THE FUTURE OF CHRISTINITY IN INDIA
Jesus said ALL NATIONS will come to know GOD. Is it not applicable to India ?
But we shy away from discussing the FUTURE like ostriches dipping heads in sand. All our discussions are about the past which we cannot correct.
What is the future of the Orthodox faith in India ? Should it be linked with Antioch FOR EVER? Can we grow and ever become a national church acceptable to ALL INDIANS if we continue to be under ARAB HEADS forever?
Now we have only 2.5 per cent Christians in India . The general complaint heard about Indian Christianity is that “it is a foreign religion.” NOBODY SAYS JESUS IS FOREIGN. While MOST INDIANS ACCEPT JESUS AS ONE AMONG THEIR GODS, they refuse to accept a FOREIGN COUNTY LEADERSHIP of the church. China has officially stated this policy not to accept foreign leadership of the Church.
Catholic Church has never had an Indian Pope. But their constitution does not prohibit an Indian becoming a Pope, though practically they had all the Popes from Europe only. In future too, they’ll have only European Popes.
But when it comes to Church leadership, Antioch ’s constitution prohibits a NON-ARAB becoming head (PATRIARCH) of the Syrian Orthodox Church. This has been particularly stated in their Constitution so as to prohibit Indians who are in majority becoming the Patriarch of the Church.
235 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 235 of 235Dear Ravi, You are claming that the unity of the Syrian Orthodox Church is on the person/personality of the Patriarch of Antioch. Dear Ravi, you are mistaken there. Whoever be the Patriarch, the unity of the Church is through Christ. The Patriarch is only the visible embodiment of that unity.
Then about going after practical conveniences is not a good far sighted option. Take about the case of Abram. He was promised with a son. However, he went after the counsel of his wife and tried practical solution through Hagar. What happened? It resulted in family feud and further worry. Please Ravi, Church is instituted by Christ. Going after practical solutions in order to flourish the church will result in further worries. That is what we are witnessing in our church in India.
Moreover, I dont understand the reason for your cries against an Arab becoming a Patriarch. Do you know when was this condition came into existance? ONLY VERY RECENTLY. So I dont think that this claus has nothing to do with the schism in India.
So come to Christ and let Him Guide us.
Dear Manu,
The teaching that was decreed in the council of Rome was nothing new Manu.. But Rome went the usual way of exaggerating it..
You see the problem is not with the church being built on Peter, the rock.. The problem is claiming universal jurisdiction based on this.
Rome did have a primacy of honour among the Patriarchates. But it was because rome was the imperial city.
The council of rome was not to promote the Petrine supremacy and Popes claims.. The eastern fathers did send their represenatives , Syriacus, Eusebius, and Priscian. The eastern fathers also sent a joint synodal letter addressed to the Pope.
There are no records to show that the eastern representatives objected to any of the decrees of Rome. Bewcause Rome did not decree something new.
But your argument that the council of rome was called because the council of constantinople decreed against the teaching of pope is an exaggeration.
( Manu contd.. )
Coming to constantinople..
Let me brief the seven decrees..
1. Confirms the faith of the 318 fathers at Nicea and decides to anathemize all heresy, particularly that of the Arians, Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, Sabellians, the Marcellians, the Photinians and the Apollinarians.
In the above anathemisation, we dont see any reference to the heresy of the " Peter the rock " which was already pervalent in the church as seen from the teachings of the roman church and the hymns of St. Aphrem and St. Aphrahath.
2. The jurisdictions and boundaries of individual sees are confirmed further. The canon forbids any bishop to exercise his authority beyond his jurisdiction.
This canon happened because there was a controversy regarding the Bishophric of Constantinople between Gregory Nazianzen and Maximus.
3. The Bishop of constantinople is to be honoured next after the Bishop of Rome because constantinople is the new rome.
We see the Pope challenging this Canon. But he was not doing that to defend the Primacy of His Patriarchate that of Rome.. This Canon in no way affected the postion of Rome. We see the Pope in fact defending Alexandria and Antioch and the honour given to those Patriarchates by the council of Nicea.
In this canon again we see that the Old rome is not primary owing to its succession from St. Peter but because it was the old capital and constantinople is called new rome because it is the new capital.
4. Maximus the Cynic, who claimed the Bishophric of Constantinople, to be cast out from among the Bishops and whatever ordinations he made to be considered invalid.
The next three canons are attributed to a local council held in 382.
5. The tome of the western fathers which recognizes the unity of the godhead is accepted.
6. This canon lays down conditions on accusing a Bishop of wrongdoings.
7. It recites the custom of recieving converted heretics into the church.
Now tell me Manu, where in the above seven decrees do you find any referenec or criticsm of the teaching of " Peter the rock " ?
You said that the canon 2, 3 , 4 and 5 were against what the pope wanted at that time. Could you explain ?
The canon 3 was questioned by Pope Leo not because he wanted to affirm his authority.. Constantinople was given a place next to rome... so it never affected the positionj of rome in any way... In fact we see the Pope defending the positions of alexandria and Antioch as stipulated in the council of Nicea.
Reagrding Maximus, it was Peter of Alexandria who gave him all support. He was ordained by seven bishops sent from Alexandria. But later we see that he was rejected by the people under constantinople.. Maximus seeks refuge under Theodosios. He is rejected there also... Then he goes to see his mentor Peter of alexandria... he recieves a cold reception there...
( Manu contd .,. )
It is after this that Maximus goes to northern Italy. There he presents to Gratian of Milan a work which had supposedly written against the arians. Maximus had earlier garnered the suppport of Peter of alexandria and Gregorios the nazianzen in the same way, by acting out his zeal against the heretics. At Milan, Maximus decieves Ambrose of Milan and other prelates by showing the record of his consecration and the letters which Peter of alexandria had written earlier in his support. Thus he gained the sympathy of the romans by deception ( which he had used earlier on Peter of alexandria and Gregorios of Nazianzus ) and they requested the emperor that his grievances be heard.
But Tillemont writes that very soon Maximus's deception was realised by the romans and we see them also disowning him.
So it happened with romans also what happened earlier with Peter of alexandria and gregorios of Nazianzes.... Why do you blame just the romans ?
I dont have any problem with John Chrysostom.. What i say is that if you can consider Mor Ivanios as an authority what makes you reject st. aphrem who is called as the ' harp of the H.. spirit " and who lived closer to apostolic times ?
( Manu contd .,. )
At least we agree in the last part of your posting..
1. st. Peter is first among apostles in other words head of apostles.
2. Malankara church is found by St. Thomas and we accpet him as our founding father
So where do we differ ?
Because you misunderstand that just because st. Peter is the chief of apostles and the Patriatrch is his successor, the syrian church claims universal jurisdiction.
And believe me, the syrian church does not use the primacy of St.Peter to claim universal jurisdiction.
God bless !!!
Dear rinsam..
Now you have become a pentacost. Ella kaaryangalum Bible il ninnum kaanichu tharaamo ?
Enthayalum " parishudhalmavinde kinnaram " ennu sabha onnadankam vaazhthunna St. ephraim ine kaalum vivaram achaayan undennu enikku thonnunilla..
Ring a ring a roses...................
angane potte ..
God bless !!!
Dear Jomon,
The Church can be universal and at the same time maintaining national identity. That is what Communion of Churches are for. Malankara Orthodox Church is part of Oriental Orthodox Communion which includes Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian and Eitrean Orthodox Churches. Now discussions are going between Oriental, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches to resolve the doctrinal differences. I wish that comes to a fruition. The major breakthrough was the acknowledgement by both Oriental and Eastern Churches that differences in Chalcedon was just a misunderstanding of terms used and both parties meant the same thing.Already there is an agreement between Coptic Orthodox Patriarch and Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and also between Greek Orthodox Patriarch and Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as a result of these discussions. (if you search online, you can read this terms of these agreements) My dream is that in future there is a universal synod where bishops of Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Churches is formed and there is communion between all apostolic churches. Then that would be a perfect example of a universal church.
Now if we look at the Early Church, the same Synod of Constantinople which added the clause about the Universal Church in our Orthodox Creed specifically says in its Second Canon that each bishop should not interfere in affairs beyond his jurisdiction. Universality means the synod of all bishops takes the major decisions on controversies but each individual bishop has all powers in his jurisdiction. Because by that time, Rome started claiming that whatever Pope says has to be accepted by all other bishops since he was given all powers by Christ to represent Him in this world being a successor of St.Peter as per Matthew 16:16-19.
Dear Manu,
Since you prefer St. John Chrysostom..
He, in his third homily on Penance says .. " .. Peter himself, the chief of Apostles, the first in church. And when I remember Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, that great apostle, the first of the disciples".
and again he says,
"...after so great an evil ( the denial ) He entrusted to his hand the primacy over church".
A few other early church fathers...
Tertullian says .." Church is built upon him... He conferred this personally upon Peter".
Origen says " Peter upon whom is built the church of Christ ".
Cyprian says " it is upon one man that He builds his church ".
Syrian liturgy says.. " Shemaun reesho dasleehe " meaning, Simon head of apostles.
God bless !!!
Dear Mathew
I am not selective of bible verse that suitmycomments/opinions.Ihave already given you lot of bible verses supporting my comments.Christ gave his apostles the keys to his kingdom.Isia22:22 not referring to john21:15,16,17 but it refers Rev3:7,city of david ,New Jerusalem. none of my Jacobite brothers in this blog made comment on subject matter!They only talked about the church feud and other issues!can you show me in the history of Antioch Church any partriarch/holy fathers spreading Gospel of christfrom3rd centuary before claiming legacy!
Dear All
It is neither the Liturgy nor the legacy which is the topic here.Neither antiochean(SOC) Liturgy/Legacy is going to open the door To Christ! All apostles preached salvation/good News Of Jesus who is the Good Shepherd as well as the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of world!Thus people(non belivers) were led to christ and his kingdom by preaching good news to them! let it that way and not throne and supremacy issues,which are not apostolic faith and tradition orthodox church!
Dear mathew
Do not get annoyed as St.Ephraim made Liurgical songs of St.Peter Legacy are Anti Bible teachings are also antiorthodox!St.Peter's legacy is not required for spreading Gospel or preaching kingdom of heaven!In early centuary(first centuary) of christianity there were no supremacy and Legacy of St.Peter!the epistle of 1 Peter5:1-4 are supporting this my statement!
Dear Mathew
Bible is for the church!When we go against the teachings of apostles,we are not orthodox!This is not first time jacobites call me pentacost!We are human beings and we are not perfect 100%in everything!anybody can make mistakes! I had only pointed out the mistrakes in the song compiled by Mor Aprem.also note that in evening prayer of(both Common preayerbook and Pampakuda namaskarakramam) jacobites/orthodox church "Mar Severios Maanisa"(petition of marSeverios) after Psalms91,121 we recite that "Uyarapettavante marayililirikkunnavanaya"/Mahonnathante Marayil irikkunnavanaya karthave" this is absolutely wrong!sometimes back I wrote Mosc about it they told me they are taking the matter/my suggestion to "liturgy Revision/reform committee" for necessary amendment! Any how we pray now as "Mahonnathangalil vasikkunnavanaya Karthave"!(O,lordwho sittest in the secret place of Most High is wrong as Christ was revealed to humankind and after acension he is stting on the rightside throne of his father in heaven)
The the reason is that Jesus Sitting on the right hand of the Father and plead for us(Hebrew 8:1-2)This is our faith/creed!
The Nicene creed and the Angelic Hymn,we recite as Jesus Who sittest in Glory at the right hand of the father!This is stated 14 times in varius places in New Testament!similarly I am telling you the songs compiled by Mor Aprem have some mistakes or recently I read "Christianity inCentralAsia" thatmanywritings of Mor Aprem were lost,later people who compiled their own Choir songs used his name!
We have to accept our mistakes!
Dear Manu,
Coptic and armenian churches are not based on linguistic or national identity... That is a lie !!! The Ethiopoian church was created out of political reasons... But then, they had Eritrea under them.. And when eritrea claimed independence, the same ethiopians refused and the eritreans had to go to the Copts...
Is that the example malankara wants to follow ?
Dear Rinsam,
You have given a lot of Bible verses and I can give you more than what you have gien to establish my line of argument ... but to what affect ? we will continue to argue until kingdom come.
God bless !!!
Dear Sam,
Perfect !!
It is neither legacy nor liturgy that is the topic here.
So salvation can be atained irrespective of St. Thomas having found the church, the catholicose being seated on the throne of St. Thomas, the manalankara church being independent and autocephalous, the east syriac liturgy until 17th century, 1934 constituion being applicable, etc ect..
The above are not needed to open the door to christ and acheive salvation.
So hope at least now we shall get back to the topic and discuss what is needed for the future of christianity here.
God bless !!!
Mathew:
Let me explain to you the Canons 2,3,4 and 5 of Council of Constantinople.
Canon2: Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea.
What you have to understand is that in Maximus issue, not only Patriarch of Alexandria but also Pope of Rome got involved to reinstate him as Patriarch of Constantinople. But they didn't add the name of Rome in the canon due to the reverence to Pope and not to offend him too much.
Canon 3: Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.
This was totally against the wishes of Pope. He does not believe that a status like that can be conferred just as a Concillar decision.It is not because he had any special love for Alexandria or Antioch, but because if due to Emperor's assistance this trend is allowed, in a future council, Constantinople can be proclaimed first among equals. That is why in the Decree of Damasus in 382, he specifically said, "Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by councillar decisions of other churches but has received primacy by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Saviour, saying " ...."
Canon 4: Regarding Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which surrounded him in Constantinople: he never became, nor is he, a bishop; nor are those ordained by him clerics of any rank whatsoever. Everything that was done both to him and by him is to be held invalid.
At that Pope did not like the consecration of Nectarius as Patriarch of Constantinople in between the synod when Gregory stepped down. Pope's view was that Nectarius was just a layman when he was appointed as Patriarch, Maximus should have been reinstated. He changed views about Maximus next year though when he knew more about him.
Canon 5:Regarding the Tome of the Westerns: we have also recognised those in Antioch who confess a single Godhead of Father and Son and holy Spirit.
Tome of Westerns is supposed to be Tome of Damasus. This tome was sent by Damasus for acceptance. What Pope wanted was acceptance of his Tome alone and nothing else because that Tome was formulated after enough discussions in Rome. But they give it only a consideration among other similar canons they have already made in the East.
I don't claim that Petrine supremacy was ever discussed in Council of Constantinople. But what we can see from the series of events unfolded in those two years, reason why Pope decreed about the Primacy of Peter was direct consequence of the Council of Constantinople in the previous year. Or why should he add this decree to the Councilar Decrees of Rome in 382 held to determine the canonical texts of New Testament and why didn't he do it before?
Dear all
St.Paul preached gospel as not part of Antioch/ Syrian orthodox church!St.Thomas and other apostles preached gospel not part of antiochean Church!As St.Paul said they were Ambassadors of Christ!even in early centuary no regeonal church claimed to be part of Antiochean Church!However they considered as sister churches in each region!All regional heads belong to Christ as their head!Church is universal not because of a single head in earth!At present both jacobites/Mosc lag behind in spreading gospel!
Mathew:
Do you know what Coptic means? It is the language of the Christians in Egypt and was their liturgical language. Now they use it mostly during liturgy and they speak Arabic more. But since Alexandria was given charge of most of East, Central and South Africa in Nicene Synod, church was initially a bigger one.
Regarding Armenia, you need to know the world history clearly. Where Armenians were located and their status before Arab invasion and how they got scattered after Arab invasion and how they got relocated to Lebanon and Turkey and how some of them could finally get back to their original place?
I cannot tell all those details in this blog. Only thing I can say is that they are formed by Armenian diaspora in Lebanon, Jerusalem, Turkey, Armenia and also other Western countries.
Throne of St. Thomas. Report submitted by Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios to the MOSC Episcopal Synod.
Throne of St. Thomas by Dr. M. Kurian Thomas & Varghese John
Pl. Visit
http://www.malankaraorthodox.tv/Church%20Historical%20Documents/Church%20Historical%20Documents.htm
Dear Reny, I dont think that the stipulation of Arab nationals becoming the Patriarch of Antioch has not contributed to the schism in Malankara. It was put in the constitution of Universal Syrian Orthodox Church only recently.
Then how can you blame this clause as the reason for schism? Then do you know the Present Patriarch of Antioch is Iraqi national not a Syrian Citizen.
Regards
Jomon:
You are right in that current Syriac Patriarch is born in Mosul, Iraq. During the Ottoman rule, Syriac Orthodox Church was spread in Turkey, Syria and Iraq as all those regions were part of one country till 1920. So they treat only the Syriac Orthodox faithful from these regions and those immigrated from these regions to Europe, Australia, UK, US and Latin America as their original faithful. There was a time when some of the Maphrians of Tigris became the next Syriac Orthodox Patriarch because they didn't find any problem with it as they see him as one among them. But now since Maphrian is an Indian, they don't want by any chance for him to become the future Syriac Patriarch and hence they changed the Constitution.
Jomon:
I missed three more current countries in Middle East which were part of one Ottoman Empire - Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.
Dear Mathew
In one of your blog comments(17/9)you wrote that Methran Kakshi did not have any history,theology,nor christology and borrowed everything for their profits!
Can you show me A HISTORY OF JACOBITE CHURCH IN malankara?whatever theology that you are using to- day doesnot belong to AntiocheanChurchalone!'Christology' Where did you get this term? Now also look at You are (jacobites)using writings of Vattasseril Thirumeni(mathopadesha sarangal)and writings of Geevarghese Osthatios thirumeni for teaching orthodox faith!Even the thaksa Jacobites/orthodox are currently using have many Kramam/orders which are not specifically done for SOC of antioch!The Bible especially new teastament This is for All Nations and And for all tribes/people!Christ is For all nations! This should be our motto and mission!
Dear Mathew, Jomon and other Jacobite brothers
Here our discussions are limited only to the FUTURE OF ORTHDOOXY IN INDIA. Sirs, all my observations were based on that topic. I have not looked into 'why this schims happened in India and the role of nationality in that schism.'
My simple contention is that THE LEADER OF THE FUTURE INDIAN ORTHODOX BELIEVES SHOULD BE AN INDIAN. (Only this will be acceptable to Indians who have recently become more and more proud about their nationality)
I take note of your comment that the the clause regarding ONLY ARAB AS THE HEAD of ANTOCHIAN CHURCH was added ony recently. So that too substantiate my arguement. So all over the world NATIONAL IDENTITY has become assertive and we too as INDIANS cannot reject it. Please remember we are more than 120 crore now, one fifth of the world population.
I would also like to mention that making an INDIAN as the CHURCH HEAD strengthens the Syrian traditions in India and this will no way affect the HH Patriarch who continus as the HEAD of ANTOCHIAN SYRIAN CHURCH. HH PATRIARCH WILL BE HONOURED AS THE FIRST AMONG EQUALS. This will help and strengthen the ANTIOCHIAN CHURCH TOO.
BUT if HH Patriarch continues to claim superiority asserting himslef as the Head of Indian Church, eventually HH Antioch Patriarch will have neither Antioch nor India. SO IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BOTH ANTIOCH AND INDIA LET US HAVE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL HEADS.
Please understand that super natural image of Christ and HIS status as God cannot be used for a visible head. CHRIST BELONGS TO ALL NATIONS. OUR LORD HAS TO BE REPRESENTED BY A NATIONALISTIC HEAD just like in ANTIOCH and the rest of the world. Indians will not digest why an exception should be allowed in the case of their country only.
I am also grateful to all of you for posting valuable arguments so that we as Orhtodox brothers set an example for others too. This is possible even when we disagree on manay matters. Thank you
Mathew
Has teh jacobite church ever produced worlc class theologians (STARS) like Dr paulose mar Gregorios or many leaders in the orthodox church. Most of the bishops in the Jacobite camp are just satellites revolving around HB THomas Thirumeni who is himself known for 'deeds'
Dear Mathew
I am not afraid of Bible verses as I can use my Common sense to realise the meaning of them!Jacobites and you are always selective because of Throne and Supremacy issue and do not follow the real Christology!Bible verses are often mis interpreted and misused by varius christian sects for their selfish interests.In Mathew 7:24-25 Jesus talked about building house on rock( also refer,luke 6:46-49)! If you intrepret it you will say Christ has said everybody to build house on Rock or st.Peter!The First account of ordination of elders/Presbyters are in Acts14:23
Apostle Paul by this time has not met st.Peter(read Gal 1:18-20).when you people say "Everything Antioch",even Christololy was mainly taught by St.Paul!also read Gal 1,11-17 about God's call of Saul!thaks for your offer! God bless all!
Only those who lack vision will say that ORTHODOX FAITH IN INDIA WILL CONTIUNE UNDER ANTIOCH PATRIARCH FOREVER.
To build a strong Orthodox Church we need the blessings and prayers of all Orthodox Church Heads including Antioch patriarch. I do not understand why HH Patriarch wants to control Indian Church for ages.
We are working against our our own interests and Orthodox Faith when we look only backwards and say that there cannot be an Orthodox CHURCH in India without Antioch patriarch as its Head.
WHEN WE DISCUSS THE FUTURE, WE SHOULD THINK AT LEAST 200 years ahead, that is approximately 7 generations.
PLEASE DO NOT DIP OUR HEADS IN THE PAST AND SPOIL THE FUTURE OF ORTHODOX FAITH.
SO I PRAY TO OUR CHURCH LEADERS TO declare 2012-2015 as years TO FOCUS on the FUTURE OF INDIAN ORTHODOXY.
I made this comment becasue we Orthodox Christians of India have wasted years, decades, centuries thinking ONLY about the PAST. 80 per cent of our present problems can we solved if we spend 90 per cent on thinking and praying for FUTURE INDIAN ORTHODOX FAITH.
I hope this request will be granted by Church leaders.
Dear all,
The future of Christianity in India is very bright from the moment Bishop Gurgan got ordained. It became more brighter when MOSC leadership accepted and showed the green flag. It became even more brighter when Bishop Gurgan established a new church and ordained few people. It became much more brighter when that church produced another church by way of excommunication. It will get brighter and brighter and brighter....and brighter...don't worry.
Dear Reni
I also support your views on future christianity in India!Although the Europeans brought here catholic and protestant faith they both succededin evangelisation/mission work in India!The antiochean church cannot do any evangelisation/mission work here!they only preach universalism in Malankara only!MOSC heiracrchy should also change their present attitude in Church feud/cases and concentrate in mission work!
Dear Mathew(part 1 of final episode)
let me tell you something about legacy and Stewardship in Christianity!Legate means ecclesiastic delagation/ representation,while legacy stands for anything handed down from the past from an ancestor or predecsor!Steward means a person in charge of running the house hold of another!This is the common meaning of two words we normally use!Church is fellowship of christian faithful both departed and alive trough the body of Christ!
In Acts 6 we read how the FIRST 7 deacons were ordained!The 12 apostles together summoned the whole multitude of belivers/faithful.You cannot see a single stewardship acting there!Acts 13 we read How Saul(st.Paul)and barnabas were ordained!There were certain prophets and teachers!
Having fasted and prayed ,laid hands on Saul,and Barnabas,they were sent away for the work of God by the prophets/teachers(acts 13:1-3)There is no single steward who did that(for engaging Saul and Barnabas for the mission work!
here also there were no single stewardship role played!
(cont'd)
Dear Mathew (II)
In 2 corinth 5:18-21 apostle Paul talks about Apostolic ministry:-Reconciliation!"we are Ambassadors of Christ"(this means all the apostles were representatives of christ)not single apostle!In 1 Corinth 3:9 St.Paul urges That apostles are God's fellow workers and christian beleivers are the field whereby they are God's building! 1 corin 3:11,the foundation for building is laid on Christ! again wether Paul,or Appollos,or Cephas.....all belong to faithful/beleivers,and, everybody(everything) belongs to Christ!(1Corin 3:22).This is called Christolgy! or Christian theology!
St.Paul,being a true apostle submits himself to church and her apostles rather than elevating himself(Gal,1:18-20).After that he corrects St.Peter(Gal2:11-16)especially on faith!In Gal. chap:3 st.Paul teaches that "Faith brings Sonship"Sonship bay Faith and Baptism(3:26-29),Sonsof God Through Christ and Spirit!(gal,4:1-7)"Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son,and if a son,then the Heir Of God through christ"
All christians are Heir Of God Through Christ! now where does this special claim of "AVAKASHI" in legacy of Christ? If "You Are Christ's you are Abraham's seed,and Heirs according to the Promise"(Gal,3:29)In Christ all are ine one nature ,and so all are equal in dignity!In John 21:19and22Jesus told peter "Follow ME"This is a clear indication that what ever was told before (21:15,16,17) feed my lambs,feed my sheeps,etc are not "Authority/commission".It was the common duty of apostles and their common responsiblity!What ever Jesus told was infront of other apostles!This Why apostle Paul told that they were AMBASSADORS OF CHRIST!!Jesus Christ Did not have an office on Earth!His office/throne is in Heaven with is Father!Peter and other apostles have their own throne in hIS second coming as well as in heaven.Here ends Legacy and stewardship!
May almighty bless All!
@Saju
I can understand the laughter in your words. But being a firm Orthodox believer and a proud nationalist, I believe all these problems are created by FOREIGN HANDS OR their stooges in Malankara.
We do not lose hope. We belive Holy Spirit makes the Church grow. Therfore. all these forces which works against the interest of Holy Spirit will perish. you will see the Church will bear good fruit for God
Dear All
It is all about Throne of St.Peter In Antioch!,claimed by Jacobites/SOC are purely heresy!>Jesus Christ told Pilate that his Kingdom is not of here!"My Kingdom is not of this world"(john 18:36).Then how did Peter found his Throne in Antioch in A.D.37?Jesus again told Pilate "I have come to this world,that I should bear witness to the TRUTH.Everyone who is of truth hears my voice"!(Verse.38).Peter and other apostles were witnesses of TRUTH!Pilate asked Jesus What Is Truth?
This is the same case with Jacobites/Soc who does not want witness the Truth!They only want Power!Jesus Christ promised All 12 apostles thrones for Judging 12 tribes of Israel on his second coming!He Never told/promised his disciples any throne in earth!As for Lord, The Throne is Heaven,and earth is the footstole of his feet!(Isiah 66:1).Mathew 19:28-30,(Luke22:30) Jesus precisely states how the 12 disciples are going to be enthroned!Jesus said that if anyone want follow him,"Deny self,take own cross,and follow him(Jesus)"!This is the mission for christians and present christian denominations!
This is eaxactly what we need in Malnakara for future Christianity in India!
@Saju
It has turned even more brighter by the order of decsion of teh Antioch synod that maphriane Thomas thirumeni has not power beyond Indian mainland.
Sp saju let us thank God
Post a Comment