Dear Aby K. Paul,
I read your posting in IO Forum No.9841 of March 30, 2005 on the issues you wrote to me on Dec.11,2004. I gave you a reply with my confidence that that these issues were very well referred in my links and in the books I sent to you at my own expense. Your first question was well answered by Dr. Thomas Joseph in SOCM Forum No. 513. All other questions are very well taken care in the following two books I mailed to you.
1.Slaiheeka Sandarsanam- Vivadangalum Visadeekaranangalum
2.Ivar Paranjirunnathingane, Ennal Ippol...?
I thought you have read the book and found the replies to all your questions!
You wrote to me on Dec.28 2004 the following,
>Thank you for the books. However I had read one of those books from one of
>my friends before but those
>does not answer my questions. I shall send you the cost of the books in two
>As you suggested I checked the SOCM Forum #513 and back issues and it seems
>like the discussion did not last
>for longer than three or four issues.
>I know it is not a time to discuss those issues when thousands of our
>brothers back home are suffering from
>the earthquake and Tsunami. Let us thank God for how fortunate we are. Let
>us pray and do whatever we can
>to help those people (either in the name of SOC or IOC) as Christians.
>Thank you once again for the books.
>Aby K. Paul �
What else I can understand from this?
Almost 3 months passed and you never wrote me any letter or mail. I never expected the cost of the books and the mailing charges from you so I didn�t care on the promise that you will sent me the cost in TWO DAYS! even though nothing happened!
Now it is really surprising that you, all on a sudden appeared in the IO Forum with a plea to SO Forum owner, Thomas Daniel, using another thread, with a note that HE WILL BE ABLE TO REPLY.
This can also mean that even though the question was raised to me I did not satisfy you. Your posting with my name mentioned gives a feeling that we had a thorough discussion earlier. Your posting quoted below will not reveal the fact that you have NEVER AGAIN CONTACTED ME FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS FROM MY PART, but surely give a feeling otherwise.
See your posting on me in IOC Forum,
�I asked Rev. Fr. Kuriakose Moolayil these questions and he was kind enough to send me some books to read. I could not find the answers to my questions but just allegations of IOC bishops lying and sort of. However he requested me to visit SOC Forum Digest# 913 for my first and second questions. The interesting thing I found was SOC forum stopped any further discussion about it after their answer in Digest # 913.� (Corrected to 513 later by yourself)
It was you that stopped the discussions unilaterally on account of the Tsunami disaster. It was a courtesy to write to me on these at least before dragging my name in the public forum. Your intention is very clear when you requested Thomas Daniel to give the reply in the IO Forum.
I think you have the permission from the IOF Moderators to invite the reply there. I hope this will not be censored/edited as it was done earlier to my response to the Learned and senior Corepicopos V.Rev.Dr.P.S.Samuel. Those responses was actually invited by the IO Moderators but later they found it �untimely� and was denied publication. I hope that will not happen to this.
Coming to your questions 1 and 2 you are again invited to READ the posting No.513 in SO Forum from Dr. Thomas. URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/message/513
Your Questions 1 and 2 are quoted below,
1. � If H.H. the Patriarch of Antioch is the head of our church, why don't the bishops from India have the equal participation in the election ofPatriarch?
2. Why a bishop from India is not eligible for the candidacy of Patriarch?�
My responses to these are the following:
1. The Patriarchate and the Catholicate in the SOC are two Synodal entities with specifics of authorities. This is nothing new. When the Catholicate was accepted in 1958 and the canonical installation was done by H.H. Yacoob 111 in 1964 the synodal identity was confirmed. That is still followed. The Catholicose of the East is elected by the Synod under the Catholicate and Patriarch by the Synod under him. All these involve issues of rights over properties, languages, jurisdiction, etc, etc of temporalities. BUT the installing is spiritual and is done reciprocally by the concerned prelate.
2. It is also noteworthy that the bishops of the Patriachate are not a part of the election or the candidancy to the Catholicate too. So these issues are not to be considered as issues connected to the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
3. During the period when the Maphriante was weak ,before 1860 , many times the Catholicoi were nominated by the Patriarch or/and by the synod. H.H. Basalius Yeldo and H.B. Sakralla are examples. Then there was no Synod under the Catholicoi and many Catholicoi became Patriarch.
4. Besides the above clarifications I have some more comments on this issue.
Is your question raised with pure conscience to know the electoral roll and the eligibility of the candidacy of the Patriarch or is it addressed to highlight your whimsical fantasy of the �discrimination� prevailing(?) in the SOC?. Will you join the SOC stand if this issue is cleared as a matter of authority and temporality? Or will you continue as �unconvinced� innocent?
5. Finally, my request to you and other IO friends is to keep this issue as an internal affair of the SOC. As far as the IOC is concerned it is not at all an issue. Please worry about your candidacy of bishops and Catholicose. We are not all bothered who all you elect, ordain or receive. It is your freedom to hail defectors from SOC or to defeat those from North dioceses,
6. But your concern regarding the position of Patriarch in the Malankara Church is to be considered here. I will have to say that it should be said without any �IF� as you have started in your question! You seem to rely much on Court verdict in your questions. Have you READ any of the judgments regarding Church cases from Cochin Award to 1995 Judgment of the Supreme Court of India? You should also READ the latest (2002) judgment from the High Court of Kerala by J.Jawaharlal and J. Ramachandran. Then you can avoid the �IF� in your future postings. I am not intending to give the proof of details regarding the unquestionable spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch over the Malankara Church as evidenced in judgments, liturgy and history of the church. You have the freedom to go away from it. But you cannot deny the facts. You can keep your eyes shut! But don�t think all have kept their eyes shut
7. I am sure you will be 'convinced' by this reply too as you were not satisfied with the replies in the books that I forwarded to you. If you are willing to read without prejudice all your questions other than the above are answered in them.
Q.3. Who was the head of our Church during the 19th century and before?
Refer Oath of Koonan Cross, Mavelikkara Padiyola, Mulanthuruthy Synod, Consecration of Bishops Pulikkottil 5th back to Marthoma1. Read also the History book by Fr. K. David, the former Sunday School Director during the split period after 1912.
Q.4. Why did the former Patriarch sent a Kalpana saying that St. Thomas was not even a priest? Or didn't he sent such a letter and the IOC is lying ?
Refer my book, Slaiheeka Sandarsam pages 88- 90. See also my posting attached below URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/message/5118
Q.5.Did H.G. Thomas Mar Dianaius agree to abide by the Supreme Court verdict of 1995 and agree to participate in the election to chose the Malankara Metropolitan under the guidance of Justice Mr. Malimatt? (I read in the newspapers back then that it was the Jacobite faction that suggested Mr. Malimatt in SC and Orthodox faction opposed it. However the SC accepted the request of Jacobite faction acknowledging that without SC overseeing it the election would not be fair)
Much water flowed after this event. Please read the judgment of HC of Kerala referred above by J. Gupta and J. M. Ramachandran. See my book pages 49 & 50. For Malimatt issues please READ chapter one of the above book. If you don�t have access to the HC judgment I have a copy with me. I will send the photocopy if you can pay the charges.
I would also like to bring to your kind notice that it is NOT proper to call H.B. Thomas first as 'H.G. Thomas Mar Dianasius' even years after he is raised as the Catholicose. Give respect and get respect. I don�t personally mind even if you avoid my status as 'corepiscopos' by addressing me as 'Rev.Fr.Kuriakose'. I am more comfortable with the endeared title, �Moolelachen� heard for the last 26 years. But the former is more serious.
If you accept H.B. or not is another issue, he is H.B. of the SOC. You are belittling yourself when you or anyone else try to lower his status. Moreover if you accept him as �H. G. Thomas Mar Dianasius�, why you cannot recognize him as H.B.? Both status were conferred upon him by the SO Church.
Please read more comment from me on this in the following URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/message/5067
Q.6.Why the Jacobite faction recommended in SC to amend the constitution for representation based on membership in each parish and now arguing that the amended constitution is not applicable to them?
See the references to the question No.5
Conclusion: I am willing to explain on any of the points I have referred above and to communicate with you even personally. I am reminded of a proverb here.
�One can bring a horse to water but thousand cannot force it to drink� This may be applicable to me, you and may be many others. This denominational duel is useless other than for historic and academic purpose. I lost interest in this combat through the forum. Being a student and reader of the History of the Church at times I will have to interfere with my thoughts and convictions. That is all!
Please forgive me if I have offended anyone of my readers unintentionally.
Pray for me and forgive my ignorance.
Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolayil
Director, Mor Adai Study Centre
From the desk of the Moderators
The above posting is published as per the request of our respected Moolelachen as IOC Forum refused to publish iit in their forum in response to the original posting appeared in that forum. The communication between IOC Forum moderators & Achan is also printed below for clearing his stance of publishing it in our forum.
Rejection note to Moolelachen from ICON Moderators
Indian Orthodox wrote:
Respected Achen, We are not posting the message below in ICON since it is already appreared in/sent to other forum. Thank you for your continued support.
In Risen Christ,
Reply from Moolelachen to ICON Moderator
Thank you for your kind reply of rejection of my reply to Aby. I can understand your limitations in posting my response even otherwise, if you were given the first priority to publish. Let Aby and his like minded friends in your forum enjoy with the feeling that none could say anything beyond what they have said!
I have sent a copy to Aby for his knowledge. I hope you will not mind if I publish your rejection note in our Forum. I shall hold this for two days for you to reply if you have any objection to this.
Thanking you again for your request for 'continued support' Lovingly, Moolelachen.
Reply from ICON moderator to Moolelachen
Dear Achen, Thank you Achen for asking. We do not have any problem you posting this in any forum or we do not know even we could ask for that. However, thinking out loud, what would you achieve by posting a mail which we consider totally out of Christian Spirit and won�t achieve anything?
We really would like to post any messages in ICON which is true, rational and nourish Christian brotherhood.
Please forgive if we offended you in anyway and remember our activities in your prayers.
In Risen Christ,
For ICON Moderators,
(Name withheld by SOCM-Forum Moderators)
Reply to ICON Moderator from Moolelachen
Dear Brother, ((Name withheld by SOCM-Forum Moderators)
Your immediate reply on behalf of ICON is praiseworthy. Thank you for your prudence to leave the publication issue to my freedom.
I can't understand the rationale in your letter when you said the reply is "totally out of Christian Spirit and won�t achieve anything " !
I think it is my duty now to explain to you why I was compelled to ask you permission to quote your reply in SOCM-Forum.
Do you believe the questions raised by Aby were in 'true Christian Spirit'?.
But I know he and his participants 'achieved' in mud throwing and slandering . You Moderators of ICON gave him web space to air his baseless questions and also his appeal to reply in your Forum, even dragging in my name improperly. But when I replied you rejected to post the clarifications therby you are denying thousands of your readers their right to know the replies to Aby. What your readers are thinking now? Thomas Daniel and 'Fr. Kuriakose Moolayil' could not even reply to the questions raised by Mr. Aby ! This is very sad and is really creating a smoke screen .
You now has denied me the space to respond and clarify the half truth in the personal discussion between me and Aby. This is really painful and I can see this only an act in partisan spirit. This is not at all Christian charity!
If I publish this rejection note at least those of your readers who are members of SOCM and other forums will understand what really happened ?
My reply was posted in SOCM-Forum because Aby's questions were also raised in it too earlier.
I can't find any 'Christian Spirit' and Charity in your rejection of my postings this time and the former. This time YOU allowed the writer Aby to call for clarification to be published in ICON itself and the last time YOU YOURSELF ASKED ME TO WRITE MY VIEWS. Now you say it can achieve nothing ! What a paradox ?
But I respect your (Moderator's) freedom to reject any of the postings being it a moderated Forum.
Forgive me for my uncouth words, as I am thinking aloud and sharing my thoughts without hiding anything. I am not at all offended by your words or rejection of my postings, because I expected nothing more than this could happen or you could act in any other way. I know you cannot sent to your readers 'the unpleasant realities' against the smoke screen arguments built by your promoters, like Aby.
Thank you for your time, patience and sincere courtesy.