Re:A Metran Kakshi priest's ramblings
- --- 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.
- 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.
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.
- One 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,
- Shlomo 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.
- Yes..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
- Dear 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.