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

An Indian Patriarch of Anthioc

Expand Messages
  • thomas_pa1
    Considering the huge difference in number between Syrians and Indians following the Alexandrian Christological tradition (Oriental Orthodox), why there was no
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 7, 2002
      Considering the huge difference in number between Syrians
      and Indians following the Alexandrian Christological tradition
      (Oriental Orthodox), why there was no Indian born Patriarch of
      Anthioc? Is there any Canon which states that a Patriarch must
      be elected from a person of Syriac ancestry?

      Thank you,
    • Thomas Daniel
      Symposium Announcement This is to announce that the Fourth Syriac Symposium in North America will be held b etween July 9 and July 12, 2003 in Princeton, NJ. A
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 10, 2002
        Symposium Announcement
        This is to announce that the Fourth Syriac Symposium in North America will be held between July 9 and July 12, 2003 in Princeton, NJ. A separate call for papers will be announced later on. The Fourth International Forum on Syriac Computing will also be held in conjunction with the Symposium. If you wish to receive official announcements and the Call for Papers, please register your name and address at
        Kathleen McVey and George Kiraz
        George A. Kiraz, Ph.D.
        Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
        Read Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye

        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.
      • J P
        Dear �����Oommen Kappil����� alias �����Thomas_pa1����� of Malankara Ortodox (dissidents) church, Thanks for your advice. There is nothing wrong in being an
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 11, 2002


          Thanks for your advice.  There is nothing wrong in being an Indian as the Patriarch of Antioch.  But I think, now it is not the occasion to discuss this untimengly proposal and more particularly from a member of a dissident faction who always tries to oppose the Patriarchate of Antioch.  In our ancient Syrian Church, except in the most unavoidable circumstances, a Patriarch or a Catholicos have no retirement.   So we will consider it in the appropriate time.  Anyhow thanks for your kind advice.


          For the Ortodox (Indian or Syrian ?) group with headquarters near Kottayam; Patriarchate of Antioch is foreign, even though this dissident group still uses the Holy liturgy (with some changes recently), vestments  etc of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.  A clear hint to spread hatred against the Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch has been given by this group’s leadership on various occasions and in recent times this has again been reconfirmed during the decision to declare late Wattasseril Thirumeni as a saint of the dissident Ortodox group of Malankara.   Whatever be the claim of this Ortodox group, it is very clear that, what they wanted is a completely independent organisation with no connections with the Holy See of Antioch.  This has been clearly recorded in all the histories published by the dissident Ortodox group of Kerala. 


          But this is not the case of the Malankara Yakkobaya Suriyani Orthodox Church. Our Holy Church still proudly follows the Holy liturgy etc. of the Syrian Church of Antioch and we will continue to do so. So as the time arises our Holy Synod will consider, who must be our Patriarch of Antioch & the Catholicose / Maphriyono of the East, and the Holy Church will be administered according to the Hudaya Canon.  So please don’t worry about our future. 



          thomas_pa1@... wrote:

          Considering the huge difference...........
        • drthomas_joseph
          This issue is being raised here not with bonafide intentions but to sow discord. Neverthless, I will answer it because it is a question that has come up even
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 11, 2002
            This issue is being raised here not with bonafide intentions but to
            sow discord. Neverthless, I will answer it because it is a question
            that has come up even among members of the Patriarchal faction and
            will continue to come up.

            Here are some excerpts from the constitution of the Syriac Orthodox
            Church (applying to the Church in the Middle East and its diaspora)
            approved at the Holy Synod of September 22-26, 1998,

            Article 32 The Patriarchal Assistant and Patriarchal Vicar must
            telegraph His Beatitude the Catholicos and the Metropolitans in order
            to select a Metropolitan to act as a Patriarchal Locum Tenens.

            Article 37 The Patriarchal Locum Tenens will summon His Beatitude the
            Catholicos and the Metropolitans, who are members of the Holy
            Synod, to elect the new Patriarch within a period not to exceed
            fifteen days.

            Article 40 His Beatitude the Catholicos, the Metropolitan of the
            Knanaya Archdiocese, the Metropolitans of the churches of the
            Antiochian Apostolic See in India, and the Metropolitan of North
            America of the Malankara Archdiocese will participate in electing the
            Patriarch, but may not be elected.

            Thus, even though the Catholicos has a position of pre-eminence at
            the election of the Patriarch, it is true that a metropolitan from
            Malankara cannot be elected Patriarch. There are good reasons for the

            1. The Patriarch is a spiritual and temporal head of the church in
            the Middle East. He is only a spiritual head of the church in India;
            even the Patriarch faction (for all the noises we make) will not go
            very far in giving the Patriarch any real temporal authority (and I
            must add that I agree with that since I think if anything it
            diminishes that position). Just as we do not want a person outside
            our culture and not resident among us, even if he be the Patriarch,
            to exercise full temporal authority over us and be involved in day to
            day administration, we cannot expect Syriac Christians in the Middle
            East to accept the temporal authority of an outsider. In an Islamic
            society where the Christians are reduced to the status of "dhimmis"
            and governed by laws exclusive to each community, the leadership of
            their community is a matter of survival for them. In the Ottoman
            Sultanate, the Patriarch was the secular head of the "millet" and was
            at a time even responsible for collecting taxes, answerable for
            crimes committed by any member of his community, etc. In some
            countries like Syria, the situation is much better today, but in
            Turkey, which the true roots of the Church lie, the situation is no

            2. Even today, almost 30 years after the last resident Syriac bishop
            left India, many Malankara Syrian Christians (of course predominantly
            in the Patriarchal faction) regard our association with the Syriac
            Orthodox Church in the Middle East as sacred. This is primarily due
            to the sacrifices made by generations of bishops from that church for
            our sake over the centuries. Many became part of our soil and
            gratitude to their spiritual ministry is ingrained in many of us
            (Please note that I am not including here those in the Catholicos
            faction and so no arguments over this please!). The people in the
            Middle East (besides the monks and bishops who went to Malankara)
            never had an opportunity to develop a similar bond with the Malankara
            Church. The reason is obvious; there was never one instance where a
            bishop or monk or priest or layman went to the Middle East to
            minister to their souls or assist them in the time of their need.
            There was no dearth of opportunity over centuries of their history!
            At the turn of the century when hundreds of thousands of Syriac
            Christians were brutally massacred and the oppression of the Ottoman
            empire was at its peak, we were busy fishing in troubled waters
            and "transferring the Catholicate" to India and fighting with each
            other over it. In 1970s when Islamic fanatics were oppressing Syriac
            Christians forcing them into a mass exodus to the West, we were
            expelling the last vestiges of Syriac presence among us. It never
            occured to our ancestors and to us that our fellow Christians were
            suffering and that they could use help, spiritual or otherwise. So
            why would one expect them to accept someone from Malankara today in
            no less a position than the Patriarch?

            In order that the candidacy for the Patriarchate be open to any
            person regardless of ethnic origin, it would be important for the
            position to be exclusively one of spiritual authority whether in the
            Middle East or Malankara. The day to day administration would have to
            be vested in "Maphryonos", meaning that one or more Maphryonos should
            be appointed for the Middle East, its diaspora, etc., in addition to
            one or more Maphryonos (from a historical perspective, erroneously
            called Catholicos) in Malankara and its dispora.

            But I truly wonder whether I personally would want to see one from
            among our fractious community that produced one saint in 2000 years
            to occupy that exalted position.

            PS: The Alexandrian Christological tradition is merely one aspect of
            the theological position of the Oriental church. Let us not pull wool
            over anybody's eyes here; the Church in Malankara from its earliest
            days was deeply rooted in the Syriac tradition whether Eastern or
            Dear Members

            This will be the last posting on this particular subject.
            No further posting will be approved on this subject.
            Thanks for your participation
            Forum Moderator
          • Athanickal, Johnkutty
            Dear Shibu I am intertested in this conversation. Regarding your question of wedding rings, what I think is, it is primarily a ritual and it started as a riual
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 11, 2002

              Dear Shibu
              I am intertested in this conversation. Regarding your question of
              wedding rings, what I think is, it is primarily a ritual and it started
              as a riual and the theological and biblical meaning later followed.� All
              rituals and its careful observation gives meaning to human life.� Though
              we live a world of scientic advancement, technological progress and
              theological speculations, it will never give human kind complete
              happiness, even if happiness� defined or interpreted in physical terms.
              The happiness of the mind and the fulfillment of spiritual desires make
              him/she in the process of achieving complete humanity and also for an
              eternal salvation.�

              Ritual plays a prominent part in the making of religion.� I don't want
              to enter in the theological meaning of wedding rings, as it was discussd
              already.� Regarding your question of priest exchnging wedding rings and
              the tieng wedding knot by the bridegroom, both give different meaning.
              The divine presence is officiated by the priest in the exchanging of
              rings and the human promise and the desire and willingness of a just
              family life is undermined in the wedding knot.� That is, when someone
              looks at his wife's wedding ring the first impression is the God's
              mediatorship or divine intervention in their family life and seeing the
              wedding knot implies that it is his sole effort or promise for
              covenental life in the sociectal or community life.�� Both the cases
              reflects that married life is sacred and it is performed in a sacred

              More over it is a custom adopted from the Hindus in Kerala, means that
              we are no longer a different community, but one among them in a multi
              diaspora.� And now it is an accoustomed custom and there is a difficulty
              in getting it changed now.� And the Christian traditions differ from
              countries to country and denomination from denomination in all the
              rituals. No matter what we do in our daily life is none other than
              ritual, and we simply call it as habit.� But everything gives
              satisfaction and meaning to our life.

              Fr. Athanickal

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.