What is your regional synod Joshy? Eveybody knows it is just a namesake team. A one-man-synod has just one vote in the selection of patriarch.

Selection of Arab race patriarch is NOT THE ONLY THING. Your bishops do not have VOTE ALSO. ONLY THOMAS BAVA has vote.

IS that too according to the decision of Arab rulers?

THAT IS WHY CALL YOURS SLAVERY SYSTEM.
Can I know what helps have you got from Antioch except that he comes here for collecting money?

Ravi George said...

Joshy thinks relationship means servitude.

Dear Joshy, That is the only language known to SLAVES.

When FREE people relates with someonelse, it is based on mutual respect and concern for each other. There is no superior-inferior thinking in that.

JUST for the sak of Argument (Even if Antioch gave us Pattam, we would throw them in Arbian sea because we are so much fed up with their irresponsibility and making unnecessary issues here.

sampariyarathu said...

Dear Joshy
You said Priesthood is with St.Peter and not Saint Thomas!What Kind of Priest hood is with St.Peter? You are Talking Against The Faith of Your Church!Refer The Song In Busmelko during H.Qurbana
"aadyaacharyatham Kaikondu
Aharon Mooshayodonnichu...
......................
Yonanannan karthavinnum Kartha than sleehanmarkum,Nana srishti
vibhagangelkeki sleehanmar!"
St.Thomas was A high Priest(Bishop) Like St.Peter!Jesus Gave all his authority to his 12 disciples.St.Paul and Barnabas was ordained in Antioch not by St.peter.read Acts 13:1-2,who ordained how he was sent to mission work!

sampariyarathu said...

To all Jacobites/saint Thomas Baitors
It is well-known that the 'Puthencruz Society'(so called followers of Jacob Bardies) suffer from 'Marthoma Syndrome'. In fact, it is an old story. It all started
with Antiochene Patriarch Yakob III's infamous Kalpana No.203/1970 dated
27.6.1970 wherein he argued that St.Thomas didn't have a 'throne', but only
St.Peter had one. He went on to add insult to injury by claming that St.Thomas
didnot even have 'priesthood'.

Well, the Puthenxruz Soceity and its mentors also suffer from another
ailment, viz, 'selective memory'. The very same Patriarch had earlier authored
a book called 'The History of Syrian Church', in which, on page 149, he wrote:"
In the spring of AD 28, Mar Thoma was elevated as Apostle(with Priest hood) along with other
disciples". Again, on page 164 of the same book, it says: "after sowing the
seeds of the Gospel in Malankara, he ordained clergy from four Brahmin families,
Sankarapuri, Pakalomattom, Kalli and Kaliyankal, which had embraced
Christianity." Had the Patriarch forgotten what he had written in his own book?
Besides, one may ask: if Mar Thoma was not High Priest, how could he ordain
priests?

The ancient inscriptions on the steps of the Madbaha of Rakkad
Church under Angamali diocese reads thus: "In 1846, during the reign of Mar
Deevannasios on the throne of St.Thomas, Yuyachim Mar Coorilos visited
Malankara". (Yuyachim Mar Coorilos was an Antiochene Metran, who was elevated to
sainthood by Patriarch Zaka I in 2008). The point is, even in 1846, the throne
of St.Thomas was not disputed. Again, in 1912, Patriarch Abdul Mesiah installed
the First Catholicos of Malankara to 'The Throne of St.Thomas'. In 1958, when
the Catholicos and Patriarch accepted each other by exchanging kalpanas, the
letter-head of the Catholicos' Kalpana clearly spoke of the 'The Throne of
St.Thomas'.

There is yet another affliction, the Puthencruz society suffers
from: viz, 'selective reading'. Let them read the Bible thoroughly and not
selectively. But if they prefer selective reading, I can recommend a few
passages like: Matthew 18:18, Matthew 19:28, 1 Corinthians 4:14-16. They may
also go through the last kalpana of Paulose Mar Athanasios (who was declared a
saint by them a few years back) reproduced on page 89 of a book by
Fr.Kaniyamparambil Cor-episcopa, one of their prominent clergy.

Interestingly, after slandering and maligning Apostle St.Thomas in
every possible manner, the Puthencruz Society has now inserted his name in the
'Thubden' to be read during Qurbana. What a cheeck !

Finally, I would only wish that in order to spite one's opponent, one
should not stoop to make heretical statements.

Sam Pariyarathu

Reni said...

I would like to congratulate the EDITORS of this site for allowing different opinions from both the camps.

I am grateful to friends like Mr Joshy and Mr Mathew for raising their views and for continuing the debates.

Nobody is perfect and we too have made mistakes. We should learn from the past mistakes to look towards the future as we are all concerned about the GROWTH OF ORTHODOXY IN INDIA.

If Jcobit friends raise some of our mistakes, we should examine them and correction should be doen wherever possible. We can do it because we do not have a infallible person as the Church head.

My complaint about the JACOBITE camp is that they want to pull us towards the dark ages at the cost of the FUTURE. We should remember that if we neglect the future generation including those who come to faith, we cannot survive.

It is not enough that we just build churches everywhere. We should cleanse ourselves of the past mistakes. We should build up a system based on TRUTH and Orthodox Christian values SUITABLE to INDIA. But we cannot change teh Biblical truths and principles.

Now it is clear that our forefathers committed historical blubders by aligning with the Antioch for fighting the REFORMISTS led by British and others like Portughese.

We should be careful in dealiong with Foreign Churches even if they are good friends now. I think the present quarrels over foreigners can continue for a few more decades. Only when Indian Churches become strong the foreignes will lose their grip over us. Ofcourse we cannot pray that foreign churches should become weaker, rather we become even stronger. There is long struggle ahead.

Jeevan said...

Joshy,

Regarding Throne of St.Thomas, you can refer to this beautiful article by Kurien Thomas Sir & Varghese John

http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Varghese%20John/st%20thomas%20throne.pdf

And by Makarios Thirumeni

http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Mar%20Thoma/index.html

Joshy said, “If St. Thomas had brought priesthood to India then why do you claim the relationship with East Syrian Church during the pre-Koonan Kurishu Satyam.”

Churches that were distant from the Middle East had ties with some Middle Eastern churches.

Say, the Ethiopian Church had relation with the Coptic. The Russian had relations with the Greeks and so did India have with Persia and then Antioch.

Joshy said, “Almost all other Oreintal churches flourished by their own rituals and believes, not its relationship with another.”

This is a mistake; all churches in the Middle East initially had connections with each other. Evidences are the Greek words that we use in Qurbana....

Coptic Church uses, three liturgies, one by St.Basil of Caesarea, The Liturgy according to Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople; and The Liturgy according to Saint Cyril I. First two are not Egyptians.

The liturgy of St.James was in Greek, the church in Jerusalem was Greek dominated. We can find, ‘give and take’ in all ancient churches, everyone borrowed the essence and later modified them.

http://britishorthodox.org/glastonbury-review-archive/misc/the-liturgy-of-st-james-abba-seraphim/

Ravi George said...

LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE!

When Pope said (on September 27, 2006) St Thomas did not come to Malankara, Syro Malabar Sabha protested. Then Pope corrected through Vatican media.

In 1970, One Antiochian Patriach was inspired by the Jacobites in Malankara to release a Kalapna that Nasranis & their descendants are 'fatherless' people and the WISE PATRIARCH did accordinly in a Kalpana. He said St Thomas is not even a 'Pattakkaran'

In 2009, another Even WISER PATRIARCH WAS TAKEN TO A PUBLIC MEETING in ERNAKULAM and aws made to receive a COPY OF THE COMMUNIST BIBLE from the leader of the biggest ATHEISTIC PARTY. The Patriarch also said HIS FOLLOWERS TO WORK IN CPM {and make use of it?)

Antiochkyaaaaayil kaala pettu ennu kettaal ivide kayaredukkum!

ENTHORU SABHAYANAMMOO!

Joshy said...

To Reni,
As per the Sreedhara Menon's work, it is largely based of facts and figures, and if any facts are not available considered let it be as it is. He never says Malankara Church had the relationship with East Syrian Church, rather he says Bishops came to Malabar from Persia. at that time the entire middle east, particualry from Constantinople to the river Indus was called as Persia, though it was atually Iran.

At the same time when Diamper synod was held the portugeese leaders burned all the document about the church history
hitherto prevailed with malabar Christains. Simialry no historians conclusively said St. Thomas visited Malabar,( and also they said Brahmins came to Kerala only in 8th century AD), but we believe St. Thomas came to Malabar in 52AD and converted few brahmin families to Christianity. SO with regard to Relegious matters we cannot depend historians completely.

And also what I meant Antioch it is not Arabs exclusively, but Jacobites believe whoever sits on the thorne of Antioch is the head of the church.

To Ravi,
read some histiory books and ask your bishops that why did Vattasseril thirumeni bring HH Abdul Misiah Patriarch to ordain a Catholicose in Malankara?, He could have done by himself, but not, why?, my answer to your point lies in it. That is the importannce of Antioch in Maklankra.It is not the relationship of slaves and the master.

To Jeevan,
The all said churches were under another at one point of time(eg: Ethyopian under Coptic, Russian under Greek, so does they follow the mixed liturgy rooted in the old one, similar like Marthoma). And they consider one exact date of their independance. But on the one hand you people say MOSC was established by St. Thomas at the same time the Catholicate was estabilehed in 1912.
That is why we, Jacobites say MOSC is established in 1912 like Ethyopean or Russian at a particualar period.

Ravi George said...

Joshy, the copy of Sredharamenon is with me. What does he say of Brahmin's arrival in Kerala? If you have a copy tell me. Were there Brahmins in Kerala in the first century?

Relations with Antioch started was only duringthe later years of the Portuguese period. (Only the Jacobites believe they were here from the very beginning). It means we had relations with Roman Church even before the Antioch.

Whether we had relations or not in the past is not a big thing.

The important thing is: Continuing relationship with Arabs will spoil the Malankara Church. It is not adidental that each grouo split away from them.

Arabs are lazy class of people who do not want to do any work here or even intheir own land. How can you expect them to do something good fo us except living on money taken from here? They are parasites. Other day one person who arrived from Oman was telling me that if an Arab says that he would come at a particular time, you can expect him to be at least two hours late. Fortunately, now people know them well. However you may try, there is no doubt that the Arab relation will go weaker and weaker.

Ravi George said...

Joshy

Was St Thomas a Pattakkar or leity?

You did not answer this so far.

If St Thomas was only a leity (according to Patriarch), he had no right ordinate any preist in Malankara.

Joshy said...

Dear Ravi,
St. Thomas was neither a Pattakkaran nor a Liety, but an Apostle. It was Jesus Christ told every Apostels that to preach His teachings in the name of God. So All Apostels had got right to preach Christianity and convert others to Christianity. In doing so they also appointed some as priests to continue the believe, that doesnot mean all Apostles are Bishops.
What realy happend was at Antioch St. Peter established a Throne and other Apostels followed that throne and told All Christains about it, including St. Thomas to Malankara. But in due course of time, because of geographical problem and decling importance of Antiochia in trade matters, some Christain communituies particularly non-Roman people face problem to continue the relationship with Antioch. Independant church formed in that particular region in the name of the Preacher to theat area. But in Malankatra the relationship with Antioch contubned for long largely because of strong trade witht eh tregioon and the Knanaya Migration, so does the relationship with malankra.

Avarachayan said...

ഒന്ന് ചിന്തിച്ചാല്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കവുന്നതെയുള്ളല്ലോ, എന്തിന്റെ പേരിലാണ് ഈ നാടകം കളികള്‍ ? സിംഹാസനത്തിന്റെ പേരിലോ ? അതോ സഭയുടെ പേരിലോ? അതോ ബാവ യുടെയും മെത്രാന്മാരുടെയും പേരിലോ? അതോ ബാവയ്ക്കും മെത്രാന്‍ മാര്‍ക്കും വേണ്ടിയോ?

സുഹൃത്തെ ഈ സിംഹാസനവും സഭയും ഒന്നും ദൈവം തമ്പുരാന്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കി തന്നതല്ല. ഇതൊക്കെ അതാതു പ്രവിശ്യകളിലെ ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികളെ ഏകോപിപ്പിച്ചു കൊണ്ട് നടക്കുന്നതിനായി ഒരു ഭരണ യന്ത്രം ഉണ്ടാക്കി എന്നത് മാത്രമാണ്. നിഖ്യാ സുന്നഹദോസ് കാലഖട്ടത്തില്‍ ലോകം മുഴുവനും ഇന്നത്തെ പോലെ ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികള്‍ ഇല്ലായിരുന്നു. അതുകൊണ്ടാണ് റോമ സാമ്രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ നാല് ദിക്കുകള്‍ ക്കും വേണ്ടി ഓരോ സഭയ്ണ്ടാക്കി അതിനു ഒരു ഭരണ സംവിധാനം ഉണ്ടാകിയത്. ഈ സഭകള്‍ക്ക് ഓരോ മേലദ്ധ്യക്ഷന്‍ മാറും ഉണ്ടായി. അവര്‍ക്ക് സ്ഥാനപ്പേരും നല്‍കി അതാണ്‌ --- patrirach ---- or ---- pope . അതിലൊന്നാണ് അന്തോക്യ ആസ്ഥാനമായിരുന്ന സിറിയന്‍ ഓര്‍ത്തഡോക്‍സ്‌ സഭ. അത് കിഴക്കന്‍ പ്രവശ്യ ആയിരുന്നു ( റോമ സാമ്രാജ്യത്തിന്റെ ). അല്ലാതെ ലോകത്തിന്റെ കിഴക്കൊക്കെയുടെയും അല്ല.

പിന്നെ പതോസ്‌ ശ്ലീഹായുടെ സിംഹാസനം!!!!!! അതൊരു മഹാ സംഭവമാണ് മക്കളെ. AD-37ഇല് അന്തോക്യയില് ഒരു പള്ളി സ്ഥാപിച്ചു. അതിനകത്ത് ഒരു സിംഹാസനം പണിതിരുന്നോ എന്ന് കണിയാനോട് ചോദിക്കണം.

Ravi George said...

Joshy, the patriarch's kalapan said How could St Thomas anoint priests when he is not a priest.

SO did St Thomas anoint priests in Malankara? If he did, St Thomas sinned as per the Kalpana of the patriarch.

Do you agree with the statement of the Patriarch that St Thomas had no authority to anoint priests in Malankara?

Ravi George said...

No where does the Bible say that a THRONE was established anywhere in the world. About Antioch the Bible says The follwers were first called as Christians in Antioch.

it is your wild imagination that St peter was sitting on a throne, (having dinner like the present Patriarchs) and was ruling from Antioch. Had it been so, the Act of Apopstles which mentions a lot about the works of Apostles mostly in that part of the world would not have missed mentioning it. All these so called THRONES are only DECORATIVE and is only a centre of power for tending the sheep in that LOCALITY. IT IS NOT AN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF POWER. If anybody claims it, it is because of his greed.

The only throne mentioned in the Bible is on the day of the judgement.

Even the patriarchates were formed much later just for administrative purposes from a few major cities in the old Roman empire and Antioch figured in the last because of its proximity to East and lesser graded city.

We shoud know that IF ST PETER, BEING AN ELDER, ESTABLISHD A THRONE WITH THE APPROVAL OF OTHER DISCIPLES, NO OTEHR PLACES WOULD HAVE KNOWN AS CENTRES.

These 'thrones' are now raised as a part of enslaving other nations and to live comfortably at their service.

Joshy, we have come a great far and this strategy will not work for long. EVEN Rome is realising it. If you know the status of Antioch churches you will keep away them. There are five or six pesons who call themsleves as Antiochian patriarchs sitting on the throne of St Peter in Antioch.
It is just like a person visiting Ayodhya's many temples being told by the each Pandas that Ram was born 'here'.

Ravi George said...

Achayan

You are right

The Patriarch of Rome came to be knwon as pope in the 8th century or even later. But any Roman church member woudl tell you that PETER was teh FIRST POPE. The present Pope sist on his THRONE. Once I asked a Roman Catholic, what your proof that Peter was teh first Pope. he replied that Pope is wearing 'an gold ring that was worn by St Peter while was living in Rome. he told me it is called 'ing of the Fisherman'.

I told him that Peter had said that he did not have gold or silver (ACTS 3:6). Then he was stunned to see it in the Bible.

Though the centres of powers just for coordination and management purposes were done in the synod, it was much much later they were calle Patriarchates.

Now see how these people are trying to establish power over other nations by raiisng these 'thrones'

We should not hesitate to throw away such throne because it is against teh FREEDOM OF CHURCH as established under the AUTHORITY OF CHRIST.

Nanni Achayan

Ravi George said...

JOSHY SAYS: ...because of geographical problem and declining importance of Antiochia in trade matters, some Christain communituies particularly non-Roman people face problem to continue the relationship with Antioch. Independant church formed in that particular region in the name of the Preacher to theat area.

JOSHY, NOW THE ANTOCHIAN CHURCH HAVE NOT ONLY DECLINING BUT HAS BEEN wiped out also. You said other centres could establish centres based on this. THE WHY NOT IN MALNKAARA? We are a Church redy to grow. Why don't Antioch leave this place to us so that we can do our work? We are sure that Antioch will not come to do this work. (They come only on APOSTOLIC VISIT for taking money)

Ravi George said...

All the simsahasanams are SYMBOLIC and a cntre of adminstration of the Bihop od that people in the nation.

One THRONE above other THRONE? Is it like a cabinet minister reportingto a Prime Minister?

There are so many rubbish ideas being preache din the name of Christianity. The objective is sinmple: HOW TO KEEP ANOTHER PEOPLE UNDER OURS FOREVER...

Ravi George said...

FRIENDS

POWER WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY is what Antiochian Church is all about.

BEFORE 1912: IT iS SIN EVEN TO LOOK AT ANTIOCH BECAUSE THEY ARE NEAR TO THE HEAVEN

Prior to 1970 the discussion was HOW TO CONTINUE OUR EXISTING GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE ANTIOCH

Post 1970: HOW TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE KALPANA OF ANTIOCH THAT ST THOMAS HAS NO RIGHT TO ANOINT A PRIEST LEAVE ALONE ESTABLISHING A CHURCH.

POST SC RULING in 1995: HOW TO KEEP RELATIONSHIP WITH ANTIOCH ON EQUAL TERMS

2010: HOW TO DUMP DECLINING & Vanishing ANTIOCH CHURCH in ARABIAN SEA.

Please tell WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CHANGE IN INDIA?

Reni said...

This kind of THRONE THEORY is totally against the spirit of CHRISTOLGY. Christ clearly taught His disciples how to lead the Church when he was with the them. Some of the disciples had dreamt that when christ establishes a Govt, they can win the best ministerial berths. But it was shown to them what Jesus meant.

So none of disciples RULED from a throne. Nor could the bishops who followed their footsteps.

But slowly the idea that RULING FROM A THRONE is the excellent way to keep people under and also plunder wealth by extending territory just like GREEDY KINGS. So theories were formulated to establish supremacy--of RACE, of origin, of heritage, of KAIVEPPU, of helps, of liturgy, of Language, of whatever....

All these were motivted as part of GREED and nothing else.

It was not a motivated by a desie to SERVE, TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL, or BRIMG MORE PEOPLE TO CHRIST...

WHEN BISHOPS and PRIESTS were anointed maximum statement of ALLEGEANCE and SLAVERY with CURSES were also used.

Many of these SALMOOSAS breaks the BASIC TENETS CHRISTIAN FAITH. People were even afraid to look at the salmooses foe fear of CURSES. It was not a document of loving concern for Church. Evey word was used to keep the distant land church under the remote control. Peopel living in dark areas were considered as SLAVES without dignity.

Apostolic visits were an occasion to trouble the paisheners with maximum demands of money. Unsatisfied cash were thrown back at churches like the way greedy beggars throw coins back at donors. No preaching and only RULINGS and authoritarian methods. People were afraid becasue curse means directly FLY TO HELL.

TIMES HAVE CHANGED

SALMOOSAS are no longe requred here from Abroad though still there are slaves who enjoy at its content.

If Antioch or anybody wishes to have relations, it can only be as per the constitution of the Sabha.

We are no longer at their mercy.

Meanwhile they are paying a heavy price for their own cruelty shown to the people who trusted them. Thouh they anoited parallel Catholicose in Malankara, Sabha proved its magnanimity by NOT ANOINTING A PARALLEL PATRIARCH IN ANTIOCH.

Malankara is stil praying for the unity of the Church in India. Like a wise man, the Church is calling everyone for UNITY and PEACE

Reni said...

@JOSHY

1 According to Joshy, ALL APOSTLES ARE NOT BISHOPS. You make an interesting theology!

Joshy, since you got that info, can you tell please-- Among the Apostles, who were bishops, who were not bishops, who were just priests, and who were not even that. Which class did St thomas belong?

Was St Thomas right in anointing priests in Malankara?


2. Joshy said St. Peter established a Throne and other Apostles just followed that throne. Some Christain communituies particularly non-Roman people discontinued the relationship with Antioch and independant churches were formed in that particular region in the name of the Preacher to theat area.

Were these Churches who split away were justified in doing so? If not, will the Antioch reclaim its authority over the said churches?


3. Joshy you said In Malankara, the relationship with Antioch continued for reasons of trade and the migration of Knanayites.

From the 2 and 3 statements of Joshy, I understand that Joshy believes CHRISTINITY REACHED ALL CORNERS OF THE WORLD FROM ANTIOCH. SO Joshy means that ANTIOCHIAN CHURCH IS THE MOTHER OF ALL CHURCHES...


Dear Joshy,

What about the Church in Jerusalem? Was it also established under the Corporate (Regd) Head Office in Antioch?
After reading the whole Bible I did NOT know that Antioch was such a big centre! I also did not know that Peter was such a big chap who governed the whole world Christinaity sitting in HIS THRONE IN THE ANTOCHIAN CENTRE.

I read in the Bible that Jesus himslef gave a commission to all the Apostles to go all over the world and make everybody His disciples.

If I believe you Joshy, i should correct it like this: jesus ordered all the rest apostles to rush to Antioch and attend a meeting held in ANTIOCHIAN HEAD OFFICE called by Peter and do what Peter orders them!

Dear Joshy, if you read how Christianity grew from its humble beginnings, from secret places and underground groups and..finally accepted in Roman empire after centuries, you will not utter such nonsense.

There were faraway places like India which had little contct with the mainstream Christianity in the Roman Empire. If the church in India had such contacts with Antioch whch was in the east of the Roman empire, the whole Church history of Malankara would have been different.

ALL THESE THEORIES HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY THE SUPPORTERS OF ANTIOCH TO CLAIM SUPERIORTITY FOR THEIR CHURCH WHICH HAD NO MISSIONARY ACTIVITES anywhere in the world.

Reni said...

Antioch was part of the Roman Empire. EAST meant just the easten province of the Roman Empire where Anioch was.

jacobite mislead others that EAST means the East of THE WORLD which included INDIA. (ACAYAN SAID IT RIGHT and also with PUNCH!)

mohanmathew said...

MALNKARAKKU KITTIYA SHAPAM (CURSE) AANU EE FOREIGNERS-NE KONDU SUFFER CHEYYUKA ENNATHU. ENTHU KONDU NAMUKKU EE GATHI VANNU? NAMMUDE VARUM THALAMURAYENKILUM ITHIL NINNU PURATTHU VARUM?

LET US DECIDE TO NOT SEEK THE HELP OF FOREIGNERS TO SOLVE A CRISIS IN OUR CHURCH. THAT IS TH ELESSON WE SHOULD LEARN

Mathew said...

Dear Ravi George,

Who is stopping you from creating a totally independent and indegenous power centre ? We are just not bothered ..

Just leave us alone.. thats all.. we dont wasnt to folow your perverted ideals.. Let us be as we are...

God bless !!!

rinsam2002 said...

Dear Joshy
I would like say That stop your nonsense and Heretic doctrine!All 12 apostles were Overseers and Bishops in early Church! You Must read bible carefully!St.Peter did not establish or found throne anywhere in earth!All apostles were guided by holy Spirit and they went to preach Gospel to all nations!How Come st.Paul rebuke st.Peter in public face by face?(Gal,2:11)How Come James presided over first synod in Jerusalem!In the 1st epistle St.Peter(5:1) he calls himself as a Co-elder among other elders of Christ? It was Jesus Christ who promised all 12Apostles thrones on his second coming to judge 12 tribes of Israel!If st.Thomas was not a high Priest How come he ordained priests in Malankara from varius Brahmin families in early church of malankara! read earlier postins by Sam pariyarathu in this blog!
St.Peter is not head of church! Head of church is Jesus Christ! Jesus is the Good Shephard!All apostles are sub shepherds of Jesus Christ!

rinsam2002 said...

Dear Joshy
already,I have explained in another blog of MTV,"Future of Christianity in India",The Malankara church relation with Antioch/syrian orthodox Church and how west syriac liturgy came in Malankara!
Please note that until,1599 Malankara church did not have any relation with Antioch/Syrian orthodox Church!Malankara church had early relation with Persian Church!
The Jacobites are Antioch/Syrian Church are misguiding malankara people without having any proper backing of history or Bible support of their alleged/twisted/misinterpreted facts by claiming Malankara was under antioch from biginning Christianity in Malankara!

Joshy said...

Rinsam said
"until,1599 Malankara church did not have any relation with Antioch/Syrian orthodox Church!Malankara church had early relation with Persian Church!"
My question isthat, and as per the MOSC view, had Malankara followed the relationship with East Syrian Church cintinued tiall today MOSC would have said NO our relationship was not with East Syrian Church but was with West Syrian church?? Is it so? Because your fathers since 1912 follow the traditon of rejecting the fathers of the church.

Ravi George said...

Dear Mathew

Your same argument "LEAVE US ALONE" was raised by some princely states (RULERS) before India won her independence.
AS a nation we have a constitution whic we all have to obey. No Indian citizen can say "I am not bound by that". Now a good number of Kashmiris (majority????)are demanding separation from India. HOw can we allow that? Can Kashmiris go their way?

I agree that all Jacobites have their religious freedom to practice and propagate. WE DO NOT CHALLENGE IT. WE TOO HAVE OUR FREEDOM to practice and propagate what we beleive.

OUR call for keeping the ORTHODOX FAITH in its pure form is very important. NATIONALITY is one important aspect of Orthodoxy. That is why ARAB CHURCHES object to non-Arabs as their leaders. SO are other ORTHODOX CHURCHES. We will continue to announce it stronger than ever. ALLL THESE YEARS We had wished peace would come somehow. NOW THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT GOOD SENSE WILL PREVAIL IN ANTIOCH. SO we are deteremed that there is no need for continuuingthis kind of relationship with them

NOW OUR CALL IS TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEIVE In ORTHODOX VALUES including JACOBITES. You are free to reject it, but we'll contunue to propagate it. AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT YOUR CHILDREN or their children WILL COME TO BELIEVE IT.

I have 20 major reasons why ANTIOCH WILL NOT SURVIVE IN INDIA. IT may take a few decades but it is going to to be a reality.

Thank you Mathew for your patience

rinsam2002 said...

Dear Joshy
I Have already clearly said the relationship with Antiochean church or syrian orthodox Church,when it started and how!There is no need to repeat those things here. The relation with Antiochean Church(SOC) started after Udayamperoor synod,and it was not ended by 1912!In 1912 Abded Messiah partriarch gave us a new status with new head of church of Antiochean liturgy and MOSC keep the same status up to now!The antiochean Liturgy itself not originated in antioch itself!

Reni said...

In a couple of centuries we learned so much from Antioch and are really grateful to them.

That is why MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH did not break the Antioch Church. We did NOT anoit ONE PATRIARCH though there were people waiting for it. Though the patriarch did anoint a rebel Catholicose here, we did not do it mainly for three reasons:

1. ANTIOCH CHURCH is too weak to take it

2. We are a grateful Church (For having helped us in our struggle against the POrtughese and the Anglicans.

3. WE HOPE that all issues will be solved peacefully. But now we know that if we do not severe thsi relationship, it is Antioch Church taht will suffer more. SO FOR THE SAKE OF BOTH CHURCHES, it is good to discontinue relationship with each other.


BUT see what ANTIOCH DID to us

1. ANTIOCH DECLARED THAT OUR CHURCH FOUNDER IS NOT EVEN A PATTAKKARAN who does not have the autirity to anoint a preist and also St Thomas has no Throne. (Surprsising because the only thrones offered by Lord was for all the 12). Actually they sinned against HOLY Spirity which St Thomas receive din full. St Thomas was never a lesser Apostle.

2 Split the church by anointing parallel catholicose

and amany more bad things taht does not suit his status

THOUGH WE ARE LONG SUFFERING, we are hopeful. We aer always ready to help the Antioch church. BUT PLEASE REMEMBER THAT HELPING ONESELF IS VERY IMPORTANT. You have to start by concentrating on your own works in your country and slso relieve yourself about your unncessary intererence in Malankara

Reni said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reni said...

WE ORTHODOX MUST PREACH THE FOLLOWING:

1. Malankara Orthodox Church being the National Church of India, was founded as a FREE INDEPENDENT CHURCH by APOSTLE ST THOMAS AS COMMANDED BY LORD CHRIST

2. WE RELATE TO ALL APOSTOLIC CHURCHES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL DIGNITY FOR ALL

3. JUST lIKE WE DO NOT INTERFERE IN THE MATTERS OF OTHER CHURCHES, WE'LL NOT ALLOW OUTSIDERS TO INTEFERE IN OUR MATTERS

4. OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHURCHES IS BASED ONLY CHRISTIAN PRICIPLES and VALUES laid by Apostles.

5. WE DO NOT WANT TO RUN SPIRITUAL COLONIES IN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

Malankara Orthodox TV said...

Throne of St. Thomas. Report submitted by Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios to the MOSC Episcopal Synod.

Throne of St. Thomas by Dr. M. Kurian Thomas & Varghese John

Pl. Visit
http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Church%20Historical%20Documents/Church%20Historical%20Documents.htm

Malankara Orthodox TV said...

Udampady Onnu Publish Cheyyan Karingachirakkar Dairyam Kanikkanam.

Mathew Kuriakose, PTA said...

Z. M. Paret Ezhuthiya Malankara Nazranikal Enna Bookil Vattasseril Thirumeniyekkurichulla Valyathil Udampady Kanum.

sampariyarathu said...

Dear Joshy
The Persian empire does not start from Constantinaples! Constantinaples are in between Rome and Antioch(north west of antioch)!So also Crist's 12 apostles were Bishops/overseers, as read Acts1:15-22 whereby St.peter talk about Iscariot Jude and replacement of his overseer position of Iscariot Jude By Matthias!In verse 20"let another one take his office"
The "Office"here rendered in greek literally "bishopric' and refers position of apostolic overseer!Jude Iscariot lost his position of Overseer(Adhyaksha Sthanam in malayalam)From this it is clear 12 apostles were overseers!After Jesus's resurection and acension into heaven 40 days Jesus were teaching(showing himself to them as he is still alive)his apostles about kingdom of heaven!(acts1:2)There were no account of this 40 days events in Bible!There were no Account of James(cousin brother of Jesus how he became first bishop of Jerusalem)in Bible!St Paul says Jesus appeared to Many more than 500 people before his acension!
So please read bible thoroughly rather than misguided By self seekers/blind leaders!