Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Network-Malankaras_Mythical_Minefields

I. He says that the Master minds behind the 1912 Catholicate establishment tried to keep intact the spiritual ties with the Antiochean Church founded by St. Peter. He mentions by name Vattaseril Thirumeni and Kallaseril Bava but willingly ignores the role of Mor Ivaniose of Bethany the then Panikkarachan, (better known as MA Achan) for reasons evident. He says, if they wished otherwise they could have formed a totally independent church like the Marthoma Church.

Georgie till this time was defending the autocephaly of the Malankara Church and was trying to 'establish' the independence of the Malankara Church from times immemorial. But he now says that even the leaders of 1912 movement not intended to establish an autocephalous one. Thus he himself has to accept the fact that the autocephalous movement was really a very new one started in 1970s with the 'infamous' declaration of Augen Bava in 1972.(Refer my book: Perumpilly Thirumeni). This declaration was then boycotted even by Malayala Manorama. This state of confusion of autocephaly and oneness with the Patriarchate of the Malankara Church can be seen not only with Georgie but also with all the leaders of IOC from 1912. They at one time say that they never intends to brake the relations with the Patriarch of Antioch. They even pray verbatim the first Thubden of the SOC and remembers the Patriarch of Antioch. In the legal documents they say the church is one and they can't visualize a church without the Patriarch as its head. I remember the seen I saw in the SC court of India in 1995. Adv. Mr. Nariman was asked by the court (J. Suhas C. Sen) about the state of the church if by a decision of the Association (amend the constitution) cut off all the relations with the Patriarch. Adv. Nariman with a gesture of his forearm holding horizontally and moving to and fro like a sword across his neck said, "A BODY WITHOUT HEAD". Also see the contradicting statements of Mathews 11 Bava after the 1995 judgment about the Patriarch.(see my book 'Slaiheeka Sandarsanam, 2004). Any IOC literature from 'Jathyabhimani' to the latest article by my friend Rev. Fr. G. Pulikkottil in 'IO Herald' shows the attitude towards the Patriarchate. The only reason for legally keeping the name of the Patriarch is to sustain the common property of the church, kept under custody by virtue of the verdicts based on the Royal Court Judgment. The only way to evade this juridical predicament is to find a way out by an out of court settlement, to which none of the leaders of the IOC is positively responding. They are unendingly waging a legal battle expecting for a day which fulfills all their dreams. A century passed and cases came up and down seven times from the trial courts to the apex courts. Nothing happened till date!

I am sure the IO church can never be autocephalous in the legal sense until they come forward willingly for an agreed separation. Otherwise they will have to PRAY for the Patriarch 'as appointed by God to govern the Church' at one side and at the same time to admonish the faithful that the 'present Patriarch is unacceptable and alien' to the church of Malankara. What a paradox!

II. Georgie continues his defense by saying that the autocephalous state of Malankara is absolutely necessary to defend the Thomite legacy of Malankara. To explain this he also comes with the encyclical No.203/1970 of H. H. Yacoob 111. Like all IOC propagandists Georgie also heavily relies on this sensationalized issue. It is very evident that he strained a lot to bring this thread to his argument on autocephaly. The incoherence of the titled theme with the explanations and the lack of flow of thought in this section prove this.

I have dealt with this twice before. I will refer to those links here and very briefly give a note here on this.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/message/7306

You will get the other link from the above posting.

Georgie says that The Jacobites 'spin,spin and more spin' when replying to this. We are not told about the details of this spinning, who did this and where Georgie found this spinning!

I am sorry that Georgie's 'enlightened mind' could not read and grasp the direct explanations of H.H. Yacoob 111 himself on this in his later Bull No.17/1975. This is available at Devalokam Aramana and I have quoted it in my book mentioned above.

H.H. says there that he was astonished to hear that the No. 203/70 was publicized as though he had leveled some criticism against Apostle St.Thomas. From this it is very clear that H.H. himself intended nothing to belittle the exalted status of St.Thomas, the apostle. I wish to make it very clear that the MC leadership of 1970 under the scholars like Augen Bava and Vattakkunnel Mathews 1 Bava (then the Catholicose designate) also found no 'infame' in this letter in 1970 when it came to Malankara.

My reasons are the following:

1. This Kalpana was not used to promote anti Patriarch emotions in 1970 or was not even referred in any of the synods or councils then as to be disparaging St. Thomas or as a threat to the self esteem of the Thomite tradition of Malankara.

2. Malankara Church and its leaders considered H.H. Yacoob 111 as the spiritual head of the Malankara Church even after writing this letter in 1970. The Malankara Association meeting held on December 31,1970 without any hesitation was praising this Patriarch and the Patriarchate of Antioch.( See the Supplement on December 30,1970 on Malankara Association meeting by Manorama). The Catholicose elect even declared that he will do everything possible to foster this relationship.( see Malayala Manorama report on Jan.1,1971). Can we conclude that the leadership then didn't read this Kalpana when it came or did not they understand the message in it ? Or was the new Catholicose elect promising the church's most august body that he will be fostering relationships to this 'heretic' Patriarch.

3. The official bodies of the Church like the working committee had taken decision that the Catholicose should not use letter heads with the St. Thomas throne and the letter heads printed likewise should be kept under the custody of the Association secretary.

The 1970 Association meeting was smoothly convened because it upheld all reverence to the Patriarch and it was summoned with a letter head not with St. Thomas throne. This 203/1970 issue was sensationalized only after the St. Thomas throne issue became a controversy. This was simply leveled against the Patriarch for questioning the St. Thomas throne and equal status of the Catholicose. This was done as a pretext to fight for autocephaly.

4. The 17/1975 letter of the Patriarch was sidelined, where His Holiness clarified that he was pointing against only the St.Thomas throne and he intended nothing against St. Thomas the apostle.

5. His Holiness the Patriarch has given here in 203/1970 no specific directives to the people at large regarding the apostleship or saintliness of our patron saint. If it was a reference to an article of faith or anything of faith related issue it should have been implemented in later years. Even after the split in the church His Holiness never gave any direction even to the MJC nor asked this Kalpana to be circulated in the Churches. This shows very clearly that it was only argumented in his writing against the St. Thomas throne as intermittently used/held by Augen Bava.

6. Finally, even Vattaseril Thirumeni relied on John 20:22-23 as the biblical basis of priestly anointment. See 'Mathasangathikal' by Vattaseril Thirumeni. If it is the biblical basis of priesthood there is a possible argument likewise! There is no necessity for an argument on this for us. St.Thomas, in his chosen apostleship is ipso facto high above any priest, bishop or Patriarch. It is from our littleness that we compare him with any 'achan or sexton' as done by many emotional writers. The apostles were not ashamed of mentioning about their flaws, if any. Peter was not ashamed of mentioning about his betrayal. These are not to be used by us as measure rods to evaluate the integrity or holiness of apostles. The truths in the bible are eternal truths and we cannot mend it nor we are expected to do it.

7. My conclusion is that 203/70 is not an article of faith, it is only an argument. The Malankara Church considered it likewise and it was only a belated contention that this Kalpana was against St. Thomas.

III .I am really amused to read the simplicity of Georgie in saying that Patriarch had dichotomous perspectives on St. Thomas. Dear Georgie, there is no dichotomy here. St. Thomas is the Holy Apostle, Chosen by our Lord Jesus and he is our Patron saint. The SOC is behind none to revere him and honor him. This was evidenced later by the church. The Holy relics of our Apostle was kept and handed over to us by the SOC and the Patriarch. The festival of honor and the special prayers for the festivals of St. Thomas are all handed over to us by the SOC fathers.

1V. The greatest Myth created by Georgie is the following.

I quote, "as a result of the1970 Kalpana, many of our Jacobite brothers have been prepared to denounce their St Thomas legacy, and now harbor the view that St Thomas was not bestowed sacramental authority by Our Lord Jesus."

I wonder from where Georgie formulated this notion. Who denounced St. Thomas tradition and his apostolicity? This move is well calculated to spread untruth and to envigor hate and contempt against the Patriarch and the SOC members. As I mentioned earlier all the St. Thomas traditions we have now are kept and transmitted to us by the 'brothers' of the Jacobites. The MOC have just copied or translated it.

V. Dear Georgie, improper understandings of facts and perspectives at times may be shocking. That shock will be relieved when we try to understand the perspectives of others objectively. I write this to relieve your shock as expressed in your following sentence.

"Recently, for instance, I was shocked out of my wits to discover that an extremely knowledgeable person in the Jacobite Church, who can even be described as the last word on doctrinal matters in that
church, harbors the same view."

VI. Georgie again says that

"Autocephalous status is necessary for Malankara since the self-respect it bestows will allow the church to shore up its defenses when our cherished beliefs come under attack. The weak response of our Jacobite brothers in the face of the 1970 Kalpana is an example of what can happen in the absence of autocephaly."

This is a very flimsy argument that we need 'autocephaly' to fight against apostasy or defend faith. I have never heard in history of the universal church that the Church fathers first declared autocephaly to fight against heresy and apostasy. But on the contrary The Church Fathers united together forgetting all differences of cast, colour, language and nationality to fight against schism, heresy and apostasy. We need unity and mutual love to defend faith. ( from pentacostals, charismatics, emotional groups and the RC proselytes. Today the factional strife and litigation between the Malankara groups are the best incentive of the above sheep stealers. We ignore this great loss and fight vehemently to close churches or prevent opening parishes where Orthodox worship is conducted. We are very keen in exchanging hate messages and disparaging notes.).

We don't need autocephaly to stand for truth and to love mutually and coexist in brotherly affection. We need only a determination to forgive and to honor the brothers and their perspectives.

The Jacobites are not weak in their responses to any faith issues. But we have the same attitude of Augen Bava and Vattakkunnel Bava on Kalpana No. 203/1970 at the Malankara Association meeting on December 31, 1970.

The response of the IOC brothers changed a lot later!

Next: Salmoosa of Parumala Thirumeni

Original Posting of Mr. Georgy S Thomas in IOCN Malankara's Mythical Minefields-IV

Top