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

A Methran Kakshi Priest - arguments, arguments...

Expand Messages
  • T M Chacko
    I am writing this based on the latest posting by a Rev. Achen belonging to one of our Sister Churches in Kerala. Achen in his latest posting in SOCM forum
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 11, 2010
    I am writing this based on the latest posting by a Rev. Achen belonging to one of our Sister Churches in Kerala. Achen in his latest posting in SOCM forum says that he and whole of his Church remembers the name of Patriarch of Antioch in the first Tubden. To be frank it is difficult for me to accept this argument. All along I was avoiding to argue with this Achen, since I have never attended any services conducted by Achen who earlier itself has said that he always remember the name of Patriarch of Antioch; but when he said in his latest posting that it is not only him but his whole Church do the same, then everything become clearer to me.

    I have been in many services conducted by Malankara Orthodox Church. In NONE of those services MOC has specifically read the name of the current canonical Patriarch H.H. Zakka I in the first tubdeen, but instead mentioned just as Patriarch of Antioch (without mentioning the name), followed by the title Catholicos (here also they don't specifically mention the name of their Catholicos, instead just say Catholicos). Actually this is just a part of their age-old tactics/strategy to establish before CIVIL COURTS that they consider Patriarch of Antioch as their head as mentioned in their constitution, but at the same time not bothering to specifically mention the name of current Patriarch and thereby argue in disguise that the Patriarch they consider is not existing at all !! And in order to confuse, the common man's sense and also the Civil Courts, they avoid the name of their current Catholicos as well. Being a Church with lot of WISE MEN, they know that if they mention the name of Catholicos, then they will be forced to mention the name of current Patriarch also, otherwise it will be questioned in Civil Courts. So they avoid both the names!!

    It is this cunningness that was always the driving force of MOC and unless they change this attitude peace is not going to happen.

    Actually the Patriarch's name is just a mask for MOC to get hold of the properties of the Syrian Jacobites. A closer look to the origin of 1934 constitution proves this.

    The Article 1 of the IOC constitution created way back in 1934 was slightly different from the present one. In its original editions, the supreme primate is mentioned just as PATRIARCH instead of mentioning it clearly as PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH. Thus the translation is like this: 'The Malankara Church is a division of Orthodox Syrian Church and the supreme primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the PATRIARCH'.

    The original Malayalam version of 1934 constitution:

    (Moderators, please upload the attachment and provide the proper URL here)
    http://socmnet.org/Resources/MOC_Constitution_Page01_original.pdf

    This clause itself proves the cunningness and crookedness of the MOC constitution makers. By avoiding to mention who this Patriarch was, the MOC constitution makers were trying to make a major loop hole in their constitution so that one day they could claim that the Patriarch mentioned here was someone else and not necessarily the PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH. Only later when the arguments extended to High Court did they change this, after the Judge asked them to clarify which Patriarch they are mentioning about. It was from this point of time they were forced to change it as the primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH (instead of just PATRIARCH). Any person with some amount of common sense knows that this change has been done not out of their love for the Patriarch of Antioch, but has been done under compulsion. It was this form of crookedness and cunningness of MOC leadership, which is the root cause of continued division in the Malankara Syrian Church.

    In short, the MOC leadership is NOT making an OFFICIAL request to change the Article 1 of their constitution as they knows very well that such a modification is impossible in the present circumstances.

    NOW ON PARUMALA THIRUMEN's SAINTHOOD DECLARATION

    According to both the Orthodox Churches of India, as far as I know, reciting one's name in Tubden, is the final level of elevation to Sainthood. If that is what we all believe, then it is the Syrian Orthodox Church which first started to remember the name of Parumala Thirumeni, in 1987, along with Patriarch St. Elias and Maphrian St. Baselios Yeldho . And only after 13 long years, ie; since 2000, that the Malankara Orthodox Church started to recite their names (excluding St. Elias III) in their Church's Diptych.

    Again if someone continues to argue that declaration of Parumala Thirumeni as Saint was done firstly by MOC in 1947 itself (without including his name in Tubden then) and we only followed them, then what about the inclusion of the name of Apostle St. Thomas by the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in their Tubden 13 years before MOC started to recite the Apostle's name.

    In-spite of all these tit for tat arguments from my side, let me admit (I can be wrong also), that both the Orthodox Churches of India are just following the same traditions (?), started by Roman Catholic Church and Byzantine Orthodox Churches in their great war for supremacy between 8-12th centuries. If what I have read is correct, the sainthood declarations of present magnitude started just 1000 years back by Roman Catholic Church to supersede Byzantine Orthodox Church and naturally Byzantine Churches also started to overtake their rival through the same way and the declaration of Sainthood became a proxy war between them.

    T M Chacko,
    Kottayam.
    # 0903
  • Mathew Chacko
    Dear Mr. T M Chacko, Your thoughts and response were very well communicated.(Though I am free to differ on some, I leave that apart). A small correction -
    Message 2 of 2 , Dec 12, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mr. T M Chacko,

      Your thoughts and response were very well communicated.(Though I am free to differ on some, I leave that apart). A small correction - Orthodox Church's thubden neither mention 'Catholicose nor Patriarch of Antioch' as you have written. It simply says ".....our Patriarchs (Plural) Mor Ignatius and Mor Baselius...."

      I won't be able to explain why it is so,I am just pointing it out.

      My God Bless Us All

      Kind Regards

      Mathew Chacko,Dubai
      ID # 2382

      --- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, T M Chacko wrote:
      >
      > I am writing this based on the latest posting by a Rev. Achen belonging to one of our Sister Churches in Kerala. Achen in his latest posting in SOCM forum says that he and whole of his Church remembers the name of Patriarch of Antioch in the first Tubden. To be frank it is difficult for me to accept this argument. All along I was avoiding to argue with this Achen, since I have never attended any services conducted by Achen who earlier itself has said that he always remember the name of Patriarch of Antioch; but when he said in his latest posting that it is not only him but his whole Church do the same, then everything become clearer to me.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.