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

8185Re: The Canonical Position of Patriarch Abdul Messiah II

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Varghese
    Apr 29 4:11 AM
      Dear all
      After reading the same I am having some doubts which i am trying to

      1. In the Message there was a quote from mathai semmasan's letter
      about the selection of H.H Mor Abdulla as Patriarach. i think MOSC
      never contradicted this point. There fore the quotes do not serve
      any useful purpose but only creates confusion. Same is the case with
      the compilation 1 and 2

      "1. A letter by T.A. Mathai Semmasan who was personally present
      there at the
      > senario and is almost like a first hand report. You can read this
      > Appendix No.14B in my book, Perumpilly Thirumeni..
      > 2. The official circular letter from the then Malankara
      Metropolitan Mor
      > Dionasius Joseph conforming the installation of Mor Abdulla 11 as
      > Patriarch. See Appendix No.14F {Ibid)

      2.Eventhough the message quotes Mathai semmasan's letter , It does
      not refer to BM and BK akkam letters (as stated in Vattipanam case)
      from Same Semmasan in which he clearly points to the problems about
      the removal of Patriarch .

      3.The same Mathai semmasan was present in the installation of
      Catholicate on 1912. If he clearly knows about the excommunication
      he should never participated in that event especially when he was
      with 'bava kakshi'.

      4.The decision which excommunicated Abdul Messiah was taken on 1903
      as per the message. Even before the split the problem about the
      removal of Patriarch was an issue in malankara because Marthoma
      Church was harping on that point saying that Patriarch was installed
      and removed by Muslim ( sultan)and not by christians.Edavaka Patrika
      in many issues tried to defend our side. But Even then the year of
      Synod was never appeared in Edavaka Patrika( getting date was easier
      beacause Mathai semmasan was their in syria) which is very difficult
      to understand

      5.Mor Yolios was a witness in all this cases in the Court. He
      claimed that he has seen 1903 Synod decision and copied the same in
      his own handwriting. Why Court rejected the same eventhogh it was
      acceptable under Trancore Evidance act.

      6. The message dismisses many contemporary writers as Partisan and
      dismisses their view points. The "Guardian" News paper reported the
      problems in Political Intervention and removal of patrairch on April
      1905 and also reported that Synod will be convened after easter to
      select a new Patraiach. Also later Malayala Manorama ( before the
      split)reported the same in its editorial.Such a news should not have
      happened if everything was fine in Syria.

      7. I could not understand why an excommunicated Patriarch was looked
      after by SOC and why even deacons were assisting H.H Abdul Messiah.
      ( Just think Vattaseril thirumeni is looked after by JSC and
      Perumpallil thirumeni looked after by MOSC)

      8. Your Message says Sultan was not at all interfering in church
      Matters . then Message says two years has taken to make Sultan
      understand the necessity of Change. Is this Contradictory? then
      compilation 4 which shows Sultan was actively intervening in church

      But as you righly said this points were came into the fore just
      because of the split in the Church.

      Thomas varghese
      St. george orthodox Church karakkal
      Id #2316
    • Show all 3387 messages in this topic