Meanwhile, we forgot to evangelize India!
The Problem in Malankara Orthodox church groups cannot be solved as it is mainly related to Church properties and possessions!Moreover the Head of Syrian Patriarch H.H. Zaka I also want keep his Arch Diocese in India! These two basic issues are not mentioned in the article of George Alexander!
A pretty harsh assessment, though I think it could go a step further. Ithink we're missing one element. We seem to forget it a lot and that is what is already provided for us in our guide the Bible. Nothing in the Bible I've found advocates litigation, division, and continued strife. We have more to gain than to lose by pursuing reconciliation. Why doesn't our leadership lay-leaders and factional synods see that?
Overall a very good article. We have to also look into how the autocephaly was gained in 1912? Was it legitimate? Read this.. https://sites.google.com/site/malankarathoughts/Should autocephaly be forced on a group of people if they dont want it?
This formula for peace (dialogue involving the other Orthodox church) has been repeatedly expressed by the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. Members of the Malankara Orthodox Church need to come forward to make this a reality.
The Church feud can be solved permanently only on the basis of Orthodox brotherhood, because both Methran and Bawa kakshis share the same Oriental Orthodox faith.Our Church leadership never took interest to teach Orthodoxy and Malankara History to laity after the establishment of Catholicate in India or atleast after 1958 when the feud ended due to Supreme Court verdict.Now our people consider Malankara Orthodox Church as one of the several protestant denominations in the world due to the unnecessary importance given to ecumenism with protestant denominations.Also we are trying for an agreement with roman catholic church ignoring Oath at Mattanchery.
i really appreciate the effort taken to write this article. Hope the concerned authorities will atleast read this. lets put an end to this fight. lets unite . we have lot of things to do other than abusing each other. lets stop this for GODs sake. Praying for peace . thankyou
@ Malankara syriac orthodoxThere is no forced autocephaly in MOSC! Those who want follow the Antiochean Colonial rule can follow that as L/L H.H. Abdulla made himself as legitimate Patriarch of Syrian Church by giving more money to Sultan of Turkey!There is no evidence that SYRIAN SYNOD expelled or The Legitimate Patriarch L/L H.H Abded Massiah! The Sultan of Turkey did not have any spiritual authority to ban or expel the Head of Syrian Orthodox church!
Dear AllWhen H.H.Aram,the Supreme catholicose of Armenian Orthodox church , visited Kerala last year His holiness tried to mediate both factions to end the feud!But The Jacobite faction heirarchy did not show any interest! This the the fact!
@rinsam The question is not if the Syriac Synod removed H.H Abdul Messiah from the Patriarchate or not; but it is a fact that the Syriac Synod did ordain H.H Abd Allah II as the Patriarch. This was communicated to Malankara in 1905 and in 1908 the new Bishops for Malankara were ordained by H.H Abd Allah II and not H.H Abdul Messiah.Even if H.H Abdul Messiah was not removed; at best his situation can be compared to that of H.H Didimos I Valia Bava. He may not have been removed as the Catholicose, but a new Catholicose H.H Paulose II has been installed. Now H.H Didimos I Valiya Bava has no authority to do anything. Similarly H.H Abdul Messiah had no authority to do anything. Remember in the Orthodox Church Patriarch/Catholicose are not like Roman Pope. They can only act with the sanction of the Synod.
@ Malankara syriac orthodoxTurkey Sultan doesn’t have any spiritual authority over the Syrian Orthodox Church. But on the withdrawal of the royal Firman by the ruling Sultan Abdul Hamid of Turkey, H. H. Ignatius Abdul Masih II can’t function as the Patriarch sitting inside Turkey. Thus to please the ruler and survive in Turkey the SOC ordained the new Patriarch, H. H. Ignatius Abded Aloho II. But Niranam (which is in Kerala, India) was not under the rule of Turkey Sultan. Outside the Turkey H. H. Ignatius Abdul Masih II will have the full authority of the Patriarch, since he hasn’t resigned/retired from the position of Patriarch. With this authority, H. H. Ignatius Abdul Masih II did call the synod in Malankara and with the approval of this Synod only, H. H. Patriarch Ignatius Abdul Masih II re-established/re-located the Catholicate in Malankara.
@Joshua,You are still not getting my point. Just for arugument sake let us consider that H.H Abdul Messiah was the canonical Patriarch in 1912. Still the Patriarch cannot make decisions on his own like the establishment of a Catholicate/Maphrianate. It requires the sanction of the Synod. Remember the Patriarch in the Orthodox Church is not the same as the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. Patriarch's dont have absolute power. They can only act with the approval of the Synod. So even if H.H Abdul Messiah was the canonical Patriarch, his actions were uncanonical as he didnt have the approval of the Synod. Read furtherhttp://sites.google.com/site/malankarathoughts/
@Malankara Syriac orthodoxWhich synod in Malankara recognised/approved or endorsed the installation of Jacobite Catholicose/maphriyana Thomas I prior to his installation by H.H. Zaka I in Damascus?
@ Malankara Syriac OrthodoxFor establishment of Catholicate in Malankara,we do not need any consent of Syrian Orthodox church synod of Turkey or Damascus! As a canonical Patriarch, H.H.Abded Massiah is not making anything new decisions in Turkey or Syrian Orthodox church!What ever H.H. did was according to the requirements of Malankara Association!
@Malankara Syriac OrthodoxAll those that you refer in your owncomments in google site are purely created lies and falsehood!The Syrian synod has nothing to do with Malankara Church! Until,1600 A.D.Malankara had no connections with Syrian Church in Antioch or Turkey!1912,Malankara Cathilicoate was properly eastablished/or relocated in accordance with MALANKARA Suriyani Kristhani ASSOCIATION!If that was the Case Why Did in 1958 Syrian Patriarchate accepted L/L H.H. Baselios Geevarghese II as Malankara Catholicate without any conditions?
@binuIt is Not MOSC who are against dialogue! Jacobite syrian Church in Malankara are making unnecessary demands or false claims are the real culprits behind tarnishing peace and unity in Malankara church!
@rinsamI think you are misunderstanding me. I didn't say everything is fine the way H.B Thomas I was installed as Catholicose. The isntallment of a Catholicate in 1912 without gaining the consensus of the Synod of Bishops in India at that time and without the approval of the Syriac Orthodox Synod was wrong. Even though H.H Zakka I waited for 6 years after the demise of the previous Catholicose, he should have waited longer and given Peace a chance.Two wrongs does not make a right.My main point is to MOC members who always claim that their history is absolutely correct and that of the Patriarch side is absolutely flawed and it is a black and white thing.As long as all parties come to the understanding that their history is not as clean as they think; and approach peace with REPENTANCE, HUMILITY and LOVE things will be get better.As long as one side thinks its perfect and the other side just needs to dissolve itself and join us, then we have a problem.
@ Malankara syriac orthodoxPlease read the story "The Correct Perspective" in the following link https://sites.google.com/site/moscsocrelationship/ This may help you to look at these issues in a different perspective.
@rinamPlease donot invent history. Can you please provide me the details of the so called association that was called to decide about the establishment of a Catholicate? Which all Bishops in Malankara participated in that Association ?If there was relation between Malankara and Antioch, then were all the fathers of our Church who assembled at Mulanthuruthy Synod including St. Gregorious of Parumala hallucinating? Now granted the constitution was accepted in 1958, going back on it was not the right thing to do. If there were certain section of the Malankara Church who were arrogant and also were not willing to accept the Patriarch not only in the letter but in the spirit of the Peace of 1958, the Bava Kakshi should have tried to address it by keeping the unity and then working within framework of unity to address it. Dear Brother, please open your eyes. History is a very complicated thing. It is not as black and white as we would like it to be.Please pray for me a sinner and for the church. Lets not forget what the church really is for; it for the salvation of men.
@ Malanakara Syriac VoiceThe Jacobite claim, that , Malankara was informed, about the ordination of Abdullah as Patriarch is a not true. The rumour that was spread, here was that Abded Mashiha was mentally instable. We had no means of verifying this. However, when Mathai Shemmashan (Augen Bava) came back to Kerala from Syria, he informed the then leadership, about the politics by which Abded Mashiha got ousted. ( We in Malankara came to know, very lately the unforunate events in Syria).Secondly, in the Syrian Hudaya Canon (used in 1912, not the new revised one) there was no mention about the limited powers of the Patriarch. Then the Patriarch could ON HIS OWN transfer, the Catholicate, since the Hoodaya Canon never stopped him in doing so. That is why the courts accepted the Indian Catholicate as valid.
@ Malankra Syriac50 years back, the main argument of the JOC, was that the Catholicate was invalid and uncanonical. For more than 40 years, the JOC fought in courts to prove our catholicate to be invalid,but still JOC couldnt prevail, because, as I told earlier, the Hoodaya Canon, had no terms to stop a patriarch from estblishing a Catholicate.
Dear Malankara SyriacOrthodox I am not inventing history! Your google site is the invented history for Jacobites in Malankara!Can you tell me the head of Synod in Malankara by 1912?What synod you are referring here?
@rinsam,Till the Mulanthuruthy Synod there was only 1 Bishop in Malankara. After the Mulanthuruthy Synod there was a synod of Bishops presided over by the Malankara Metropolitan. So in 1911 the list of Bishops in Malankara are in the google sites that linked. H.G Vattesseril Mar Divannasious was the Malankara Metropolitan; however he and H.H Abd Allah had misunderstandings and H.G Vattesseril Mar Divannasious was removed from the position of Malankara Metropolitan by H.H Abd Allah. I always thought that was not a proper removal because the Patrairch didnt have that kind of unlimited power. But now my friends Zotius on here is referring to the Hudayo Canon and saying that the Patriarch has that kind of unlimited power. I am surprised to find that it is the Methran Kakshi who is saying that the Patriarch has unlimited power while I always believed that he could only act with the consent and approval of his synod. After that the association elected Kochuparambil Paulose Mar Coorilose as the Malankara Metropolitan. So to your question, if you think like me that the removal of Vattesseril Thriumeni was not without due process as the Patriarch's powers are limited by the synod, then Vattesseril Thirumeni was the head of the Malankara Synod in 1911; but if you think like some others here who says that some version of the Hudaya Canon gives unlimited power to the Patriarch even to overrule a decisions of the Synod, then Kochuparambil Thirumeni was the head of the Malankara Synod in 1911.The fact remains there were 5 Malankara Bishops + 1 Syriac Bishop Sleeba Mar Osthathios whom folks from both sides consider as a saint in Kerala in 1911. From this group only '2' were there siding with the establishment of the Catholicate.Now is the establishment of the Catholicate and the declaration of autocephaly in itself wrong. Absolutely not. But it was declared and established via questionable means, there by leading to schism and a 100 year old dispute.
Att: Malankara Syriac OrthodoxThe synod in Malankara cannot,include The representative of Patriarch Mar Osthathios as he is from syria!Secondly the main cause of division(split) in Malankara church originated due to the conduct of Sleeba MarOsthathios!He was the main cause for H.H. Abdalla to remove Vattasereil thirumeni from his position later which court declared which was invalid!H.H. Abdalla then(1911) made Mar Athanasius (Aluva)as ribel Malankara Methropoltan which was not conducted through Malankara Association hence it was also invalid! Can you say by then(1911) How come synod had Five members in Malankara?What Google site says are invented story to support false claims by Jacobites!
ATT: Malankara Syriac Orthodoxas per the original Hudayo Canon By Bar Hebrews, The Patriarch cannot interfere with Catholicose in his administration and power! But The Adultered or KAPPI KANON has got such unlimited powers for Patriarch!This is not an issue here!The Issue here is Autocephaly of Malankara Orthodox church Which Supreme Court of India already agreed and granted!
@Malankara Syriac OrthdoxYou first of all learn What is Auotocephaly of Other oriental orthodox Churches like Coptic(church in Egypt)and Church in Ethiopia! Ethiopia is now divided into two countries Ethiopea and Erriteria. Learn how they are autonomus and how they do the consecration of their church heads!You have to open your eyes before critisize MOSC!
@rinsamWhen H.B Abd Allah removed Vattesseril Thriumeni from the position of Malankara Metropolitan in 1911 it was not Paulose Mar Athanasious (Aluva Valiya Thriumeni) that was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan.The association held at Aluva on 30-Aug-1911 elected H.G Paulose Mar Koorilose (Kochuparambil Thrirumeni) as the Malankara Metropolitan. It was only after Kochuparambil Thriumeni passed away in 1917 that Aluva Valiya Thrirumeni was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan.I was just stating that as fact. I will accept your position that Vattesseril Thriumeni was removed without due process as the Patriarch cannot take unilateral decisions like removing a Metropolitan or establishing Catholicates by himself. He needs authorization fromt he Synod.Now going back to your question, who all were the Bishops in Malankara at 1911.1) Vattesseril Thirumeni2) Kochuparambil Thirumeni( was ordained the same day as Vattesseril Thirumeni)3) Murimattathil Thirumeni (later Baselious Paulose I)4) Kuttikkattil Thirumeni (Aluva Valyia Thirumeni)5) Edavazhikkal ThriumeniFrom this list #3 was enthroned as Catholicose with the support of only #1. The other three Bishops were not even consulted. Forget about getting their approval, they were not even consulted; period.The Catholicate was established in a very questionable way, without gaining consensus in Malankara; and without the sanction of the Syriac Synod or any other oriental orthodox synod for that matter.Now with the peace of 1958 and with the formal ethronement of H.H Baselious Augen I in 1964 by H.H Yakub III, we should be able to put the history of 1911 behind us and work in a united manner with LOVE, RESPECT, and HUMILITY.PS: I was not aware of the particulars of the conduct of Sleeba Mar Osthathios that you refer in your posting. I am interested in reading more if you can point me in that direction, as you might have guessed by now, I am a student of History with a very open mind. I am not a fanatic belonging to either group.
Dear Malankara Syriac OrthodoxFirst of all you should not drag the issue of Syriac Synod here in Malankara as Malankara church was notpart of Syriac orthohodox church from A.D.52!St.Thomas Came not from Antioch/Syria, here and preached Gospel and ordained Priests! After Peter III Patriarch came here we (malankara) started Antioch/Syria relation!When Peter III patriarch,consecrated 6 Bishops here in Malankara He did not consult with MALANKARA METROPOLITAN by then!He made a registered Agreement(for right of material possession/properties/money in Malankara,by Patriarch of Antioch) with those Bishops whom he consecrated,which was against tradition of Church,Bible and Christianity!When Paulose Mar Philexinos was(L/L Baselios Paulose Bava of Jacobite) consecrated in 1970's as ribel Catholicose by Yakkob III Which synod in Malankara approved it or Malankara Syrian Christian association had recommended/approved the consecration? When Mar Aprem I,Pathriach was consecrated in Antioch after demise of Elias III in Malankara,Has the syrian/Antiochean synod communicated the issue with church in Malankara? MOSc don't need any sanction of Syriac synod here installation of Catholicose!Also I Would like you to learn the reason Why Bar Hebrews made the canon in Tigris? The Installation of Catholicate was done in 1912 according to Malankara Asssociation,therefore no synod recommendation was required!You may read Various church history Books written by Z.M parettu,E.M Philip etc then you will get clear picture of Sleeba Mar Ostathios!He was sent here by Peter III,in order to collect "Reeshessa" for Patriarch!(read Kandanadu Grandhavali)The Issue here is not the installaion of Catholicose in Malankara, the issue here is autocephalacy of Malankara Orthodox Church,which you compare with other oriental churches Like Coptic ,Abysssenia(Ethiopean)and Erritria!
@ Malankara Syriac OrthodoxThe Catholicate was established in Malankara with the consensus of MALANKARA SURIYANI KRISTHIANI ASSOCIATION! You are a purely an Antiochean Devotee who are adoring Syrian Patriarch as 'universal papa' like Roman Catholic!Therefore I am not here to give you any more comments on this subject!
@ Malankara syriac orthodoxYou may read the following points at the wikipedia. "The Vaideeka Synod (Synod of the Clergy) presided by His Holiness Ignatius Abdul Masih II and Malankara Association Managing Committee unanimously decided that His Holiness Mar Evanios Metropolitan be enthroned as Catholicos of the East. Ignatius Abdul Masih II was the conntroversially deposed Patriarch of Antioch and some claim the relocation of the Catholicate to India, was without authority from the Universal Syriac Orthodox Synod, thus causing century long disputes in the Malankara Church." The link to this is given below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baselios_Paulose_I The connection with Antioch was for a very short period compared to the long history of the Malankara Church which dates back to AD 52. Many of the people consider it as a colonial-slavery type connection. You may go through the following link for more references/reading on the same. http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/31170
@rinsamI am very aware of the autocephaly of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches. I had an opportunity to serve at a Coptic Divine liturgy as an altar assistant and read the epistle of St.Paul.In Ethiopia and Eritrea they had internal consesus among themselves before they asked for and gained autocephaly. In Malankara no such consensus was built. The views of Kochi/Kandanad and Angamaly diocese; 3 of the 7 dioceses at that time were ignored. Some influential lay leaders (actually one of them is my ancestors) and the Malankara Metropolitan declared autocephaly. Had they waited, and worked to gain consensus from all, we would have had a UNITED and AUTOCEPHALUS church. Now we have an autocephalus but fragmented church.On the unlimited powers, please dont aruge with me. If was another person by the name of Zoticus who said that as per the Hudayo Canon Patriarch has unlimited power, even to establish a Catholociate / Maphrianate without consulting his synod and hence the actions of H.H Abdul Messiah in 1912 was valid.Think of a situation, America is a free country. There are many oriental orthodox citizens of American. One day if a Bishop and lay leaders of America apporach H.H Didimos valiya bava (that is thr right comparison for H.H Abdul Messiah) or even H.H Paulose II bava and ask the Catholicose to grant autocephaly for the American Church and ordain a Patriarh or Catholicose for America. H.H Didimos or H.H Paulose II cannot on their own do anything. They will have to discuss it at the Synod and get the approval of the Synod. Remember that is what happened when an expelled oriental orthodox monk Gurgan approarched the Catholicose. It was done only after the MOC Synod discussed it; atleast the way I understand it. And Gurgan was installed as the Primate of the 'Autocephalus Syriac Orthodox Church of Europe'Similarly H.H Abdul Messiah didnt have unlimited power. He can do something of the magnitude of installing a Catholicose only after getting the approval of the Synod.
@Malankara Syriac OrthodoxThere is no fragmentation in Malankara except those caused by some selfish leaders of present Jacobite faction and Antioch Heirarchy!There is no imposed/self declared autocephaly in MOSC!Any dispute here in Malankara are caused by Antiochean Heurarcrhy for selfish interest like monetary gains!Malankara Church was not a colony for Syrian Orthodox church. They made MOSC as a colony from 1875 When Peter III Patriarch first visited here! You must also go through the Catholicate history in Tigris then you will know How BareHebrews came with Canon!Without realising,having any ideaof orthodoxy, and studying Other Oriental orthodox history you making illicit and unnecessary claims here!
@Malankara Syriac OrthodoxBy reading an epistle in Coptic church as an acolyte you have not gained any knowledge of their history and autocephalacy of churches of Ethiopea/Eriteria! You do not even know the historical background of their autocephalcy,when and where,or how they gained autocephalacy!You are trying to mislead and misguide people here by saying that those churches(Ethopea/Eriterria) gained auotcephalacy before MOSC which are totally untrue and false!!
@rinsamYour comment that "You are a purely an Antiochean Devotee who are adoring Syrian Patriarch as 'universal papa' like Roman Catholic!" was in very poor taste.I thought that we were having a meaningful dialoge here. The only person that I am a devotee of, is my Lord Jesus Christ. I dont any devotion to any other man.There is a contraditiction in your statement. You compare the autocephaly of Ethipian Church and the Eritrean Church. This was granted by the Synod of the Coptic Church. And then you go on and say that the Syriac Synod does not really matter in granting of autocephaly to the Indian Church.The other question that I had was about the Synod of Bishops in Malankara at that time. You have not answered that. However our friend Joshua has answered that in his post. He says the H.H Abdul Messiah held a synod of Priests (vaidika synod). So it is interesting that H.H Abdul Messiah didnt hold a Synod of Bishops but held a Synod of Priests and then decided to elevate Murimattathil Thirumeni as Catholicose.I am not accussing you as a Devolakam devotee or a Puthenkuriz devotee. So please refrain from name calling. Please donot call me a devotee of any place. I am not a devotee of Antioch, Rome, Jesusalem, Kottayam or Kanjikuzi. Now if there is something that I said in any of my posting offended you and provked you 'name calling', then please accept my apology. Forgive me and pray for me.
Dear Malankara syriac Orthodox "The association held at Aluva on 30-Aug-1911 elected H.G Paulose Mar Koorilose (Kochuparambil Thrirumeni) as the Malankara Metropolitan. It was only after Kochuparambil Thriumeni passed away in 1917 that Aluva Valiya Thrirumeni was elected as the Malankara Metropolitan."This is (above)your quote which are purely lies and falsehood!In 1911 Aug 22(chingam)The Malankara association was held in M.D.Seminary, Kottayam, Which elelcted as Co-trustess As Fr. Paulose(Palapallil,Pampakuda as Priest Trustee,)C.K.Abraham Kottayam as Lay Trustee in place of Konattu Mathen Malpan(ex-priest trustee)and C.J. Kurien (ex-lay trustee)!There were NO MALANKARA ASSOCIATION HELD FOR ELECTING "PAULOSE MAR ATHANASIUS OF ALUVA AS MALANKARA METROPOLITAN" He was Made by Elias III as ribel and had no validity in Malankara and the courts of Justice in Malankara never approved him as Malankara Metropolitan! Moreover Kuttikattil Thirumeni(Aluva) and Edvazheekal are only two metropolitans supporting Patriarch of Antioch and his unlawful deeds here in Malankara!All the rest were in Catholicate or with Vattasseril Mar Dionyasius!The situation in Malankara during 1905-1911 is not at present in America or India! You comparison does not have any merit at all! Whatever the Canon at UDAYAGIRI held by Jacobites at present is a forged document!
@malankara syriac Orthodox Your Comments on 12/14Th Dec are not relating to any Official Synod of Malankara Church! Malankara Church was in Split due to the Stay of H.H. Abdalla Patriarch (1909-1911)and his unlawful dismissal/ex-communication of Vattasseril Mar Dionyasius!Whatever H.H. Abdalla did herein Malankara was not in accordance with our traditions of Church!It was not Orthodox faction who were against unity in Malankara but The Present Jacobites or bava kakshi! After 1958 Peace/Unity, there were unhappy people in Jacobites who were having secret Antiochean Movement and other functions to disable/distabilise United Church in Malankara!Sleeba Mar Osthatios not saint for Malankara church as he was not doing good for Malankara people as per Christ's teachings! He was here for his selfish interest and welfare! I heard of him making/contructing an antiochean(ribel) Church in Near Kunnamkulam but during his lifetime, he was not able to finish its construction!He was the author of "KappiKanon"for the protection of self interest!Only in 1935 August 22 (An Invalid/ribel meeting)at Karingachira,the Jacobites convened a meeting which elected Mar Athanasius of Aluva, as Malankara metropolitan,Fr.Pukkunnel Joseph as Priest Trustee,and Thulakan Paulose as Lay trustee,which lead to The infamous,Samudaya Case!Prior to this,in 1934(Dec 26Th)Malankara Asoociation was Held in M.D.Seminary ,Kottayam, MOSC made/passed its Constuition and there were no forced autocephalacy declared by any Malankara Metropolitan by then!The Spirit of Peace in 1958 was lost through the actions of Yakkob III Patriarch who came in Malankara during enthronement of Augen I bava(1964),whereby he was demanding his temporal power over all Malankara Churches outside India,and his later misbehaviour/conduct at Addis Ababa, Ethiopea, during oriental orthodox conference,actions in Malankara through his infamous and heretic teaching vide KALPANA NO.203(1970)Kalapana etc!
@ Malankara Syriac VoiceI never used the word, "Unlimited Power". All I meant to say was, the court verified each action of Patriarch, Orthodox and Jacobites based on the Syrian Canons (Hudaya). Since the Canon, never stopped a patriarch from establishing a catholicate on his own, they observed that the catholicate is valid. Secondly, it was not Vattasheril thirumeni, who first thought about a catholicate, years before Konat Mathen Malphan and Dionsyius V tried for the same, and Abded Aloho, ( the very same person who estbalished the Catholicate) did turn down the proposal.It is of no use aguing, about the validity of Catholicate. For 40 years, the Jacobite tried everthing possible (a hale and hearty Patriarch was made mentally instable for the same) still no aruguments were heeded by the courts.
@ Malankara Syriac OrthodoxYour comments "Antiochean Devotee" termed as in bad taste and poor standard! Antiochean Devotee in ordinary/simple, Malayalam means" Anthiokya Bhakthan".This is not in a Bad taste or poor language that I had posted there early!What I commented was that I only saw/felt in your early postings/comments that you are purely a devotee of Antioch!I did not use any mocking language or mockery words in my postings here!I have answered all your questions here regarding Autocephalousy! Another point you take care that Syrian Orthodox Church consider that Malankara Church in their constituition as a GREATER DIOCESE OF INDIA only! This is absolutely wrong as Malankara orthodox Church was not a product of Syrian Orthodox Church or Syrian Orthodox Church never preached gospel here or evangelised here in India!We are St.Thomas Christians and we do nothave any inheritance from SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH of Antioch or Damascus!
Att:Malankara Syriac OrthodoxRegarding Installation/Enthronement Of Catholicose/Mapriyan, Paulose mar Beselios II,Late lamented Paulose mar Philexinos (of Jacobite)by H.H.Yakkob III at Damascus,which synod approved his position In Malankara in 1970's?
@rinsam,Me being a meek altar assistant reading the epistle in a Coptic Church does not make me an expert on anything. I agree with you. I am truly unworthy of the gift of eternal life that our Lord and Savior freely bestows on me. Your statements acknowledged that Kuttikkattil Thirumeni and Edavzhikkal Thirumeni were siding with the Patriarch. You didnt mention anything about Kochuparambil Thirumeni (Paulose Mar Coorilose) who was ordained along with Vattesseril Thirumeni. Are you saying that he was with Vattesseril Thrirumeni and participated in the so called synod held at Niranam for the ethronment of Murimattathil Thirumeni as Catholicose. Please confirm. Now I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And continue to pray for me.
@ Malankara Syriac OrthodoxMulamthurithy Synod(A.D.1876) was not an Episcopal synod It was Only A Meeting of Suriyani Kristhiani Association(present Malankara Association)! The Association in 1876 did not authorise H.H. Peter III to Conscrate 6 More Bishops in Malankara! What H.H. PeterIII did was exercising his unlimited powers in Malankara for his own personal interest and meterial benefits by creating more dioceses and removing Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionayasius from his power and authority in whole Malankara church!The Consecration of 6 bishops was done without consulting Malankara Metropolitan! Again This was against the teachings/tradition of Syrian Orthodox Church as per Epistle 1 of Mar Clemis 7:2 and against Hoodayo Canon!
@malakara Syriac orthodoxBefore talking Synod of 1911,Can you tell me Who was The Presiding Synod Bishop In India? When was he elected/selected or appointed as Presiding Bishop of Synod in Malankara?Another question For what reasons Malankara Church need sanction from Syrian Synod? Was Syrian synod in Charge of Malankara church from A.D.52 or from A.D.325?At the Time of Portughese Rule/Persecution in Malankara What was your holy fathers in Syrian/Antiochean Synod doing?When H.H. Peter III visited malankara had he created a synod here?When did Syrian Patriarch become Head of All Churches in East including India,which synod approved it?
@malankara Syriac orthodoxHere in Malankara, patriarch PeterIII Bava conscecrated bishops or made Dioceses without consulting The Malankara Metropolitan,or Malankara S.C.associstion!So your question of a valid Synod in Malankara cannot be attributed as the conscration of 6 bishops was not endorsed/recommended by Malankara Suriyani Kristhiani Association in 1876! What H.H. Peter III was trying to remove Malankara Metropolitan from his powers and authority through creating dioceses and consecrating more Bishops(read Kandanadu Granthavari,you will get a clear picture about this )Why vattasseril thirumeni did not participate in Catholicate Establishment/or enthronment of Murimattathil Bava has nothing to do with Synod in Malankara!Even Abdulla patriarch never held an Episcopal Synod in Malankara!What Abded Mshiha Patriarch did was the Request of Malankara Church Malankara Metropolitan ,thorough Konattu Malpan!1911 Chingam 22 .Malankara Association was held in M.D. Seminary,Kottayam(Total 275 churches in Malankara by then,215 churches and its representatives participated)recommended the establishmentof Catholicate to be relocated in Malankara and enthronment of Catholicate in Malankara!By then Abdulla Bava was here in Malankara!Kochuparambilmar Cooriolse made a registerd agreement with H.H. Abdalla patriarch in Malankara for his(patriarch's) temporal powers in malankara.thus he was silent by then! How can then ask me The episcopal synod validation or Consensus as Majority were together with Vattasseril Dionaysius!Morever Augen Bava was there in Antioch as deacon and as monk/remban .But how come he joined the Catholicose after his arrival in Malankara!Please look for truth and real facts rather rely on fabricated or untrue stories!
@rinsam,In your many postings you have asked me many questions and made some comments. Let me answer.1) You ask me who was presiding over the Synod in 1911?I have already answered it in my posting with date stamp December 12, 2011 9:00 PM. Please read that. 2) In your posting you say, "We are St.Thomas Christians and we do nothave any inheritance from SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH of Antioch or Damascus!"First of all it is wrong to say that we are St. Thomas Christians. Please read 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 , it says : "One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? We were not baptized in the name of St.Thomas or of St. Peter. We are Christians period. We neither St.Peter Christians nor are we St.Thomas Christians. Second of all, we do not have any inheritance from the Syriac Orthodox Church is false. Though there could be confusions regarding Malankara / Syriac Orthodox relationship before the 1600, the relationship since then is very well documented. The liturgy and vestments of the clergy that we use in Malankara are all inheritance from the Syriac Orthodox Church. Denying that is denying truth. 3) Then you ask: "At the Time of Portughese Rule/Persecution in Malankara What was your holy fathers in Syrian/Antiochean Synod doing?"At that time the Syriac Orthodox Synod sent one of its senior members, H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious, Syriac Orthodox Arch-Bishop of Jerusalem (who also had the title Patriarch of Jerusalem to Malankara). This Syriac Bishop lived in Malankara, confirmed the episcopacy of Mar Thoma I, and nourished the Malankara Church which at that time had the dual influence of Nestorian Hersey and Roman Catholic heresy in the true Oriental Orthodox faith. This Syriac father passed away and is entombed at St.Thomas Church, North Parur.4) Then you tend to assign some ulterior motives to H.H Peter III in dividing Malankara into 7 diocese and ordaining 6 additional Bishops.The problem with having one Bishop was very evident. Just before that one Bishop (Palakunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasious) had rejected Orthodoxy and accepted protestant teachings. That is the risk when you have just one Bishop. If that one Bishop slips into heresy the whole church slides into heresy along with him. So the 6 Bishops were ordained to protect the true faith; ie Orthodoxy. The chances that the majority will slide into heresy was low. This was not to minimize the importance of Pulikkottil Thrirumeni. Pulikkottil Thirumeni remained as the Malankara Metropolitan and was also assigned the Capital city as the Bishop of Kollam.5) Calling me a devotee of Bhaktan of anything other than Lord Jesus Christ is an insult to me. Do you like to be called a Kanjikuzhi Bhaktan. Antioch is just another place just like Kanjikuzhi. Let us not do name calling and have a discussion with mutual respect, love and prayer for each other. 6) You bring up the entire H.H Yakub III and H.B Baselious Paulose II issue. I am not saying that the events of the early 70s are right. They were not. Similarly the events of 1911-12 were also fishy. Two wrongs, unfortunately does not make one right. As I said, we have to ask one thing. What is the end objective? Is it UNITY. If unity is required, HUMILITY, RESPECT and LOVE is required from ALL sides. If the objective is to take CONTROL and RULE, then you are thinking in the right direction. Never accept any fault, disrespect everyone on the other side, deny any inheritance from the Syriac Church, Every Patriarch of Antioch; be it H.H Peter III, H.H Abd Allah, H.H Elias III, H.H Aphrem I , H.H Yakob III and H.H Zakka I are all EVIL POWER MONGERS. With that approach we will not reach UNITY.That's all I am saying.
@Malankara SyriacOrthodoxAll you quoted from scriptures are applicable to everybody not to orthodox faction alone! I did not call you as "Puthencruz " Or such local mockery NAME That you had used!When Antioch/Or syrian Patriarch did not follow the traditions of Church or Scriptures you are saying that they are right! right in what sense!such attitude never will work as as means to reconcile or leading path/way to unity!Regarding Antiochean Liturgy or vestments all these came in use in Malankara after A.D.1876 not before that! Malankara Church had its own liturgy and vestments! Abddul Jaleel Mar Gregorios(1665) did not come in Malankara as per the decision of Synod in Antioch! the THAKSA used by him and his Kalpana(while in Malankara) is a proof to that!/He was not sent here by Antioch Patriarch!These are lies taught by those devotees of Antioch here in Malankara!The the Headquarters of Malankara Orthodox Church is not at Kanjikuzhy, as termed by you!Check postal code and pin number at Post Office in Kerala!There is nothing fishy in establishment of Catholicate in 1912,at Malankara By H.H. Abded Mashiha Patriarch as termed by you and your fathers!The Six Bishops were Concecrated here by H.H. Peter III was purely for him having Temporal powers in Malankara(each of them were directed to send/ give Reseesisha to him seperately from each diocese and not protecting orthodox faith,but to serve him as the MASTER! He told during the Suriani Christhiani association in Mulanmthurithy, not to obey Pulikottil Thirumeni. Pulikottil thirumeni was not given charge diocese of Kollam as alleged/quoted by yourselves!The diocese of Kollam and Niranam was Given to Parumala Mar Gregorios!There was nothing in Those days Your Canonical Patriarchs H.H. PeterIII,.Or H.H. Abdulla did as per Synod decisions either in Malankara or in Syria! What ever they did a singlehand,unilateral and independantly!It was Sleeba Mar Osthathios/ mar Yulioos,during Elias III who made a forged documents regarding synod decisions of Antioch,including Kappi Canon!H.H.Zaka was given personally a proposed draft constituition of Unity in Malankara (similar to the Coptic/Ethiopea/Eriteria model)by Fr.Dr.K.M Georoge,(principal orthodox seminary)The ribel Catholicate/maphriyanate in India are creation of Antioch Patriarch!As long as they(Antioch)follow "DIVIDE AND RULE"formula like British did in India,nothing will work out for peace and unity in Malankara Church!
Att.Malankara Syriac OrthodoxAntioch is prominent place in bible/ Christianity or a Sacred historical city where followers of Christ were known as Christians!Kanjikuzhy is a place not mentioned in bible where by jacobites/antioch devotees in Malankara, mock orthodox church in Malankara!You determine where is your stand now!
@malankara syriac OrthodoxSt.Peter never claimed that he is Above 11 Apostles of Christ! What he said was being a fellow Elder of Elders of Church(1 peter 5:1)! This the Scripture verse to be followed by Antiochean Patriarchs in Malankara!That is What Abded Mashiha really did with establishment of Catholicate in1912!After years of War in Courts in 1958 The Supreme Court made the verdict whereby peace, unity in malankara underL/L H. H. Baselios Geevarghese II>How can you now question the validity Catholicate in Malankara By Now?The supreme court recognsed/approved the establishment of catholicate in Malankara and its validity together with 1934 constituition! By then the Patriarch bishop Mar Athanasius (Aluva Thirumeni) told his flocks(Jacobites who were protesting then against 1958 reconciliation) there is nothing wrong in the priesthood of Cathilcos,Baselios GeevargheseII or his position as Malankara metropolitan!After 99 years you are questioning the validity of catholicose ,which shows your arrogance/imprudency/and unreasonable and illogic mentality of a immature person!
Dear All whatever google site by Jacobites on Malankara Catholicate stated are untrue and purely lies on the following grounds(1) Malankara church was an indepedant/autonomous church from beginning A.D.52(2) The Syrian orthodox church/Antiochean church is not the mother church of Malankara!(3) All oriental Churches are autocephalas and they are not related like mother/daughter churches!(3) The Church(new Israel) originted originated in Jerusalem on Pentacost Day with 12 Apostles together with 120 disciples!(4)The First Bishop of Jerusalem (mother)Church was cousin brother of Jesus Christ,James!(5)St.Thomas was not sent to India from Antioch by Peter or Church in Antioch!(6)St.Thomas church of Malankara had no connection with Syrian orthodox church Until after 1665 A.D.!(7)Since Malankara Church was autonnmous and autocephalas fron beginning (A.D.52) We do not need/require any sanction of autocephalcy from syrian Orthodox synod!(8) There was no canonical and uncanonical patriarch in Antioch or syrian orthodox Church as Abded Mshiha Patriarch was never suspended from his position by any Synod in Turkey or Syria!It was not the synod in Turkey or Antioch which removed Abded Mshiha Patriarch from his position!The sultan of Turkey withdrew his FIRMAN from Abded Mshiha patriarch!Since Abdulla II patriarch was politically installed as Patriarch by Sultan of Turkey there was no spiritual elevation on his consecration!The Majority of Bishops in Malankara including Parish representatives known as Malankara Association Recommended the Relocation or installation of Catholicate in Malankara!The Patriarch Abdulla or his bishops did not have Majority in Malankara or legal validity over churches and properties!The Antioch Patriarchs both Peter III or Abdulla II who stayed in Malankara different times did not make any synod or Called for synod meeting for any matters pertaining to Malankara church!The Malankara Association held in kottayam M.D. Seminary on August 22,1911,removed Konattu Mathen Malpan ( Priest trustee) C.J.Kurien(lay trustee) and elected New Priest trustee as Fr Paulose,Palapallil From Pampakuda as Priest trustee and Abraham,chirakkadavil Korula as Lay trustee!Metropoltan Trustee Geevarghese Mar Dionayasiuus had a big majority support from 215 churches out of 275!From this it is clear that Patrirch Abdulla had no support from Malankara Suriani Kristhiani association! Abdulla Patriarch consecrated Edavazheekal Mar Severios (For Knanaya community)with a registered agreement as Abdulla Patriarch having All authority/temporal powers on all churches /properitis under Severios!(1910 August)This was not done as per recommendation of Malankara S.C. Association!Same as the case of Mar Athanasius was like that during May 25th 1910 with registered Agreement for consecration of Bishop for Remban Paulose Pinadathu!Kochu Paranmbil Mar Coorilose made a registered Agreement om Aug 29 1910 allowing temporal powers of Abdulla patriarch on Malankara Church properties under his diocese!How Can A patriarch from Syria or Antioch demand Temporal powers over church and properties in India?Thus the three bishops were slaves to Antioch patriarch H.H.Abdulla!Who acted against church traditions and Practices/canons or teachings!Malankara Church were independent and autonomous from its Inception!
Present Status of Jacobite Syrian Christians Three simple points which Jacobites in India should think about, that will help them understand their own present position/status ( whether they are the proud members of The Universal Syrian Orthodox Church or they are just a colonial-slave population under the Arabic masters of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church). 1. Do their Indian Bishops have a seat ( full member status ) in the Synod of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church?2. Do their Indian Bishops have the right to vote in electing their head ( Patriarch of Antioch, of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church ) ?3. Do their Indian Bishops have the right to contest in the election of their head ( Patriarch of Antioch, of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church ) ?
I have to correct various misunderstanings here from rinsam and from sampariyarathu1) Rinsam says that H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious was not the Syriac Orthodox Arch-Bishop (Patriarch) of Jerusalem and stating so is a lie. If that is the case, which church did H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious come from? Please clarify. 2) I never called rinsam any name other than rinsam. All I said was that, you will not like me calling you Kanjikuzhi bhaktan similarly I dont like being called Antioch bhakthan. Then you justify your name calling by saying that you didnt call me a local name like Puthencuriz bhaktan. Actually calling me Puthenkuriz bhaktan would have been better. At least that means that I am a devotee of the "New Cross" of Jesus Christ. The old cross being reserved as a tool of punishment for sinners, while the "New Cross" is the cause of my salvation and eternal life. 3) Rinsam never clarified why the 3 bishops out of the 5 bishops in Malankara in 1911 were not taken into confidence about establishing a catholicate.4) Sampariyarathu says that Kuttikkattil Mar Athanasious (Aluva Valiya Thirumeni) said after the 1958 verdict that there was noting wrong with the priesthood of the Catholicose. The fact is that Aluva Valiya Thirumeni had passed away before the 1958 judgement. I beleive you must be referring to the successor of Aluva Valiya Thirumeni, Vayaliparambil Mar Gregorious Thirumeni. It is true that he did say that. And I believe him. I dont think there is anything wrong with the priesthood of the Catholicate. The question is was it established properly by gaining consensus in Malankara?5) Rinsam says that there is nothing that H.H Peter III did as per the Malankara Synod. The fact is that prior to H.H Peter III arriving in Malankara, there was no synod in Malankara. There was just one Bishop. One Bishop does not make up a synod in orthodoxy. It was only after the 6 additional Bishops were ordained that a Synod was formed.6) Sampariyarathu, showers a lot of adjectives to describe me. He uses the following to describe me: arrogance/imprudency/and unreasonable and illogic mentality of a immature person! . All I can say is I may be all of that, but nobody has given you the right to call me, your brother those names. I will pray for you.7) Sampariyarathu has completely mis understood me. He says that I am questioning the validity of the Catholicate. I never questioned the validity of the Catholicate. All I was saying was that the way it was established in 1911 without gaining the consensus in Malankara was not proper. If it was done properly with the participation of all the 5 Bishops in Malankara in 1911, it would have been better.8) Sampariyarathu again goes on to justify H.H Abdul Messiah as the valid Patriarch. I believe he didnt read my earlier posts. I am saying that I will even agree with you that he was indeed the Patriarch. The problem is that even if he was the legitimate Patriarch, he cannot by himself act on things. He needs the approval of his synod. Jut like H.H Paulose II Catholicose cannot on his own establish Gurgan as the Primate for the Autocephelaus Oriental Orthodox Church of Europe. Such a decision had to be taken by the Synod.9) Sampariyarathu refers to a Malankara Association held at MD Seminary on Aug 22, 1911. This was a partisan association, primarily attended by the members from Kollam, Niranam and Thumbaman dioceses. Can you please send me the names of the Priests and Lay Leaders who attended this association from Angamaly, Kochi and Kandanad dioceses? Can you give me the names of Bishops other than Vattesseril Thirumeni who attended this association?
Dear Malankara Orthodox Syriac!I have already clearly told you that Malankara Church don't need any Consensus or approval from syrian orthodox church in Antioch/Damascus!Another issue,the Dioceses that you mentioned (angamali,Kadanadu,or kochi ) are not considered as majority in Malankara association.How come then Kottayam M.D. Association(1911 Chingam.22) elected Fr.Paulose ,Pampakuda Palapallil as Priest Trustee!This is a clear indication that The Malankara Association had the Majority all parishes from all dioceses ,which participated in such meeting!The Three bishops who made registered agreement with Patriarch Abdulla Bava for giving him temporal power over church and properties in malankara under their dioceses are the one you referring here as part of synod in malankara! But they are individually under Patrirch by signing the registered(udampidi) agreement with patriarch and not under Malankara Metropolitan!Therefore you cannot attribute a valid synod in Malankara by 1911 as Abdulla patriarch was purely after material possessions in Malankara or exercising Temmporal power! This was not the case with persian church/Catholicose Again the issue of Consecrating 6 bishops in Malankara by Peter III Antioch Patriarch! He did this without consulting Malankara Metropolitan or his consent and knowledge!Morever Peter III made seperate registered agreement with those 6 bishops over all their churches and properties in the newly created dioceses! during Mulanthurithy Association,Peter III told the participants publically that they should not obey Malankara Metroplitan Pulikottil Mar Dionyasius as he(peter III) had banned him!So whatever you are saying about valid synod in Malankara,which only came in force after the installation or relocation of Catholicate in 1912!under the reign of Antiochean Patriarch ,Peter III and Abdulla II,.Elias III in Malankara there were only dictatorship and there were no official or valid episcopal Synod in Malankara!The Stuathikon of Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorios says he was Metropolitan of Jesusalem!Whereby the official name/title of bishop of Jerusalem as per Hoodoya canon is EPISCOPA!and the Thaksa used by Abdul Jaleel mar Gregorios was written in Kaldaya Suriyani!He was not the Jerusalem bishop mentioned in Hoodoya Canon or The OFFICIAL BISHOP OF JERUSALEM UNDER PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH!The Coming to Putenkurishu, It is not the Cross of CHrist! Cross of Christ is different from the place "Puthenkurishu" of present jacobites! cross of Christ is self denial(die to self will,embrace God's will,and follow Christ)The present PUTHENKURISHU of Kerala and the Spiritual heirarchy does not follow Christ or his will!Have a blessed,joyfylful Christmas!
@Malankara Syriac OrthodoxPlease forward me a copy of Kalpana Given to Abdul Jaleel Mar Grgorios to Come to Malankara by patriarch of Antioch, as per Malankara Metropolitan request in 1665 A.D.!Malankara Episcopal Synod chaired/presided either byH H PaterIII or H H Abdulla II Patriarchs of Antioch during their visit in Malankara including Elias III,From A.D.1875 to A.D.1935!The Ex-communication by Syrian Orthodox Synod of Antioch regarding Abded Messsiah patriarch! remember Antioch patriarch is not given any temporal powers in Malankara by any synod or Malankara association!Since you are one after questioning the validity of Catholicate in Malankara and asking for Consensus of synod in Malankara during 1911 please do the needful!
Dear rinsam and Sam, I am sorry that I didnt respond earlier. I was not ignoring you. I was busy with friends and family during Christmas. Hope you had a blessed Christmas with your families as well. Wish you a Happy New Year.Now coming back to our topic of discussion:1) I don’t have to produce a copy of a kalpana from the 1600’s to prove that H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious was a Syriac Orthodox Archbishop. All I have to do is to look at the official website of the Malankara Orthodox Church (mosc.in). The following sentence is a copy paste from that website:“From 1665 under Mar Thoma I a relationship with the west Syrian Patriarchate was established when there arrived at their request a certain Gregorios. Again in 1685 two bishops of that persuasion came. From 1751 also present three bishops from there.” 2) You say that prior to the Mulanthuruthy Synod of June 1876 there was no relationship between the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Malankara Church. I can point you to many places. Theres are susthathikon's of various Malankara Metropolitans. I am very deliberately not pointing you to any sites or documents maintained by the Patriarch side. Because if I do, you will say all that is fabricated. Please again refer to mosc.in , it has a translation of resolution passed by the Mavelikkara Synod of Jan 1836. The following is a copy paste from the mosc.in website:“We are Jacobite Syrians subject to the patriarch of Antioch, observing the church rites and rules established by the prelates sent by his command.” 3) Please refer to the letter written by Mar Divannasious III, the then Malankara Metropolitan in 1821 to the CMS Society. This letter was published on page 43 of the ‘Christian Journal and Literary Register Vol 7’ published in 1823 from New York. It reads:“Mar Dionysius metropolitan of the Jacobite Syrians in Malabar, subject to the authority of our father, Mar Ignatius , patriarch , who presides in the apostolic see of Antioch, beloved of the Messiah.”In this letter Mar Divannasious III narrates our history to the CMS Society in England. If you have the time you should read this entire letter. The 1823 publication preserved at the New York City Library has been scanned by Google Books and is available online at the link below:Google Books - Christian Journal 1883There may have been short comings from the Patriarchs of Antioch. I don’t what you to misunderstand me. I am not saying that the Patriarch has unlimited power in Malankara. No he doesn’t. I am not saying that all Patriarchs are saints. No they were not. Several Patriarchs did things that they were not supposed to. The same is true about our fathers in Malankara as well. But we cannot deny the historical relationship between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Malankara Church. That is denying the truth. The best words that has expressed our relationship with Antioch is not that of anyone from the Patriarch side, but that of Late Lamented Paulose Mar Gregorious in 1968 at that time Fr Paul Verghese, Principal of the Seminary at Kottayam. The following is what he said:“We in India belong to this Patriarchate even if we have our own Catholicos and are autonomous. We have no other source from which to receive our ancient tradition - except the tradition of Antioch, of the great Syrian Church.”I am hoping that we can one day come together as one church under the Catholicos with a relationship with the Patriarch as envisioned not just in the letter, but in the spirit of the 1934 constitution, the 1995 supreme court verdict and best expressed in the words of late Paulose Mar Gregorious Thirumeni.
Dear Malankara Orthodox SyriacThere is no evidence from history or traditions to prove that Malankara had relations with Antioch(syrian orthodox Church)prior to 1665 A.D.This is the TRUTH! Malankara had relations or ties with Persian Church from beginning!It was Mar Ivanios Hidaytulla who came along with Yeldho Mar Baselios mafriana,who taught that MALANKARA had prior relations with Antioch from 4th centuary!(which was totally falsehood) Malankara People used to believe whatever has been told by foreign bishops in the absence of proper education and understanding of historical facts/truths!The current Liturgy Malankara church(holy Qurbana,Vestments of Priests and sacraments liturgy) are using are having only 200 years use here! This relation of liturgy cannot be attributed that Malankara was under Antioch or Syrian Patriarch from beginning or from A.D.345 as alleged by some people here!The relation between Malankara and Antioch is not in Paper But in Spirit! But to retain that Antioch Patriarchs should behave like early Disciples(apostles)Of Jesus Christ!During the time of Jacob Bardius (Burdhana),the holy father got ordained from Alexandrea and thereafter he himself ordained priests and consecrated bishops in Alexandrea,Antioch and other places!This does not mean Antioch was under Alexandrea or Alexandrea was under Antioch!This how the Spirit of Orthodxy works!not like slaves and masters!
@Malankara Syriac OrthodoxI do not want to listen to fabricated stories of Google site created purely by Jacobites for self existence! Again Why The Mavelikara Association Or Padiyola was made and for what reasons ?The West Syriac Liturgy was not here in Malankara until 1665!can you show any evidence in Malankara that we had w.syriac Liturgy and vestments prior to 1665 A.D.?There were two priests who came in Malankara with Yeldho Mar Baselios maphriyana! One of them was later consecrated by Yeldho Mar Baselios as bishop named Ivanios(who was forcing the Pakalomattam Marthoma (archidiayakion)Methropolitans IV/V to follow West Syriav Liturgy in Malankara)who spread the theory of Antioch relation in Malankara from beginning! He divided the Malankara church history in to three and spread it here!A.D.52-1498 A D. Old Antioch ERA(no proof/evidence only imaginary story)A.D.1498-A.D.1650 Latin Era(Vasco De Gama and Portughese rule in Kerala)A.D. 1665-on wards" New Antioch Era"( due to the coming of Yeldho Mar Baselios)This was the History, E.M. Philip basically followed in his book Malankara Church history!Because of British rule in India,we have their dress style,and use of English language etc!But we are not British or we do not follow their culture! What you quoted are the History writtem by James Houghen a british Anglican Prelate who visited India during A.D.1830!His history was based on the unfounded/untrue teachings of Mar Ivanios who spread the Antiochean/syrian ties from A.D.52 to A.D.1498!
@ Malankara Syriac OrthodoxThere are no stuathikon that you are referring here are from Antioch /Syrian Patriarch!The Dress/robes/vestments used by Malankara Methrans Marthoma I to V (including Palakunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasius the reformist-Marthoma Sabha) were different of Antiochean/Syrian tradition!They were using the dress code from Abdul Jaleel Mar Grogorios!Regarding Ahatalla Bava (The one was drowned by Portughese/Latin catholics in Arabian Sea)is not from Antioch! The Kalpana written by Mar Ahatalla regarding the Consecration of Malankara Methran! If he was from Antioch he could not have allowed 12 Priests to consecrate Archdidayokon Thoma as Marthoma I as Malankara metropolitan! while in the custody of Portughese(Parankikal) people from the Jail, the kalpana was written in East Syriac and not in W.Syriac!The Mentality/gesture/attitude of Syrian Patriarchs should be changed!Then we can have a united church! As long as Syrian Patriacrh do not change their attitude no unity will take place in Malankara!It is The Spirit of Christ which which guide and walk us in truth!
@rinsam,I agree with you, the approach and the attitude of the Patirarch of Antioch has to be changed for unity to come.But where we disagree with respect to the Catholicate and the extremist on that side. You are saying everything is 100% perfect there. What I am saying is that change is needed from both sides. There are no PERFECT sides in this confilict. Both sides have made errors; both sides need to ask for forgiveness to each other and to God and approach each other with LOVE and RESPECT and attain unity.As long as each side takes the position: "The rabbit that I caught had 3 horns" (rough translation from Malayalam), nothing is going to change. Now just to clarify, I am not so naive enough to think that right from the day St.Thomas landed on the Malankara coast there was a relationship between Malankara and Antioch. No body from the Patriarch side created Google Books. It is a project of Google, where they are scanning old books and making it electronic making it easier for people to refer them. So the Christain Journal 1823 link that I send to you was not created by anyone from the Patriach side. Rinsam there is a contradition in your statement; you say that there was no west syriac liturgy in India prior to 1665. What happened in 1665? That was the year when H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious came to India. Then you go and say that H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious was not a Syriac Orthodox Archbishop. So I am asking you again; if you are saying that H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious was not Syriac Orthodox, then what was he? Was he from another Oriental Orthodox Church? Coptic or Armenian ? Was he from the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church ? Was he Greek or Serbian ? Was he Nestorian? Or was he Roman Catholic?Now coming to the Persian Church; or the Church of the East, there were churches of two faiths there. There was the Nestorian Church of the East under fully autocephalus Catholicose. Then there was the Oriental Orthodox Church of the East under the autonomous; Catholicose. In order to distinguish the Oriental Orthodox head from the Nestorian head, the Oriental Orthodox head took the title 'Maphrian'. This Oriental Orthodox Catholicate (Maphrian) of the East was autonomous, but was under the Patriarch of Antioch. The terms of agreement between the them is codified in the Council of Capharthutha in February 869 AD. There were very famous Maphrians (Catholicose of the East). Bar Ebraya from 1200's, Mar Baselious Eldho who came to Kothamangalam, Mar Sakralla who came to Mulanthurthy are examples. There were many Maphrians who later became Patriarchs of Antioch.Our relationship with the Persian Church was with this autonomous Oriental Orthodox Church of the East under the Maphrian. It was not with the autocephalous Nestorian Catholicose.With in the Syriac Orthodox Church, the liturgy was not 100% uniform across the board. Just think of Malayalam, the type of Malayalam spoken in Trichur is not the same Malayalam spoken in Trivandrum. It was not the dialect of the Syriac (East or West) that mattered; it is the theology that mattered. Are we part of the Oriental Orthodox Church (Patriarch of Antioch / Maphriana of the East) or the Nestorian Church of the East (Catholicose of the East / Patriarch of Babylon).Now let me clarify, just because we were under the Patriarch of Antich at one point in time does not mean that we can never be autocephalus ever. We can be; as long as that is gained with concensus; unlike ignoring 3 out of the 5 Bishops of Malankara in 1911; and inviting a Patriarch who was acting without the approval of any Synod.
Dear Malankara Orthodox Syriac(i) Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorios was not not from Antioch/or from Jerusalem under Antioch see!The reasons I have already explained in these blog comments!Further to this he used Unleavened Bread in Holy Eucharist! (ii) Malankara Church does not need any Consensus from Antioch for its autocephalacy as we have been independant from Antioch or Coptic or under any province of Roman Empire from beginning!(iii)The Creation of 4 Patriarchate were done with Royal interference of Emperor Constantine in Roman Empire, and thereafter the title PATRIARCH was ever used with ROYAL powers! It was not Jesus Christ who appointed PATRIARCH in Church administration!(iv)In Malankara there were no Episcopal Synod chaired By Antiochean Patriarch from 1875 to 1935! In the absence of this your alleged claim of consensus of Bishops are not required for establishment of Catholicate in Malankara! As per Hoodayo Canon consent of 3 bishops are required for enthronement of catholicose !The Consecration of 6 bishops by H.H. Peter III was uncanonical! How can you then claim consensus of Bishops in Malankara, as H.H. Peter III made separate REGISTERED AGREEMENT with each bishops consecrated by him! Here H.H.Peter III never followed any Canon or traditionof church as per Epistle of mar Clemis!(v)About google site, your claims are not correct!Google site of Malankara are created by Jacobites for their own Existence!they do not reflect true history of Malankara Church(VI)The four Patriarchates created in 4th centuary A.D. was not based on any Christian Principles/or as per teachings of Christ! These are Imperial/Royal creations of Roman Empire!(vii)The Catholicate in Malankara is not under see of Antioch! Again the present SOC constituition does not allow any Indain(malankara) Maphriyana to be elected as Patriarch of SOC!The Catholicate in Malankara is valid whatever you are trying to say here is unworthy and baseless!(viii)12 Apostles of Christ were PRESBYTORS/Elders or bishops and therefore they were equal in their powers and authority! (ix)The four Episcopas of four regions under Roman Empire were made as Patriarchs later in A.D.4th centuary and not all over the world or universe!There are no Universal Syrian Orthodox Church or its Universal Head as Patriarch!This was a self creation and not any synod creationI would kindly request you give me a list of Mapriyans who became Patriarch of SOC between A.D.869 -A.D.1290 or later and the peroid of their see!I did not claim IOC/MoSc 100% perfect! The imperfection in Malankara was brought by self claimed Holy Antiocheans or their deeds in Malankara!Wish you Happy New Year!
@ Malankara suriac OrthodoxCan show me H.H Peter III or H.H. Abdulla.or H.H.Elias III, did according to Synod decisions in Malankara?When you Say H.H. Abded Mshiha did not establish catholicate without synod approval/consensus,this is purely a claim of Antiochean Movement/supporter in Malankara as there are no evidence that SOC/antiochean synod expelled H.H. Abded Mshiaha from his spiritual power! In Malankara, we had MSCA(malankara suriyani krishthiani association) which had Majority and requested the establishment of Catholicate with three bishops!Here We do not need any sanction from SOC or Antioch ! Your comments about Antiochean liturgy and Vestments are totally irrelavant as you do not want follow the truths and facts!In Malankara we had both nesthore and non nesthore bishops and liturgy!
സ്വന്തം കണ്ണിലെകോല് എടുത്തിട്ട് വേണം സഹോദരന്റെ കണ്ണിലെ കരടു നോക്കുവാന്" ഇവിടെ മലങ്കര സഭയ്ക് സ്വയം ഭരണം ഉണ്ട്! അത് ഇവിടുത്തെ മലങ്കര സഭാമക്കള് ആണ് തീരുമാനിക്കുന്നത്! അല്ലാതെ വിദേശത്ത് നിന്നും ദ്രവ്യാഗ്രഹം മുഴുത് ഇവിടെ വന്ന അന്തോക്കിയന് പിതാകാന്മാരല്ല!മലങ്കര സഭാ മക്കളെ തമ്മില് തല്ലിയും കൊല്ലിച്ചും റിബല് മെത്രാന്മാരെ വഴിച്ചുംആണ് അബ്ദള്ള ബാവ എന്ന അന്തോക്യന് ബാവ ഇവിടെ മലന്കരയില് പ്രവര്ത്തിച്ചത്! പൗലോസ് ശ്ലീഹ തിമോതിഒസിനു എഴുതിയ ലേഖനം വായിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളവര്ക്ക് ഇത് മനസ്സിലാകും!ഇവിടുത്തെ മലങ്കര മേത്രപോളിതായെ മുടക്കിയും അന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്ന മെത്രാന്മാരെ പ്രലോഭിപ്പിച്ചും മുടക്ക് എന്ന വാളിന്റെ മുനയില് നിര്ത്തി അവരെകൊണ്ട് ധനലാഭം കൊയ്യിച്ചും നടന്ന അന്തോക്കിയന് പിതാക്കന്മാര് ആരെങ്കിലും ഒരു എപിസ്കോപാല് സുന്നഹോദോസു വിളിച്ചു കൂടിഇയ ചരിത്രം മലന്കരയില് ഇല്ലാത്ത അവസ്ഥയില് നാണമില്ലാതെ പറയുന്ന/വിളിച്ചുകൂവുന്ന കുറെ അന്തോന്ക്കിയ ഭക്തന്മാര് "കാതോലിക്ക സ്ഥാപനം" മലന്കരയില് ശരിയായ വിധത്തില് അല്ല നടന്നത്, സുന്നഹദോസു വിളിച്ചു കൂട്ടിയില്ല എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞു നടക്കാതെ റിബല് കതോലിക്കയയെ യാക്കോബ് മൂന്നാമന് വാഴിച്ചത് ഏതു സുന്നഹോദോസിന്റെ പിന്ബലതാല് ആണ്? മലന്കരയില് വന്നു ഭദ്രാസനങ്ങള് രൂപികരിച്ചു അവിടെ പുതിയ ൬ മെത്രാന്മാരെ വാഴിച്ച പത്രോസ് മൂന്നാമന് എന്തുകൊണ്ട് അദ്ദേഹം വാഴിച്ച മേത്രന്മാരെകൊണ്ട് സുന്നഹോദോസു കൂടിയില്ല?" അശ്ശാന് പിഴച്ചാല് എത്തമില്ല" എന്ന പഴംചൊല്ല് എത്ര ശരിയാണ്!ഇവിടെ മലന്കരയില് സുവിശേഷം അറിയിക്കുകയോ/പ്രച്ചരിപ്പിക്കയോ ചെയ്യാത്ത ധന മോഹികളായ അന്തോകിയന് പിതാക്കന്മാരുടെ മേല്കോയ്മ സ്വീകരിച്ചു അടിമകളായി ഇരിക്കണം എന്നുള്ളവര്ക് അത് ചെയ്യാം! ഓര്ത്തഡോക്സ് ടി വി ബ്ലോഗില് നിങ്ങളുടെ അല്പത്തരം ദയവായി എഴുതരുതേ!
Abded Masiha Patriarch was not canonically ousted or expelled by Antiochean/Syrian Synod, no evidence at all!Whatever the Jacobites claims are untrue and baseless as this issue was brought before the courts hearing "samudaya" Case in Malankara and court rejected forged documents submitted by Sleeba mar Osthathios/ Mar Julius the representaive and delegate of Antiochean Patriarchs!during The seminary case What Mar Dionyasius III said against CMS/anglican church/ Bishops cannot be taken as a valid statement regarding the Antioch /SOC relations as this was a story taught by Mar Ivanios who was consecrated by by Yeldho Mar Beselios to the Pakalomattam Methrans!Mar Baselios (yeldho) who consecrated Mar Ivanios also gave him authority of conducting sacramentof Holy Muron(myron) by the Sthuathikon issued to him! How come a Maphriyan under the Antioch Patriarch do such thing as per Hoodayo Canon kept by Jacobites in UDAYAGIRI seminary?Even The Present jacobite Heirarchy,Catholicose/Maphiriyana H.B.Thomas do not have such authority/powers from Syrian Patriarch/Universal Syrian head of Damascus!Unfortunately,many antiochean/adorers or devotees in malankara or Jacobites in Malankara do not know how,when and where West Syriac liturgy or vestments came in Malankara and Prior Liturgy of Malankara before the coming of Sakralla Bava and later Changes made H.H. PeterIII in A.D.1875/6!Anybody who got a HeadCover(Masanapsa) who came from persia/middle east were Called "bava" or representative of Antiochean Patriarch by some people/certain christian in Malankara especially in 16th/17 centuary A.D.without having enough proof of their Christian origin/background!This is the case still followed by some people who are self claiming to be historical students or self historians!
അബ്ദള്ള പത്രിയര്കിസ് മലങ്കര മേത്രപോളിത ആയിരുന്ന വട്ടശ്ശേരില് മാര് ദിവന്യസോസിനെ മുടക്കിയപ്പോള്(൧൯൧൧ ഇടവം ൨൬) മലന്കരയില് ഉണ്ടായിരുന്ന ൨ സീനിയര് മേത്രപോളിതമാര് ആയിരുന്നു അല്വ്വരിസ് മാര് യുലിഒസ് ,മുരിമാട്ടത്തില് മാര് ഇവാനിയോസ് ,ഇവര് സംയുക്തമായി മുടക്കിനെതിരെ ഒരു സര്കുലര് പുരപ്പെടിവിച്ചു!ഉടെനെ തന്നെ മാര് അബ്ദള്ള ബാവ, ഉടനെ, മുറിമട്ടത്തില് ഇവാനിയോസിനെ മുടക്കി!മാര് അല വാരിസിനെ സിലോന്നിലേക്ക്(ശ്രീലങ്ക)യിലേക്ക് പറഞ്ഞുവിട്ടു! ഒരു മണിക്കൂറിനുള്ളില് കോട്ടയം വിട്ടു സിലോന്നിലേക്ക് പോകണം എന്ന ആജ്ഞ യാണ് അല്വാരിസിനു കൊടുത്തത്! തന്നിഷ്ട പ്രകാരം പ്രവര്ത്തിച്ചത് ആരാണ്! ഇങ്ങനെയുള്ള അവസ്ഥയില് മലന്കരയില് എവിടെ, ആര് സുന്നഹോടോസു വിളിച്ചു കൂടുമായിരുന്നു എന്ന് സാമാന്യ ബുദ്ധിയുള്ളവര് ചോദിക്കില്ല! അങ്ങനെ ചോദിക്കുന്ന അന്ത്യോക്യ പ്രേമികള് അബ്ദുള്ള പത്രിയര്കിസിന്റെസ്വെച്ചധിപത്യത്തെ പിന്താങ്ങുകയാണ്! അല്ലാതെ അവിടെ സ്നേഹം ,താഴ്മ , ദയ ,മുതലായ പരിശുദ്ധ ആത്മാവിന്റെ ഫലങ്ങള് ഉള്ളവരല്ല! ക്രിസ്തീയത ഇല്ലാത്ത വക്ര ബുദ്ധിയും ദ്രവ്യാഗ്രഹിയുമായ അബ്ദുള്ള പതൃയര്കീസു നിര്യാതനായത് എങ്ങനെയെന്നു മനസ്സില്ലക്കുക!
Dear rinsam1) You are still just saying that H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious was not Syriac Orthodox; but you are not saying what church was he from. Please answer that question. Was he Nestorian? Was he Roman Catholic? Was he Chalcedonian Orthodox (Russian/Greek/Serbian)? Or Was he from another Oriental Orthodox Church (Coptic/Ethiopian)? 2) You are characterizing the Roman (Byzantine) Emperor summoning the Councils of Nicea , Ephesus and Constantinople as Royal Interference. That is not how Orthodox Christians see it. We see these three councils as holy and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Your statements that these were royal interference corrupting the true Christian Gospel is the speak of Pentecostals. 3) You asked me the provide you the list of Catholicose (Maphrian) of the East who were later elevated as Catholicose from the time period AD 869 to AD 1290. Here are some examples from that time period:a. Mar David was the Catholicose (Maphrian) from 1215 to 1222. He was enthroned as the Patriarch of Antioch in 1222 with the name Mar Ignatius David III and remained the Patriarch from 1222 to 1252.b. Mar Yuhanon Bar Madan was the Catholicose (Maphrian) from 1232 to 1252. In 1252 when Mar Ignatious David III passed away, this Catholicose was enthroned as the Patriarch and remained in that position till 1263You can see these Catholicose listed in the Indian Orthodox Network website. ICON – Indian Orthodox Networdhttp://www.icon.org.in/icon_lineage.iconNow even after 1290, there were several Catholicose (Maphrian) that were later enthroned as the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. From the list in the ICON website, the following were also enthroned as Patriarch’s later:a) Mar Baselios Bahnam (Catholicose from 1404-12) , became Mar Ignatius Behnamb) Mar Nuh (Catholicose from 1490 to 1494) became Mar Ignatius NuhAfter Mar Ignatius Nuh 1494, the list given by ICON does not list anyone by name till Mar Baselios Eldho of Kothamangalam 1634-1685. From the time of Mar Nuh and that of Mar Eldho; there were 5 more Catholicose who later went on to become the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. I can provide names and dates if you are interested.4) Rinsam, you say that Malankara Church does not need consensus from Antioch Synod to declare autocephaly. However for an Antiochian Patriarch to act, he needs the approval of his Synod. If H.H Abdul Messiah II was the Patriarch of Antioch, he cannot act without the approval of his synod. So at a bare minimum, you have to agree with me that H.H Abdul Messiah II overstepped his authority by participating in an event as big as establishing a Catholicate establishment without the approval of his synod.5) Rinsam, even if the Malankara Church does not need consensus from Antioch; consensus is need in Malanakra. Prior to H.H Abdul Messiah’s arrival to Malankara there were 5 Malankara Bishops in India at that time; of which 3 were never consulted nor their cooperation sought or gained for inviting H.H Abdul Messiah or for establishing the Catholicate. So when I am talking about consensus, I am not talking about consensus with Antioch; I am talking about the consensus among the 5 Bishops in Malankara at that time.
Dear rinsam,You say:"The imperfection in Malankara was brought by self claimed Holy Antiocheans or their deeds in Malankara!"Trust me brother, our Fathers here in Malankara had their own imperfections. And trust me, every Syriac Orthodox Patriarch was not pure evil either.
Dear rinsam,You bring up the following:1) You say: There is no Universal Syriac Orthodox Church and there is no Universal Jurisdiction.2) You say that as per the new 1980 constitution of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Catholicose /Maphrian cannot become the Patriarch.3) You say: "The Catholicate in Malankara is valid whatever you are trying to say here is unworthy and baseless!"I AGREE WITH YOU ON ALMOST ALL OF THEM. - The concept of universal syriac church. The universal church is the Catholic and Apostolic church is a union of all churches. This has to be changed.- The 1980 constitution provision about the Maphrian not eligible to be elected as the Patirach is unfair. The justification given is that none of the Middle Eastern Bishops are eligible to be elected as the Maphrian either. This is an unfair system and has to be amended.- The Catholicate in Malankara is valid. Nobody can say a 100 year old institution is invalid. All I am saying that the means by which it was esablished in 1911 were not proper.Then you say that what ever I am saying is unworthy. I will be the first one to accept, I am an unworthy and sinful person. I need your prayer for my salvation, so that our Lord in His infinite mercy will overlook my unworthiness and consider me worthy to enter into His Kingdom. Please do pray for me.
വട്ടശ്ശേരിയില് മാര് ദിവന്യസിയ്സിനെ മാര് അബ്ദള്ള പാതൃയര്കിസ് മുടകിയത് മലങ്കരയിലെ സുന്നഹദോസു കൂടിയാണോ? സുന്നഹടോസിന്റെ അറിവും സമ്മതവും കൂടാതെ എങ്ങനെ അബ്ദുള്ള പാത്രിയര്കിസ് തന്നിഷ്ട പ്രകാരം മുടക്കി? ആ സ്ഥിതിക്ക് ഇവിടുത്തെ പാത്രിയര്കിസു ഭക്തന്മാരുന്നയിക്കുന്ന ചോദ്യങ്ങള് ബാലിശവും വ്യര്തവും അത്രേ! കാനോനികമായി അല്ല മുടക്കിയത് എന്ന് വ്യക്തമാണ്!ക്രിസ്തുവിന്റെ ഭാവവും ആളത്വം ഇല്ലാത്ത അന്തോക്കിയന് പ്തക്കന്മാരുടെ അധാര്മികമായ പ്രവൃത്തികളെ ന്യൈകരിക്കുന്ന അന്തോക്കിയന് പ്രേമികളെ ആദ്യം ക്രിസ്തുവിനെ അനുകരിക്കുക! അതിനു ശേഷം മറ്റുള്ളവരെ നന്നാക്കിയാല് മതി!
@Malankara Orthodox SyriaMar Abdul Jaleel Gregorios did not follow the W.Syriac Liturgy orvestments, Traditions!Whatever he told people in here by then we do not know! The Thaksa he used is an evidence to that!Labelling him as an antochean without sufficient proof are not true history!Parumala St.Grgorios visited Jerusalem and he stayed with Bishop of Jerusalem and there is no mention in the history of Antiochean/Jerusalem, Prelates about Mar Abdul Jaleel Gregorios!moreover when H.H. Peter III visited VADAKKAN PARAVOOR church, he ordered relocation of tomb/relics of Abdul Jaleel Mar gregorios from the Altar of church!The Church foundation Sacrament instruct(shila Sthapana koodahsa)the bones of saint shall be laid together with stone of foundation under the Altar or Thronose!again the Prayers of Thursday evening,used by Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorios are not in accordance with West Syriac/Antiochean "Sheehmo" order!(refer E.M. Philip about this prayer through the Kalpana given by Mar Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorios!We cannot trace his origin(church) as of now!He is being termed as an Antiochean Bishop by the people in Malankara without any evidence!
Dear Malankara Syriac OrtghodoxThe Origin or Nativity or identity of Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorios not yet known!He never claimed that he was sent here by Soc/Patriacrh of Antioch!if He was sent by Antichean Patriarch,there could have a connection between SOC and Malankara during his stay here!He never followed any W.Syriac Liturgy/vestments/ rite in Malankara!regarding antiochean rite /liturgy came here after Sharalla Bava9A.D.1751) came here with his team!Mar Shakralla came here because of Correspondeces sent to west by Marthoma V!Mar Ivanios who was in the team of Shakralla (A.D.1751) after the demise of Mar Shakralla tried to westernise the Syriac rite here(w.syriac Liturgy)Elias III Patriarch came /visited Malankara during 1935!prior to that kuttikkaatil Paulose Mar athanasius (Metropolitan of Patriarch faction through delegate of Antioch patriarch Mar Yulios,requested patriarch Elias III to declare Mar Yeldho Baselios as a saint of Malankara!they also made preparations to that! During the feast of Kothamangalam Church,H.H.Elias III visited the Church but he declined to declare Yeldho Mar Baselios as saint!Later 1947 Malankara church declared him as saint!Regarding the synod in A.D.325 (Nicene)the emperor Constantine issued the order!The Emperor was not a Christian Until his death! On his deathbed he was baptized by Mar Yousebios(the early historian)which was in A.D.337!The Roman catholic church or Latin church does not recognise him (Constantine) as saint!it was because of Royal/Imperial interference the Importance of Rome in the history of church or the Patriarch of Rome become like SUPERIOR among the others!This is why split caused in in early Church and subsequently Antioch and Alexandrea were ousted!The upholder of Orthodox faith was nicknamed by western church!Jacob Burdhana, was real Holy Father who stood for Faith and Unity! But his successors of Antioch Patriarch later severed out of his path/principles and they were purely after temporal powers of Church in Malankara!Vattasseril Mar Dionayasius never stood against the Spiritual leadership of Antioch Patriarch!He was against temporal powers being exercised by Antioch patriarch in Malankara!Read St.Paul's epistle 1Timothy 5:17-21,2 Timothy 3:1-15,and Timothy6:3-10!
Dear Rajan Thomas,There is nothing called a uniform West Syriac Liturgy. The Syriac Orthodox Church is spread over a very vast region which inlcudes the modern countries of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, parts of Armenia, Georgia , Iran, parts of Afganistan, parts of China and India. The ligurgy used was not uniform across the board. There were wide variations in the liturgy. The one that was common was the Oriental Orthodox faith of the three ecumenical councils.The uniformity of the west syriac liturgy and the codification only happened very recently in the late 40s, early 50s under H.H Aprem I Patriarch.Even in the modern day Syriac Orthodox Church there are 22 anaphoras used. So just by saying that the H'Shimo (Sheema) prayer for Thursday used by H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious does not match with what is used currently in Jerusalem does not prove or disprove that H.G Abdul Jaleel Mar Gregorious was from the Syriac Orthodox Church.One thing is certain, he was not Roman Catholic and he certainly was not Nestorian. And he was not protestant. That only leaves two other faiths; Oriental Orthodox or Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox. I would say that he was Oriental Orthodox; and that would limit him to either Syriac or Coptic. The fact that he was using the Syriac language (which ever dialect it was), more or less proves that he was Syriac Orthodox.Where does St.Gregorious (Paraumala Thirumeni) say that he didnt find any proof that HG Abdul Jaleel Bava was from Jerusalem? I didnt see it in his travelouge. Is there a kalpana or a letter from Parumala Thirumeni?
Dear Vincent,There are many Antioch fanatics who will say all sort of things. I am not one of them. I AGREE with you, H.H Abd Allah overstepped his authority by removing a Metropolitan (Vattesseril Thirumeni) without consulting or getting the approval from the Synod. So this was improper , and it was corrected by H.H Elias III.Also H.H Abdul Messiah II, overstepped his authority by enthroning a Catholicose, without consulting or getting the approval of the Synod.So there was not just one wrong; there were many wrongs. That was my point from the beginning. The point I was trying to make was that Malankara history is not black and white, where one side is PERFECT and the other side is COMPLETELY WRONG. The fact is that both sides have made huge errors; and they should approach each other with HUMILITY and LOVE; ask FORGIVENESS to EACH OTHER and TO GOD.
മലങ്കര മെത്രപോലിത ആയിരുന്ന വട്ടശ്ശേരില് ദിവന്യസിയോസിനെ മുടക്കി അബ്ദുള്ള ബാവ!( പത്രിയര്കിസിനു മലന്കരയില് ലൌകീകധികാരം വേണം)!സ്ലീബ മാര് ഒസ്തതിയോസിനു(പത്രിയര്കിസ്പ്രതിനിധി, ഒസ്താത്തിയോസ് മലങ്കര മെത്ര പോളിത ആകുവാന് വേണ്ടി അബ്ദുള്ള ബവയില് നിന്നും സ്തവാതിക്കോന് രഹസ്യമായി വാങ്ങിയിരുന്നു)ഇതിനു പുറകില് പ്രവര്ത്തിച്ചത് സി.ജെ. കുരിയനും കോനാട്ട് മാത്തന് മല്പാനും ആയിരുന്നു!അങ്ങനെ മലങ്കര സഭയുടെ ഭരണാധികാരം തട്ടിയെടുക്കാം എന്ന് അബ്ദുള്ള പത്രിയകിസു ചിന്തിച്ചു! കൊച്ചുപറമ്പില് തിരുമേനി,ഇടവഴിക്കല് സെവെരിഒസ് മ്തലയവര് അബ്ദുള്ള ബാവയുമായി രേജ്സ്റെര് ചെയ്ത ഉടമ്പിടി (മലന്കരയില് അവരുടെ ഭരണത്തില് ഇരിക്കുന്ന പള്ളികളും സ്വത്തുക്കളും പാതൃയകിസിനു ഉടമസ്തയില് ആണെന്നും ) അപ്പോള് അവര്ക് എങ്ങനെ പ്രതികരിക്കാന് പറ്റും!ഇവിടെയാണ് അബ്ദുള്ള ബാവയുടെ കുതന്ത്രങ്ങള് (ദ്രെവ്യാഗ്രഹവും അധികാര ദുര്വിനിയോഗവും) ഫലിക്കാതെ ഇരുന്നത്! മലങ്കര മ്ത്രാപോളിതയെ മുടക്കി പിന്നെ നാഥനില്ല കളരിയാക്കിയാല് തിരുമേനി (ബാവ) വിചാരിക്കുന്നതുപോലെ കാര്യങ്ങള് നീങ്ങും എന്ന് പത്രിയകിസ് കരുതി!മലങ്കര അസോസിയേഷന് കോട്ടയത്ത് ചേര്ന്ന്(൧൯൧൧ ചിങ്ങം ൨൨) കൂട്ട് ട്രസ്ടികളയിരുന്ന സി. ജെ കുരിയെനും കോനാട്ട് മാത്തെന് മല്പനയും മാറ്റി/നീക്കം ചെയ്തു! ഇവിടെ ഭൂരിപക്ഷം ദീവന്യസിയോ സിന്റെ കൂടെ ആയിരുന്നു! ഇങ്ങനെ മലന്കരയില് ഭിന്നത ഉണ്ടാക്കി ഇവിടെ കേസ് നടക്കുമ്പോള്,എപിസ്കോപാല് സുന്നഹോടോസ്,ആരുടെഅധ്യക്ഷതയ്ല് എവിടെ കൂടും? എങ്ങിനെ കൂടും!ഇവിടെ ഭീകരമായ അന്തരീക്ഷം ഉണ്ടാക്കി വട്ടശ്ശേരിയില് തിരുമേനിയെ കൊല്ലിക്കാന് സി ജെ കുര്യനും കൂട്ടരും പരിശ്രമിച്ചു,അത് സാധിക്കാതെ വന്നപ്പോള് വട്ടശ്ശേരിയില് തിരുമേനിയുടെ അംഗ രക്ക്ഷകനായിരുന്ന പപ്പി സാറിനെ കൊല്ലിച്ചു! ആ സമയത്ത് രണ്ടു ചേരികളായി രണ്ടു പക്ഷക്കരായി മലങ്കര ക്രിസ്താനികള് നില കൊണ്ടു! ഭൂരിപക്ഷം പള്ളികളും പട്ടക്കാരും വിശ്വാസികളും മാര് ദീവന്യസിനു കൂട്ട് നിന്നു! അതുകൊണ്ട് കര്ത്താവ് പറഞ്ഞത് പോലെ " നിങ്ങളില് പാപം ഇല്ലാത്തവന് കല്ലെറിയട്ടെ"! പാപം ചെയ്തിട്ട് ,പാപം ചെയ്യിപീചിട്ടു, പിന്നെ കല്ലെറിയാന് ആരും തുനിയരുതെ!
Dear Malankara Orthodox Syriac:SOC/or Antioch Bishops never preached gospel in India ,China or Japan!You cannot claim their liturgy was in those countries during the time H.H. Aprem I as there were no evidence in church history or traditions . Even in early Antioch church apart from St.Peter,Barnabas and St.Paul preached gospel and taught them liturgy(Acts 11:23-26)It was due to the combined team work of St.Paul and Barnabas the followers of Christ were called Christians!your alleged claim of Episcopal synod in Malankara is like that a person without External nostrils blames a person with part of External Nostrils(mookkillathavan murimookkane kuttam parayunnathupole)The Bishops who were Consecrated by H.H. Peter III were without approval/consent from Malankara Suriyani Kristhiani Association or with consent and knowledge of MALAKARA MTROPOLITAN!The Same Case With Abdulla Patriarch, he had excommunicated Malankara Metropoltan Mar Dinaysiuswihout a valid synod recommendation of Malankara Church, and he made seperate AGREEMENTS with those bishops he consecrated in order to have temporal powers in Malankara and thereby caused split in Church here!Those bishops in Malankara who made registered Agreement with Abdulla Patriarch cannot attend a Synod meeting that was to be called by Malankara Methropolitan,who was ex-communicated by Abdulla Patriarch. At the same time you are forgetting the validity of MALANKARA SURIYANI KRISTIANI ASSOCIATION Which endorsed the establishment of Catholicate Malankara! Therefore you cannot ask such question of Episcopal synod Consensus for establishment of Catholicate here! Even in Persian Church,Antiocheans Heirarchy consecrated Mapriyana without without consulting or gaining consensus of Persian Church!This is the reason why Bar Hebrews incorporated Canon(measuring rode)! The Catholicate establishment By H.H. Abded Msiha Patriarch is wrong according to Malankara Syriac Orthodox,then you are forgetting(closing your eyes) the acts of former Antiochean Patriarchs in the history of Persian Church or Maphriyanate in Thigris! when H.H. Peter III created 6 diocese in Malankara had he consulted Malankara metropolitan or gained Consensus from Malankara Suriyani Kristhiani Association?It is better to conclude my postings here as You are not Following the scriptures or traditions of early church only trying to justify misdeeds of Antiochean Heirarchy here in Malankara!!
Dear Malankara Syriac OrthodoxThe Installation/relocation of Catholicate in Malankara during 1912.was not a sudden action by H.H.Abded Msiha Patriarch or quick decision/ceremoney by some people in Malankara! During 1889 ,Malankara Metropiltan Pulikottil Mar Dianyasius send a request to H.H. PeterIII through Konattu Malpan through the resolution passed by Malankara Suriani Kristhiani assciation regarding the installation of Maphriyanate in Malankara and H.H. replied "the matter/issue may be considered later"! During 1903 Abded Mshiha Patriarch wrote a letter to Mar Dianyasius(Malankara Metropolitan) and Paulose Mar Ivanios the installaion of Maphryanate in Malankara are being in Utmost Consideration! Again 1904 Konattu Mathen Malpan Sent a request to H.H. Patriarch with a full list of all Parishes in Kerala recommending/supporting installation of Maphriyanate in Malankara! During 1909 January Konattu Mathen malpan wrote a letter to H.H. Abded Mshiha patriarch,giving full support of malankara Church to him and again reminding him former request for the installation of Maphriyan in Malankara!because of this letter to Abded Mshiha patriach by Konattu Malpan,H.H. Abdulla got annoyed,when Abdulla patriarch arrived in Bombay after two months,for visit in Malankara ,he rebuked Konattu Malpan at the reception in Bombay! Therefor,there was nothing fishy or abnormal in establishment of Catholicate in 1912 by Abded Mshiha Patriarch in Malankara
Dear Rajan Thomas,I am not trying to justify the mis-deeds of the Antiochean hierarchy. If you read all my postings on this blog, you will see my underlying theme has been consistent. All along I have been saying that mis-deeds in Malankara are from all quarters. If UNITY is needed, both sides need to approach each other with HUMILITY. Both sides should ask FORGIVENESS to each other and to GOD. Then with MUTUAL RESEPECT and LOVE, work together for the SALVATION of MEN.You say the Malankara Suriyani Christiani Association authorized the establishment of the Catholicate in Malankara in 1911. If that is the case, can you please send me the list of participants at this association from each of the parishes from Angamaly, Kandanad, Kochi and Kottayam dioceses. It should not be difficult. We have the list of participants (Priests and Lay men) by parish church from an association that was held earlier in 1876 at Mulanthuruthy.The Mulanthuruthy association was a very well respresented one. As far I know, the so called association that you are referring to, was a partisan association with very mimimal representation from Angamaly, Kandanad, Kochi and even Kottayam diocese. And any time you have decisions made without consensus, divisions do occur. If an association like Mulanthuruthy association with good representation from all churches had authorized the the establishment of Catholicate in 1911, there would not have been division.Please dont mis-understand me, I am not saying that H.H Abd Allah is innocent in this. He contributed to the division. But the response to it, was not an association of unity; as far as I know. I stand to be corrected, if you can send me the list of priests and lay person by parish church from Angamaly, Kochi, Kandanad and Kottayam diocese at the 1911 association that you are mentioning.
Dear Malankara Syriac OrthodoxYou are still going back Consenus of three Dioceses or three Bishops!Those three Bishops were made oath(registered Udampidi) with Abdulla Patriarch,allowing patriarch to have temporal powers on Malankara Church and properties, cannot be considered as major decision makers in Malankara Church! The Royal court in 1888/9 made the verdict that Patriarch does not have any temporal powers in Malankara!Irrespective of that those who gave him(patriarch) Temporal powers on Malankara Parishes or properties(3 dioceses of north) cannot be asking for a consensus!You are asking for list a parishes and people participated in those Association or Synods as a proof!In the universal/general Nicene Synod of 325 A.D. can you provide a list of participants or attendies! The participants from various places Antioch,Alexandrea and Rome etc had different list/number of attendies of synod held in Nicea!The 3 dioces that you mentioned Agamali,Kandanadu,Kochi were under the influence of Konattu Malpan who was backing solely H.H. Abdulla! Abdulla Patriarch created division here In Malnkara and during that division of Crisis asking for Consensus are not logical or prudent!Abdulla partriarch did not call for a synod meeting to solve the problems in Malankara! The Supreme Court of India after having gone through all exhibits and documents, gave the verdict of Validating the installation of Catholicate in Malankara during 1912!All the information that you had asked me, were submitted to the court during the trial of Samudaya Case!You are trying to make a false and unrealistic claim now that is all!
@MSOThe Three Bishops that you mentioned in Malankara wre not consecrated as per Malankara Suriyani Kristhiani Association request or knowledge,recommendation!Aluva Paulose Mar Athanasius was conscrated by Abdulla as a ribel Methran, by Making registered Udampidi ( consenting or agreeing,Temporal powers in Malankara over Parishes and properties by Patriarch)! Edavazhikal Mar Severios was comscrated for vested interest of Knanaya Community for agreeing temporal powers of Patriarch in Malankara!in the absence of an Episcopal synod meeting in ever conducted in Malankara by H.H. PETER III., H.H.Abdulla or BY H.H. Elias III patriarchs,you cannot neither raise or call for a consensus of Episcopal Synod Meeting in 1912 for the Installation of Catholicose here !further to this Kottayam M.D. seminary Malankara S.K. Association (1911,Chingam22 wherby 215 parish and representaives attended)fully endorsed installaion of Catholicate here in Malankara by inviting Abded Mshiha patriarch here! So your allegations are totally baseless and unfounded ! During 1970's H.B.Baselios Paulose II was consecrated By H.H. Yakkob III as ribel catholicose,without any Synod recommendation or Suriyani Christhiani Association!This was totally against The Decisions of Mulanthurity Association of 1876!Also note due to the failure in supreme court in 1958 The Jacobites and H.H.Yakkob III Patriarch made the peace and reconciliation in order to ,avoid paying Compensation and loss of Parishes and Properties in their possession!There were no genuine or real Christian peace/reconciliation was not in their hearts!
Dear Rajan Thomas,You say:"Kottayam M.D. seminary Malankara S.K. Association (1911,Chingam22 wherby 215 parish and representaives attended)fully endorsed installaion of Catholicate here in Malankara by inviting Abded Mshiha patriarch here"It is the details of this association that I have been asking. I would like to get the list of 1) Priest 2) Lay Person from each of the parishes. If you cannot give me the list of all the 215 parishes, it would be great if you can at a minimum provide me the list for parishes from 4 out of the 7 dioceses at that time; namely 1) Angamaly 2) Kochi 3) Kandanad 4) Kottayam.You dont have to type all the details here. If it is on some website you can send me the link.
Dear Rajan Thomas,You say:"The Jacobites and H.H.Yakkob III Patriarch made the peace and reconciliation in order to ,avoid paying Compensation and loss of Parishes and Properties in their possession!There were no genuine or real Christian peace/reconciliation was not in their hearts!"Please do not say that, because of two things:1) Not all Jacobite think and act alike. So there is no way you can say 100% of all Jacobites did one way or the other way.2) I am sure you are a good Christian. Still you don't have the ability to read the intentions of the 'hearts' of others. That judgement of intention is just reserved for our Lord.
Dear Rajan Thomas,You say again:"The Three Bishops that you mentioned in Malankara wre not consecrated as per Malankara Suriyani Kristhiani Association request or knowledge,recommendation!"The three Bishops that I mentioned are:1) Kochuparambil Paulose Mar Coorilose2) Kuttikkattil Paulose Mar Athanasious (Aluva Valiya Thirumeni)3) Edavazhikkal Mar SeveriousI wont go into the details of how Aluva Valiya Thirumeni was elected and enthroned in 1910.However please keep in mind that #1 Kochuparambil Paulose Mar Coorilose was ordained along with Vattesseril Thirumeni in Jerusalem by H.H Abd Allah. There was no 1934 constitution at that time. So what ever procedure was used to elect and ordain Vattesseril Thirumeni, the same was used for Kochuparambil Paulose Mar Coorilose.Now in your own words, H.H Peter III ordained 6 rebel Bishops without any election. These rebel bishops that you name include our own saint, Parumala Thirumeni. But in this context, keep in mind that Murimattathil Mar Ivanious Thrirumeni was in this list too.That is why keep on saying, our history is not black and white. There are no perfect and imperfect sides.
@MSOthe Google site you quoted or relied are entirely are false/fabricated information regarding Catholicate in Malankara as the source do not mention their own identity, background history/authenticity/ are unreliable/untrustworthy without having sufficient investigations or research historical/canonical background of MALANKARA Orthodox Church!anybody can create such unreliable/ sites in Google blogs!
Dear MSOAlthough H.H. Peter III created diocese and consecrated bishops here without following the tradition or Canon,those 6 bishops did not act beyond powers of Malankara Metropolitan and they worked together for a united church in Malankara! The Saint Of Malankara, Parumala Mar Gregorios did not create any division in Malankara Church! You are merely dragging the names of Parumala Thirumeni for arguments not based on principles!Vattaseril mar Dianyasius and kochuparambil Mar Coorilose went together to Mardin with knowledge and consent of Malankara metropolitan for their elevation as Bishops!H.H.Abdulla cannot neither conduct or call for an Malankara association without the consent,knowledge Malankara Metropolitan.He(H.H.Abdulla) called an Association in Aluva in 1911 after ex-communicating Vattasseril Mar Dionyasius!Mar Abdulla patriarch created divsion here in Malankara for establishing his temporal powers! Due to this there were two factions in Malankara those who sided with Patriarch and those who sided with Mar Dionyasius of Vattasseril! Your call for consensus of synod does not arise here due to the dictatorship of exercising temporal powers and love for money!Why Abdulla Patriarch did not call for A synod Meeting in Malankara for ex-communicating Vattasseril Dionyasius? please answer to this before making and continuing with your allegations and false stories!
Dear Malankara syriac Orthodox,You are trying to justify the misdeeds/actions of Antiochean Patriarch here in Malankara! H.H.Abdulla Patriarch were acting against the decisions/resolutions passed by Mulanthurithy Association!During 1908( as per Malayalam Era Month Kumbham 15)Malankara Assoction was held under Pulikotil,Joseph Mar Dionyasius for the consecration of of Paulose Remban (Kochumparabil Coorilose), Geevarhese Remba(Mar Dionayasius) as Bishops,including deacon Sleeba (sleeba Mar Osthathios the colletor of Resheesa on behalf of patriarch)!Prior to that Malankara Metropoltan Joseph Mar Dianyasius wrote to H.H. Abdulla for the consecration of 3 more bishops in Malankara.In his reply Abdulla Bava told Joseph Mar Dianyasius ,that he (H.H.Abdulla) was coming shortly in Malankara,prior to that any consecration of Bishops are required urgently, the candidates are to be sent to Turkey(mardin)!Abdulla bava arrived here in Malankara 1909(kanni-09)In 1910 H.H. Abdulla made registered agreement with Aluva Mar Athanasius (having full authority/ownwership on all parishes and church properties under the jurisdiction of each bishops under their Diocese by Antiochean Patriarch) Diuring the same time/ year( chingam 29) H.H.Abdulla Patriarch forced Kochuparambil Coorilose to make a Registered Udampidi(agreement) and it was made by Mar Coorilose on the same Day! Thus 3 Bishops in Malankara,Edavazhikal mar Severios(knanaya) Paulose Mar Athanasios(aluva)And Kochuparambil Coorilose became Antiochean supporters!He(H.H. Abdulla) demanded Vattasseril mar Dianyasius to make such UDAMPIDI(Registered agreement)with Bava!Vattasseril Mar Dianyasius refused like his precedent Malankara methran Pulikottil Jseph Mar Dianyasius !Therefore Mar Abdulla Patriarch ex-communicated Vattasseril Dionyasius!(this was done without any Synod recommendations)When Jesus Christ gave his authority to his 12 apostles(disciples) read St. Mathew10-1-14; 28:18-19,St.Luke 10-1-11) and there were no Registered agreement or Udampidi the disciples made neither Spiritual nor Material/properties/possessions!Morever The Antiochean Patriarch used to behave like Dictators or Kings in Malankara! You can only make allegations as long aa you Justify the misdeeds and wrongs of Patriarch of Antioch!the black and white or perfections and imperfections are created by your Antiochean Masters (so called Holy Fathers)and not indigenous bishops like Vattasseril Thirumeni !Parumala Thirumeni became a saint because of his pure/holy life and dedication to Lord Jesus Christ!not because of H.H. Peter III or his consecration of 6 bishops!!As long as you try to Justify the misdeeds and actions of Antiocheans here in malankara, there is no need of further comments from me here for a unitedchurch in Malankara !
@MSOYou are misquoting what I have already said/wrote!I did not talk about canonical validity of Bishop Kochuparambil mar Coorilose! I cannot give you any website of MOSC of all details in this regard! I have very limited time in using the internet facilities!You may read The books(church history) of Z.M. Paarettu for more deatails about Malankara Associations as well as Church history! I do not have any history book with me now!Although Abdulla bava ex-communicated Vattasseril Mar Dionyasius,fromKunnamkulam(kandanadu diocese) a deacon known as,Cheruvatthoor Kuriakose was ordained as priest by Vattaseril Thirumeni(This priest was later known as Yakkoob Chor Episcopa or as Kunnamkulam Kandeekkal Achen)! This was a great shock to H.H.Abdulla Bava who was in Malankara by then,Sleeba mar Osthathios,CJ.Kurien and Konattu Malpan!Those people(supporters of Antiochean Bava) C.J Kurien and Konattu Malpan went court for banning/ Excommunicating this Priest but court ordered that the Validity of the Priest ordained by Mar Dionyasius of Vattasseril in 1917 (medam 30)by Trichur/kunnamkulam court!Since There were no Episcopal Synod ever conducted by H.H. Peter III;H.H.Abdulla or by Elias III in Malankara,your Concern about consensus by synod or the Google site Comments are totally baseless/wrong and to be ignored! regarding Catholicate establishment in Malankara!The Google site report about the Co-trustees of Malnkara in 1912 are totally False/wrong information!Konattu Mathen Malpan and C.J.Kurien were removed from their position as Co-trustees with Malankara Methropoltan by M.D. seminary Association during 1911 (chingam,22)replaced by Pampakuda Palappillil(fr) Paulose Kathanar and C.K. Abraham (kottayam)as new co-trustees!At this point there were two factions in malankara church(supporters of Patriarch Vs supporters of Malankara methropolitan)During that crisis,(when two factions were existing and contesting for legality/validity) and /issue matter was taken to court for verdict / awaiting judgement it is not logical to make accusations or arguments
@MSOyou are misquoting my comments by saying H.H.Peter III consecrated 6 new bishops as rebels in Malankara!What I had said was that H.H. Peter III never consulted the consecration issue with MALANKARA METROPOLITAN or MSCA never recommended the consecration and creation of 6 Dioceses which he(peterIII bava)did himself!During the consecration of Six bishops Neither Malankara Methropolitan or the Bishop came together with H.H.PeterIII,Mar Gregorios(later H.H.Abdulla patriarch)was present during the consecration! More deatails available at Kandanadu GRanghavari!Some of the Clergy like Karavattu Shemvoon Kori,Malithara Elias Kathanar,Murimattathil paulose Kathanar,Vallikkattu Geevarghese Kathanar,Elamthuruthy philipose kathanar and 4 more priests and laymen like Kunnumpurathu T.Kurian,Muripurackal Kuruvila,Chathurithy Varky,Puthenpurackal Thoma,Konattu Ittan ,Thulakan Paulose,Kallarackal Paulose and other prominent laymen were against the registered Agreement/Udampidi that H.H. Peter III asked for the consecration of 4 priests/clergy (pampakuda Geevarghese Remban,Kadavil paulose remban,Ambattu Geevarghese remban and chathuruthil Geevarghese remban)Those clergy and lay people mentioned above appealed against the decision of H.H.Peter III for not executing registered udampidi for those 4 candidates of Bishops!H.H. Peter III refused their appeal and told them it was his own right and will to consecrate Bishops with Registered Udampidi and nobody is being permitted to appeal against his decision,will and rights!How did Peter III got this Superior power?Then after creation of 6 dioceses and New bishops he never held an Episcopal synod in Malankara!This is called misusing authority and power!Coming to your point of Judging others:- what I said was true regarding 1958 peace and reconciliation of two factions after the Supreme court Verdict!After the expiry of 12 years of execution period,the big dynamite exploded! The Kalpana of Yakkob III, Patriarch(203/70) as well as making rebel Catholicose,ex-communicating H.H.Augen I and Malankara Episcopal synod without proper reasons etc etc are sufficient proof of my claims regarding 1958 peace/reconciliation was purely done for escaping from paying compensation to MOSC as per court verdict(Irs. 12Lakhs plus Expenses of court case),and loss of Churches and properties!Yes, God is the right Supreme Judge and he is going to Judge both Factions of Malankara church including you and me!May God almighty Bless you!
Post a Comment