Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Best Christian Churches in Kerala

Expand Messages
  • john kunjukunju
    As Mr. George C Thomas indicated, I saw the YouTube video. (1) Minister KV Thomas said the Marthoma church is good, in the sense that they do not make any
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      As Mr. George C Thomas indicated, I saw the YouTube video.
      (1) Minister KV Thomas said the Marthoma church is good, in the sense that they do not make any problems to the politicians and the government.
      (2) Those who wear the cross, are the real problem he said, citing his experience and suggested, it would be a consolation if they do not avoid wearing the cross.
      (3) He said also that certain churches are headache to the government. Mr. Dinakaran commented that the remarks of the minister are an insult to the church.

      I fully endorse the opinion of the minister. The church and its faithful instead of reviling what others remark about the Church it should open the eyes of the church leaders and take them as a given chance to introspect as to how an outsider views our church and the conduct of our bishops and find out a way to correct the errors. A fair minded Christian, no matter a bishop or a faithful, the Christian Church must and should behave in such a way that they ameliorate the social tensions/problems and obey the Law of the land and the elected government.

      In our case, both the opposing parties, say they obey the SC court verdict and blame the other party for all the ills and blame the local government and its leaders that they are showing partiality and sidng the opponents, etc. There may be or may not be truth in such allegations, but instead both parties are driving the other away by unwanted statements. Both parties are persisting in disobedience to the SC verdict. For example: Orthodox faction claims quoting the SC verdict that all the churches in Malankara are to be governed by 1934 Constitution, posing themselves in perfect obedience to the SC claiming the SC verdict was in their favor; but they never looked at the SC verdict in full where it says, HH Patriarch is its spiritual head. If the Orthodox obeys the verdict it is their non-negotiable obligation to declare that in a public statement and invite HH formally to visit and continue the unity efforts.

      All bishops should declare allegiance to the 1934 Constitution to continue in status quo; in fact all the then bishops from the Patriarchal side declared allegiance in the court of Law. The next step of those who so declared allegiance to 1934 C. was to surreptitiously form a brand new association in complete defiance to their own declaration, thus making the declaration and so called obedience to SC a mockery. So in truth and in effect both parties are sailing in the same boat, both are disobeying the SC and enticing the followers to increase violence and hatred and create law and order problem to the government. St Paul wrote: "I say this to your shame, is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourself be cheated? No, you yourself do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren," 1Cor 6:5-8. If this from the apostle is not ridiculing, how what the minister said will be a ridiculing the church? We should have the humility to accept the shortcomings at least when other point out and try to rectify. When Christians lose the flavor they are worth only to be trampled by others. Note: sorry, this is for correction, not to offend any

      Love,

      Thank you and God Bless you,

      KK Johnachen
    • george_cthomas
      Respected John Achen, When last loksabha election was declared Prof K V Thomas came to Devalokam aramana and assured our Church leadership that our community
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Respected John Achen,

        When last loksabha election was declared Prof K V Thomas came to Devalokam aramana and assured our Church leadership that our community members will be offered seats in future Assembly election since not a single seat was offered to an Orthodox church member. We belived him and as you know our comunity was cheated during last assembly election also.
        Our Thiruvalla seat was offered to a Marthomite and marthomites were placed as candidates in Orthodox majority constituencies like Pathanamthitta, Kunnamkulam etc and UDF lost all those seats.
        marthoma Church has been always offered seats during Loksabha and assembly elections by Congress and do we have to keep our mouth shut and become mere spectators of this injustice??
        The present marthomite Church head is maintaing close relationship with puthenkurishu society like the anti-Orthodox reeth church.

        It is a fact that without the support of MLAs or MPs Supreme Court verdict can never be implemented and we will remain as jacobites or Malankara suriyani sabha and never grow to become Indian Orthodox Church.

        Major conclusions of the 1995 SC verdict
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        4(b): The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the Churches,
        4(c): Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 constitution is that the Patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to te constitution.
        4(d): The spiritual powers of the Patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholicose in accordance with the Constitution.
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        So HH Catholicose also have all spiritual powers of Syriac Patriarch.
        Other Oriental Orthodox Churches consider MOC as autocephalous.

        George C.Thomas
        Kuwait
      • Philip Ayyamplackal Chacko
        Respected Johnachen wrote, …………Orthodox faction claims quoting the SC verdict that all the churches in Malankara are to be governed by 1934
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 21, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Respected Johnachen wrote, …………Orthodox faction claims quoting the SC verdict that all the churches in Malankara are to be governed by 1934 Constitution, posing themselves in perfect obedience to the SC claiming the SC verdict was in their favor; but they never looked at the SC verdict in full where it says, HH Patriarch is its spiritual head. If the Orthodox obeys the verdict it is their non-negotiable obligation to declare that in a public statement and invite HH formally to visit and continue the unity efforts.

          This is a Pandora box; I don’t like opening it. However, I would like to quote the following related sections in which the word, ‘Patriarch’ is mentioned in the 1934 constitution, which was the basis of the SC verdict. Let people make sense out of it.

          Quote”

          1. The Malankara Church is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch.

          2. The Malankara Church was founded by St.Thomas the Apostle and is included in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is the Catholicos.

          101. The Malankara Church shall recognize the Patriarch, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of the Catholicos.

          114. If any one shall be consecrated as Catholicos he shall be elected to that office by the Association. If such election is approved by the Episcopal Synod, the Synod shall consecrate the person as Catholicos. If there be a Patriarch recognized by the Malankara Church the Patriarch shall be invited when the Catholicos shall be consecrated and if the Patriarch arrives he shall as the President of the Synod consecrate the Catholicos with the co-operation of the Synod.

          118. Complaint against prelates shall be made to the President of the Episcopal Synod and the President shall bring it before the Synod and after giving notice to both the parties and receiving evidence and hearing arguments the President shall pronounce the decision in accordance with the majority opinion of the Synod. If the complaint is against the Catholicos, the Patriarch if there is a Patriarch recognized by the Malankara Church, shall also be invited and in the event of his arriving he shall be the President of the Synod and if he does not arrive the Synod shall pronounce the decision. While the Synod meets for these purposes such members of the Association Managing Committee as are deemed needed may be invited for consultation.

          “Unquote

          In the above section 1, the meaning of the word DIVISION is misunderstood by many and some propagate the Malankara Church to a subordinate state. But this ambiguity is made clear in the other sections.

          The problem we face today is neither the Patriarch nor the 1934 constitution, it is our attitude. We don’t want to recognize either. Take the 60 odd Bishops in both these factions, if you talk individually to them, each will turn out to be more peace loving than Jesus Christ himself, but when they come together there is no trace of Peace. Why?

          Recently one of our Bishops went to a Dayara, now belonging to the Patriarch faction, were a few church fathers are entombed. The related news in the internet resulted in wide spread rumors and speculation. Two or three years ago H.B Thomas came to Parumala Seminary and was silently praying at the Tomb. The Parumala Seminary Manager on seeing him invited to his office, but H.B said he was on his way after meeting a patient at the St.Gregorios Hospital and had an appointment to make, so politely denied the invitation. Thankfully there was not much news coverage then. Now what is the difference between these visits?

          No Bishops in the history of our Church so far talked vociferously for the Catholicate than Puthencavil Kochu Thirumeni. The vision of Thirumeni for the Catholicate was not even heard when we celebrated the centenary. During Thirumeni’s days on his visit to the churches in the northern dioceses, used to visit Thrikkunathu Seminary where late H.G Kuttikattil Paulose Mar Athanasios resided, who was the Malankara Metropolitan of the Patriarchal faction. Puthencavil Thirumeni also used to visit Mar Julios, the Patriarchal delegate who stayed at Manjinikkara on his way to Makkamkunnu. The car used by Thirumeni those days was not his own and was borrowed for specific purposes only. Still Thirumeni maintained cordial relations and ensured to make routine courtesy calls on such trips. Today all have own cars and better roads, but is time the only factor preventing to maintain such relations? All are busy working in the vineyard !
          In St.Mathew 23, Jesus warns against Hypocrisy. Is this preventing us from peace? I don’t think any of the Bishops in these factions have disrespect for either. They show more respect when they meet at common venues, than they have for one amongst them from their own faction.
          On a different note, the new Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, H.H Pope Francis, is making the headlines for all the right reasons. Some of our people are anxiously waiting to know the stand of the Pope on sheep stealing as if there are no other issues for the Pope to tackle and a bull from the Pope will end sheep stealing for ever. On the contrary if we could join hands with the Catholic Church or even atheists to eradicate poverty amidst us that will automatically prevent to certain extend stealing of many sorts.
          In short, “the dog will neither eat the grass, nor let the cow have it”.

          Philip Ayyamplackal, Auckland
        • ronnie daniel
          Philip Ayyamplackal Chacko wrote: The problem we face today is neither the Patriarch nor the 1934 constitution, it is our attitude. We don t want to recognize
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 22, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Philip Ayyamplackal Chacko wrote: The problem we face today is neither the Patriarch nor the 1934 constitution, it is our attitude. We don't want to recognize either. Take the 60 odd Bishops in both these factions, if you talk individually to them, each will turn out to be more peace loving than Jesus Christ himself, but when they come together there is no trace of Peace. Why?


            You nailed it down correctly Mr. Philip! You know the answer to the question you have raised too... Their greed for power, fame, authority, life style and ultimately their legacy in this world is far more important to them than living in peace with one another.

            During the last secretariat march of the Patriarch side, I saw they demanding the Government to implement various court orders. We have been demanding the same for a long time. I do not understand what is the problem then in arriving at peace when both sides are demanding the same.

            Regards,
            Ronnie Daniel, Toronto, Canada
          • Abey
            Dear Achen, Your posting enthused me to ask the following questions. What does it mean to be the spiritual head of the church; what all will be the spiritual
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Achen,


              Your posting enthused me to ask the following questions.


              What does it mean to be the spiritual head of the church; what all will be the spiritual head's responsibilities towards the church ?


              Who gave the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, any such position in the Malankara Church ?


              Regards,
              Abey Jacob,Bangalore.




              --- In IndianOrthodox@yahoogroups.com, john kunjukunju <fatherkkjohn@...> wrote:
              >
              > As Mr. George C Thomas indicated, I saw the YouTube video.
              > (1) Minister KV Thomas said the Marthoma church is good, in the sense that they do not make any problems to the politicians and the government.
              > (2) Those who wear the cross, are the real problem he said, citing his experience and suggested, it would be a consolation if they do not avoid wearing the cross.
              > (3) He said also that certain churches are headache to the government. Mr. Dinakaran commented that the remarks of the minister are an insult to the church.
              >
              > I fully endorse the opinion of the minister. The church and its faithful instead of reviling what others remark about the Church it should open the eyes of the church leaders and take them as a given chance to introspect as to how an outsider views our church and the conduct of our bishops and find out a way to correct the errors. A fair minded Christian, no matter a bishop or a faithful, the Christian Church must and should behave in such a way that they ameliorate the social tensions/problems and obey the Law of the land and the elected government.
              >
              > In our case, both the opposing parties, say they obey the SC court verdict and blame the other party for all the ills and blame the local government and its leaders that they are showing partiality and sidng the opponents, etc. There may be or may not be truth in such allegations, but instead both parties are driving the other away by unwanted statements. Both parties are persisting in disobedience to the SC verdict. For example: Orthodox faction claims quoting the SC verdict that all the churches in Malankara are to be governed by 1934 Constitution, posing themselves in perfect obedience to the SC claiming the SC verdict was in their favor; but they never looked at the SC verdict in full where it says, HH Patriarch is its spiritual head. If the Orthodox obeys the verdict it is their non-negotiable obligation to declare that in a public statement and invite HH formally to visit and continue the unity efforts.
              >
              > All bishops should declare allegiance to the 1934 Constitution to continue in status quo; in fact all the then bishops from the Patriarchal side declared allegiance in the court of Law. The next step of those who so declared allegiance to 1934 C. was to surreptitiously form a brand new association in complete defiance to their own declaration, thus making the declaration and so called obedience to SC a mockery. So in truth and in effect both parties are sailing in the same boat, both are disobeying the SC and enticing the followers to increase violence and hatred and create law and order problem to the government. St Paul wrote: "I say this to your shame, is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourself be cheated? No, you yourself do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren," 1Cor 6:5-8. If this from the apostle is not ridiculing, how what the minister said will be a ridiculing the church? We should have the humility to accept the shortcomings at least when other point out and try to rectify. When Christians lose the flavor they are worth only to be trampled by others. Note: sorry, this is for correction, not to offend any
              >
              > Love,
              >
              > Thank you and God Bless you,
              >
              > KK Johnachen
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.