Re: Who is the Canonical Patriarch? HH Abdel Messiah or HH Abdulla
- Dear Friends,
His Holiness, the Patriarch of Antioch came to Malankara and consecrated and installed a Catholicos for the Malankara Church on 22.5.1964, 48 years after this epoch making event in Syrian Christian Community, it is not worthwhile to expend energy [intellectually or otherwise] to research about the validity or otherwise of the Abdul Messiah's status in 1912 when he came to Malankara in 1912.
Praise the lord!
Philip P J [Parambil Tharakan]
- Hi All,
After going through the posting of Mr. Philip, let me pen down my opinion. Think it is high time that the Church take a realistic and truthful view; shedding off the emotional part.
Does it concern us to know who the canonical patriarch was? HH Abdel Messiah may or may not have been the patriarch as per the then existing Syrian canon. It is the headache and history of the Syrian church, not us.
HH Abdel Mesiah did not have any authority to create a Catholicate for the Malankara Christians. Creation of the Catholicate was the natural progression of the administrative system in our church; we ourselves had the sole authority and responsibility to create the Catholicate and we exercised that authority. Who created the patriarchate for the Syrian church or for that matter any other ancient churches? Did somebody have to come from outside to do it?
Presence or absence of HH Abdel Mesiah, or any other Catholicose, patriarch or pope did not matter; at a time when we had decided to create the Catholicate for us. HH Abdel Mesiah might have been invited for the ceremony to satisfy other reasons, just as probably how HH Dalai Lama was invited for the Catholicate centenary celebrations.
"Kappi Canon" or "Kappi Less Canon" or "Snacks only Canon"; it is all in the 'not so holy' history of the Syrian church and it is for them to worry about. What we need to be concerned of now, is the creation of a suitable version of the Canon; which will uphold our history and freedom.
Abey Jacob, Bangalore.
- Well said Abey Jacob, Bangalore.
The Patriarch (canonical or otherwise) in his capacity as Patriarch of Antioch could not consecrate any one as Catholicos of the East. He could only consecrate a Maprian which is, many a time (wrongly) called a Catholicos, under him. First ever Catholicate was established on political grounds as was emerging by itself. In Malankara there was better reason and emerged naturally. So it was not a Maprianate. Of course when it was created first, there was the Synod of 410 to acknowledge it afterward. After the establishment of the Catholicate in Malankara, there has never been an Ecumenical Synod. So there is no question of acceptance by an Ecumenical Synod. However, all the major denominations of world Christendom have accepted the presence of the Catholicate in Malankara and they all honor the Catholicos of the East in Malankara as equal to the position of the Patriarch. Hence it is an acceptance by the Ecumenical Synod not in session. The point is, it does not make any difference whether the Patriarch of Antioch was there or not for the installation, Malankara Church still had all the right to establish a Catholicate of the East in Malankara and the reason for the same was a better one than that of the one established in Persia (Seleucia-Ctesiphon). Historical events testify this reason as valid and genuine.
Yuhanon Mor Meletius Metropolitan, Thrissur