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

Re: Facts about the establishment of Catholicate of East

Expand Messages
  • Paul Joshy
    Dear moderator, Mr. Mathew GM wrote, The injustice in the Syriac Orthodox Constitution where Bishops of Middle Eastern ethnicity has a different priority than
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear moderator,

      Mr. Mathew GM wrote, "The injustice in the Syriac Orthodox Constitution where Bishops of Middle Eastern ethnicity has a different priority than Bishops of Indian ethnicity has to be addressed first by us."


      First of all Mathew doesn't deserve an explanation to this point, it has been floated around in various forums of IOC. But it requires some
      explanation because it has now appeared in this forum.

      The reason why such particular is mentioned in the SOC constitution is
      primarily for two reasons, Firstly, the Patriarch of Antioch is not only the supreme head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church but is also the custodian of various properties established centuries back which are attached to the church as well as based in various countries of the Middle East region such St. Marks Dyaro in Jerusalem, Mor Mathai Dyaro in Mosul, Iraq, Gabriel Monastery in Turkey etc. If someone from India becomes the Patriarch of Antioch, then He cannot run these institution under His capacity as the head of the church.

      In many gulf countries Malayalees (Jacobite, IOC, Mathomite) don't have their own church because these countries don't allow to own property by a foreigner, the exception is UAE. So they conduct services at a hired place particularly of protestant church which waere mostly established by the colonial rulers or the native's Christians.So how foolish is the argument that an Indian can become a Bishop(head) of the Church who's headquarter is based in one of the Middle East country.

      Secondly, when the constitution was framed (1985 or so) intense dispute was going on between the two factions in Malankara Sabha to establish the actual relationship between Malankara and the Patriarch of Antioch. At that time it was feared that if someone from Malankara became the Patriarch of Antioch then St. Thomas throne would take over the throne of St. Peter, because that was the major contention at that time as you can recall the Kalpana by HH Yakoob III, which was elaborated by Dr. Leena in this forum in the same heading. Indeed, you can just imagine people like Milithiose of Thrisur from IOC were to become the Patriarch of Antioch, provided that if the two factions of Malanakara Sabha would united and the so called "ethnic" issue mentioned in the SOC constitution was removed, the first thing he would do is to abolish the throne of St. Peter and the Patriarch
      of Antioch has to become a subservient to the Catholica of Kanjikkuzy!

      So I hope your doubt is cleared and NO JACOBITE IS ASHAMED OF THE ETHNIC CONSTITUENCY IN THE SOC CONSTITUTION RATHER WE ARE PROUD OF IT THAT PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH IS THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH NO MATTER WHEREVER HE BELONGS TO.

      Joshy Paul
      New Delhi
      #1040
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.