A Metran Kakshi priest's ramblings
- View SourceDear moderartor
The following was posted by Fr. George of Ireland in the metran Kakshi forum.. Since he is a member here also, I am sure he will get the message.. There is no point in sending this response to their forum because it will not see the light of the day. The maximum I can expect is a personal message from the moderators asking me to continue the discussion personally with the person to whom I would like to respond.. I have experienced this before.
The following was posted by Fr. George..
"..The Jacobites seem to be adamant on their argument with regard to the supremacy of Patriarch of Antioch over the Indian Church on the basis of 'St.Peter referred to as 'Rock', who is considered to be first patriarch of Antioch. The reference to this effect has been made by St. Mathew alone. (Mat 16: 17-19 ). No other evangelists are seen mentioning of it. I wonder why it's so? Why St. Mark, the first to write the gospel and the direct disciple of St.Peter is silent on the subject matter? Same is the case with St. Luke and St.John,the great evangelist and disciple of Christ..... "
First of all the Patriarch of Antioch does not claim Jurisdiction over the Malankara church because he is the Patriarch of Antioch and successor to St. Peter. We do not have the Roman understanding of Universal jurisdiction. It goes beyond that.. It has historical, traditional and canonical roots. Your party also accepted and believed the same even upto the 1970's... And still this is accepted by your party in your most sacred and the most holy constitution and inside court rooms ... When Chev P J Philip dared you all to remove the name of the Patriarch from your church, instead of understanding the implications of such an act everyone in your forum is busy throwing stones at him... Some facts are like that.... They are sour ! The above is a misconception created by the coccus in Devalokam to misguide simple people.
Coming to your second part, you lament that the calling of Simon as Peter is mentioned only in the Gospel according to St. Mathew.. I am presuming that you have had basic instruction in scripture. Show me one gospel which is the exact copy of another ...
While St.Mathew records 29 miracles performed by our Lord, St. John records just 10..... why do you think that happened ?
While St. Luke has 37 parables, St. Mark has only 13 and still further St. John has just 3. ... what does your logic tell you ?
While the Ascension of our Lord is mentioned only by St. mark and St. Luke, St. Mathew and St. John are silent on that.... Remember.. both the Gospel writers who were apostles are silent on our Lord's ascension.. According to you does that mean the Ascension was a story created by St. mark and borrowed from him by St. Luke ? Or was it because St. Mathew and St. John did not consider the matter important ?
You coming from an Orthodox background should know and argue better..
Of course... you think that being under the Patriarch of Antioch is an act of slavery.... for us it is a matter of faith. Nobody is forcing you.. But there are more than 1 million Syrian Christians in Malankara who want to continue this Canonical and historical bond.. Who is your Catholicose to tell us, no you should not ? If the people whom your Catholicose want to bring under his fold does not want him, what is he fighting for ? Empty church buildings and the attached properties ? If that is the case, I need not tell you what is the source of his inspiration..
You are a priest.. Your duty is to lead and not mislead. Your vocation is to guide and not misguide. Please be sincere to your duty and vocation.
God Bless !
- View SourceDear Mr. Mathew George,
"You are a priest.. Your duty is to lead and not mislead. Your vocation is to guide and not misguide. Please be sincere to your duty and vocation."
I am glad that at least you admitted the fact that I am a Priest when some fanatics in SOCM forum do not. It is a pity that some people do not know how to respect others. If you believe in the biblical verse Malachi 2:7 "For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.", I shall guide you in the true path for I know the Way, the Truth and the Life.(John 14:6) which my forefathers have shown me. Please take note that 'the Way, the Truth and the Life ' was first made known to our forefather St.Thomas by our Lord and God Jesus Christ himself. However, I am afraid whether you would know my voice and follow me or not for you are no longer part of my flock.(John 10:4). Please be informed that I am fully convinced of my voaction. I have made it clear in SOCM Forum many times that I am not a fundamentalist or extremist. I do respect the members of the Jacobite faction and invariably do remember the name of the patriarch of Antioch in every holy Qurbana I celebrate. But I cannot digest some false teachings that have evolved in your side. Try to learn and compare the history of both sides -a history wriiten based on historiography. It is not the emotions but the prudence that must administer you.
Coming to your point on John's gospel which does not mention of the ascension of Christ. My answer is that it does not cover that area even. It stops itself after some events following the resurrection of Christ. But in the case of my argument, it is not that. We see both St.Mark and St. Luke mention of what is said by Mathew but does not refer particularly to the 'rock' in the said context. And only Mathew is seen adding it. St.Mark might have understood many things from St. Peter for he was his disciple. If the reference to the word 'rock' was so important to the person Peter and to the early church, he would certainly have made a reference to it in his gosepl. This is why am I bit skeptical of its importance.
Please make an analytical study of the holy Bible and follow Christ our creator instead of following the creation blindly.
- View SourceDear Fr. George,
I have absolutely no problem in addressing you as a Priest.. But please do not read too much into it. I am just being civil. You are sad about the hardline taken by a few in this forum but on the other hand congratulate fanatics in the IO community..( which prompted my first posting in fact ). It is such hypocrisy which is my problem with you. I saw and fully understood what you mean by "respecting others" when you sermoned about 'a devil building the church'.. We know your types for what you are. So it is not necessary to put up a facade of being a victim when you yourself is no better.
You quote Malachi 2: 7 and John 10:4.. So let me also take the liberty of quoting from the scriptures and summarise the whole problem in Malankara church of which you are one of the minor constituents. You can extend this summarisation to the head of your church, the most holy Kunnamkulam Catholicose.
John 1: 1-5 -"Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a strangers voice."( NIV )
If you and those high above you understand the above passage in its fullest meaning by substituting 'Pharisees' with 'Metran Kakshis', our present problems in the church will disappear.
All the problem is because a stranger who is not recognised by the sheep is trying to enter the sheep pen through the roof and windows. And the funny thing about this intruder is that - he is of the view 'let the sheep stay or perish, I am not bothered.... what I am bothered is about getting possession of the sheep pen'.
Of course you ave made it clear on SOCM forum that you are not a fundamentalist.. But you act on the contrary in your own community. This is what we call hypocrisy. We call them wolves in sheep's clothing. There are a few others of your category and with experience we have come to recognise your types.
If you mean by the false teachings whch have evolved on our side, the basis on which authority is claimed by the Patriarch on Malankara church, your understanding is flawed and your knowledge limited. It is not just because he is the successor to St. peter.
If you mean by the false teachings which have evolved on our side, the chief Apostleship of St. Peter, the Syrian orthodox church follows the Orthodox teaching on this as handed over to us by the early church fathers and the syrian liturgy that we follow.. nothing more and nothing less.
Have you not seen the false teachings which have evolved in your side ?
I can show at least fifty differences between what the united church believed prior to 1909 and what your faction teaches now..
And believe me fr... I am a very enthusiastic student of church history. And when learning history, I do it with a very open mind.
Regarding the Gospels, let me repeat... no Gospel is the exact copy of the other. The statement that you have made is my exact question.. Just because two apostles do not mention anything about the Ascension, does it reduce the importance of ascension ? The same is true for the Birth of our Lord, the most important event in Christianity. Not every Evangelist mentions about this. Was it because it was less important ?
Use the same logic for the "Rock" issue.
Now let me advice you in turn - 'Please make an analytical study of the holy Bible and follow Christ our creator instead of following the creation blindly'. ( It is a sincere request and I am not displaying arrogance here ).
God Bless !
- View Source--- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Rev. Fr. George Thankachan wrote:
>...... I have made it clear in SOCM Forum many times that I am not a fundamentalist or extremist. I do respect the members of the Jacobite faction and invariably do remember the name of the patriarch of Antioch in every holy Qurbana I celebrate. But I cannot digest some false teachings that have evolved in your side. Try to learn and compare the history of both sides -a history wriiten based on historiography. It is not the emotions but the prudence that must administer you.
> Dear Mr. Mathew George,
> You said,
>...Shlomo " Fr " George Thankachan,
Remembering the name of our Moran Patriarch should be done publically and heard by the people attending the Qurbana not just in private!
Do you have the Holy Courage to do that?
The Syriac Orthodox Faithful especially me adhere to historical facts written by Most Rev Kaniamparambil Achen. if you have read that then you wouldn't be saying about Church History.
Humility is also a virtue for all Christians ..... How much better it would be if certain clergy in India had followed it. I meant the Indian Orthodox Church.
The only option is to accept the Metran kakshis as a Sister Church.
There is only one Throne for the Syriac Orthodox Church.The Throne of St Peter.
To the SOC Vattasseril is not a saint. Excommunication of the Indian Orthodox Clergy has to be removed.
There can be no two thrones in a Church.
As a sister Church then of course dialogues can take place for inter-communion. Till then we should restrain ourselves.
Please don't eyewash the faithful who read this forum often.
May your Faith save you.
- View SourceRev. Fr. George,
I would like to note few points.
(1) I AM GLAD THAT AT LEAST YOU ADMITTED THE FACT THAT I AM A PRIEST WHEN SOME FANATICS IN SOCM FORUM DO NOT. IT IS A PITY THAT SOME PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RESPECT OTHERS.�
Achan, the answer to it is your message itself. :- DEVIL� MAKES CHAPEL It is so evident in the title itself that you respect others.
(2) PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT I AM FULLY CONVINCED OF MY VOCATION�
The answer to it is your message in our SOCM. Message no: 18641. Your reply to Mr. Saju Poulose
93) I AM NOT AN ORTHODOX CHAUVINIST. IT IS TRUE THAT I WAS BORN IN ORTHODOX CHURCH BUT I AM MARRIED TO JACOBITE CHURCH. TO ME, BOTH CHURCHES ARE INTEGRAL TO MY LIFE.
You yourself said that you belong to that particular church just because you are born in that church not because you believe that it is the true faith. Is this your conviction about your priesthood? One more thing you cannot keep your two legs in two different boats. You will fall.
- View SourceDear George Achan
I am really confused!!!!!!!
Are you a priest belongs to IO Church or Jacobite Church or IIO Church?
" I do respect the members of the Jacobite faction and invariably do remember the name of the patriarch of Antioch in every holy Qurbana I celebrate"
If you are a Jacobite or any other Oriental Orthodox Church's priest, you have the right and allowed to do it.
But, if you belongs to IO church, then you are practicing something wrong. As per IO church's declarations outside the court of law, the present Patriarch of Antioch is not accepted by them. Please read the recent official statements and all IO "His-Storians" writes up on the article written by Dr. Babu Paul in Knanaya Deepam about IO Church Catholico's name.
This stand of yours really confusing me!!!!!!!!!
Dear Achan, please make up your mind....
Aji Thomas David
ID # 4088
--- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Rev. Fr. George Thankachan wrote:
> Dear Mr. Mathew George,
> You said,
> "You are a priest.. Your duty is to lead and not mislead. Your vocation is to guide and not misguide. Please be sincere to your duty and vocation."
> I have made it clear in SOCM Forum many times that I am not a fundamentalist or extremist. I do respect the members of the Jacobite faction and invariably do remember the name of the patriarch of Antioch in every holy Qurbana I celebrate. But I cannot digest some false teachings that have evolved in your side. Try to learn and compare the history of both sides -a history wriiten based on historiography. It is not the emotions but the prudence that must administer you.
- View SourceDear Dipu,
I disagree with you. I am a Syriac Orthodox, with great respect for the historical and canonical connection between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the church in Malankara. But I cannot agree with your assertion that there is one throne in the Syriac Orthodox Church and that is that of St. Peter.
Please read Gospel of St. Matthew 19:28
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
So either we have to say that there is only one throne and that is that of Jesus Christ. Or we should say there are 12 thrones, one for each apostle.
That being said we should not get hung up on present day Thrones. They have no significance what so ever. In Orthodoxy, every Bishop has apostolic succession. No particular Bishop is a successor of no particular Bishop. Every Bishop is a successor of all the apostles.
Every decisions of faith are taken by a Synod. This has been the practice right from the days of the Apostles. When there was the question of 'circumcision' for the gentiles before being converted as Christians, St. Peter or no particular apostle decided that. The apostles met as a Synod in Jerusalem. That Synod was chaired not by St. Peter, but by St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem. It was the Synod that decided on the issue.
At the same time, it is biblical and a historical fact that St. Peter had primacy (first among equals: not Supremacy) among the Apostles. The metaphor is that of an elder brother of the Apostles not a father figure of the Apostles. It is wrong to argue that St. Peter had no special importance.
For us Syriac Orthodox after the Holy Bible, the most important teachings of faith are from the Three Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Constantinople. If you examine the history of these councils, it is not always the Bishop (Patriarch) of Antioch that presided over these.
Mathew G M
--- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Dipu George wrote:
> There is only one Throne for the Syriac Orthodox Church.The Throne of St Peter.
> To the SOC Vattasseril is not a saint. Excommunication of the Indian Orthodox Clergy has to be removed.
> There can be no two thrones in a Church.
- View SourceOne Question to this "Fr" George Thankachen
Is it ok for the Metran Kakshis to partake of the Eucharist celebrated by " Gurgan"?
Your response on this question will expose you
--- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Dipu George wrote:
> --- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Rev. Fr. George Thankachan wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Mathew George,
- View SourceShlomo Mathew G M,
In that case am I be right if i say that the Patriarch belongs to the "See of St Perter" as the Coptic Pope belongs to the " See of St Mark"?
The Coptic Church maintains that it is the " See of St Mark"
Like wise The Universal Syriac Orthodox Church is the " See of St Peter"
"canonical connection between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the church in Malankara"
You are wrong Mathew G M . There was the official Newsletter in India which was titled " Edavaka Pathrika". This can be counted as one evidence highlighting the Holy Bond.
Any one with common sense knows it means "Diocesan Newsletter"
Malankara was just the greater Diocese within the Syriac Orthodox Church.
The Church in Malankara is actually a Diocese not a separate church!
Again you wrote
"In Orthodoxy, every Bishop has apostolic succession. No particular Bishop is a successor of no particular Bishop. Every Bishop is a successor of all the apostles."
Even if what you wrote is true or not ... Oriental orthodox Church takes matters of Excommunication very seriously.
For that matter we can still question the validity of Metran kakshi( IOC) priesthood! Doesn't mean we don't count them as Christians .. we do but inter-communion is impossible at the moment.
That Antioch was among the First three Sees along with that of Rome and Alexandria during the three Ecumenical Synods is common knowledge and a Historical and true fact.
The Point i was trying to raise is this
1) Metran Kakshi is a Pseudo Church
2) The Throne of St Thomas was a mere invention to meet their selfish gains and eyewash the faithful in India
3) from the 1970's itself the Metran Kakshi Clergy was Excommunicated.
4) They seek further divisions within India by their selfish policies and even corrupting the faith by declaring Vattasseril as a saint
5) The Metran Kakshis don't have a "single" Official name for their Church
6) They don't have an official Bible ( Both Old and New) even today !
7) Born in a Lie , growing up in a Lie , They have to lie all the time to sustain their existence
8) They do not know the meaning of Christian Love or Peace
9) They still continue to persecute the Syriac Orthodox faithful because of our faith
10) Even now they alter and doctor canonical texts and Laws contrary to the Truth.
This is all what i have been trying to highlight all this while!
--- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Mathew G M wrote:
> Dear Dipu,
> I disagree with you. I am a Syriac Orthodox, with great respect for the historical and canonical connection between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the church in Malankara. But I cannot agree with your assertion that there is one throne in the Syriac Orthodox Church and that is that of St. Peter.
- View SourceYes..Honestly speaking, 100% correct, especially those last lines..Think on that...May be you belongs to "Metran Kashi Or Bava Kashi", but Praise is to Lord Jesus, or Lord and Saviour...
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:02 PM, <> wrote:
> Dear moderartor
> You are a priest.. Your duty is to lead and not mislead. Your vocation is
> to guide and not misguide. Please be sincere to your duty and vocation.
> God Bless !
> Mathew George
- View SourceDear Dipu,
I am not worried about the Metran Kakshi's. They have to decide for themselves, what kind of relationship they want with the Patriarchate of Antioch and the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy. They are in a state of confusion, they want a relationship with the Patriarchate on the one hand and on the other hand accuses all the Patriarch's rigth from H.H Peter IV as greedy and power hungry. They want to be Oriental Orthodox, but at the same time they have no heistation to teach that the Malankara Church was Nestorian prior to the arrival of the Portuguese. They are even willing to accept Nestorian heresy to reject the historical connection with the Oriental Orthodox Patriarchate and the Maphrianate. This is something that they have to sort it out.
However for us who has a relationship with Antioch, it needs to be clearly defined. You say that we are a diocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church. I have no problem accepting that fact, if we are treated like any other diocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
1) How may people are there in the Diocese of Homs or the Diocese of Lebanon ? How many are there in Malanakra ? The ratio is 1:10
2) So if Lebanon is a diocese, then Malankara can't be just one diocese. Each diocese of Malankara; namely Angamaly, Kandanad, Kochi, Niranam, Kollam, Thumpamon etc should be considered as dioceses of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
3) If the Bishop of Lebanon can vote to elect and be eligible to become the Patriarch, then our Maphrian and other Bishops should also have the same eligibilty.
As you can see we dont have that. So we are not really a diocese of the Syriac Church like Lebanon. We are different.
We are a Church (not a diocese) under the Maphrian (Catholicose). We have a canonical and historical relationship with the Patriarchate of Antioch. So our Maphrian represents all of us and participates in the election of the Patriarch with no right to become the Patriarch himself. In the same way, when we elect our Mpahrian, the Syriac Bishops dont get to elect the Maphrian, however the Patriarch presides over the enthronement.
This is why I said Malankara Church with a canonical relationship with the Patriarchate of Antioch. I would be happy to be 100% part of the Syriac Church as dioceses with the same privilages as Lebanon and Homs etc.
Mathew G M
From the desk of moderators:
The subject of "Why can not the "Catholicos" be elected as Patriarch?" debated in this forum many times. Please refer our FAQ section to clear your doubts on this subject.