Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Network

Georgie's long discussion on the Salmoosa of Parumala Thirumeni was aimed at justifying the IOC stand taken later by Vattaseril thirumeni and his descendants against the vows pledged by this saint and by themselves. Georgie has very well analyzed the Salmoosa and has listed the main points of vow declared by him. I quote below his summary with his so called 'concepts' !

"There's now a school of thought having much currency in the Jacobite Church that the Metran faction's connection to Parumala Thirumeni is restricted to the real estate it holds in Parumala.

These are some of the reasons that they cite:

i. Parumala Thirumeni was originally from the north and set up base in Parumala only because the church wanted it so.

ii. Parumala Thirumeni's salmoosa (agreement given at the time of ordination) clearly mentions his commitment to the Antiochian Church.

iii. The salmoosa also says that ``my weak selves will never, at any day, violate the decisions, rules, and canon law … and customs of the Jacobite Syrians, any commandments of Your Holiness…. If indeed I do, as were Satan and Cain cursed by God, I will be accursed and execrated from the mouths of God…''

iv. The Indian Orthodox Church is a group that rebelled against the Syriac Church Of Antioch.

v. Therefore, the Indian Orthodox Church cannot be considered the legatees of Parumala Thirumeni."

Georgie has formulated a parochial myth here in his first statement. He says that the SOC attaches themselves to the saint Chathuruthil thirumeni because of his northern origin and consider the IO spiritual lineage to this saint as illegitimate because of this regionalism. He totally sidelines the hierarchical and ecclesial attachment both Parumala Thirumeni and the present SOC strongly hold and the IOC neglects.

Georgie here exihibits the avarage parochial sentiments of regionalism that was aroused during the times from schism of Vattaseril thirumeni. How can a Church that take pride in 'national/universal' nature of the Holy Church be so narrow minded to raise such an allegation!. Parumala Thirumeni and all the fathers of that time was taking care of the interset of the Church at large and none took it to be of regional spirit. Have you thought of the veneration of the IOs of Kundara region to Kallada Bava or the Southern Parishes remembering Ahathalla Bava in great festivity? Is this regionalism or universalism? It was Murimattom thirumeni who became the Catholicose at Niranam in 1912. He was from North but was not accepted by the SOC. Augen Bava was from North but was rejected after he declared autocephaly. But at the same time it can be noted that the memory of Murimattom Bava and Augen Bava are sidelined by the IOC when compared to other departed heads of the IOC. So this spirit of regionalism is a real trait of the IOC, but Georgie is cunnigly attributing it to the SOC. We respect and venerate saints because they are real saints and not because of their partisan verocity or their cunningness in the betrayal of the head of the church.

The inference 2 and 3 are mere facts and none of the explanations below by Georgie on the ground of 'contextual analysis' negates this fact. Can Georgie visulaize that the saint Mor Gregoriose would have changed his Salmoosa and his vows if the context changed later? Actually georgie has to note that the whole context of 1870s changed before the demise of Saint Mor Gregoriose. But to his last breath he was loyal to his Salmoosa and was in alliegience to the Patriarch and he himself was in charge of collecting the Ressesa to the Patriarch. He went to Jerusalem to visit the Holy Sepulchure and he mentions about the Syrian Church there as part and parcel of HIS OWN Church, not as the sister church or a 'foreign church'. He never took pride in the 'National Church of Cochin or Travancore or of British India'. He was thankful to God in being a member of this ancient SYRIAN CHURCH. Georgie, please don't try to denigrade the great concepts on the CHURCH by our beloved Parumala thirumeni held so dear to him and in which he vowed and pledged in God's name.

The finding 4 and 5 can be viewed in the light of the above statement. I have asked you earler a question regarding a supposition. If Parumala Thirumeni had outlived Pulikkottil thirumeni and succeded as Malankara Matroplolitan. If Parumala Thirumeni was to receive Mor Abdulla Bava! Would have he received Mor Abdul Messiha, the deposed Patriarch if he was the president of the Synod?

If you just limit the salmoosa to the context that he lived you are denigrading the saintliness of Parumala Thirumeni also to be the product of the context. A saint is the one who raises much above his context to upkeep the truths that he holds to be endearing and enriching to his spiritual edification. Parumala thirumeni was a saint in his faith and spirituality of the SYRIAN CHURCH ONLY. Are you trying to detach him from the spiritual ethos that made him a saint? Your methodology may be attractive and impressing to the fanatics and the prejudiced, but very detrimental and detructive to the faith culture that Parumala thirumeni practised. Anyone promoting such unfound criticism should penitently seek pardon before the Holy Spirit and the soul of this saint. Gorgie, you or any other reader of mine can decide for yourself/himself who are the 'legatees of Parumala Thirumeni'!

Georgies continues his argument like this.

"After reading the salmoosa, the following thoughts occurred to me.

i. Since it clearly mentions that the declaration was written ``in trust, fully according to my own will, gladness and contentment'', one cannot hold the view that Parumala Thirumeni was coerced or tricked into writing it.

ii. The commitment of Parumala Thirumeni towards the Antiochian Church is also evident from its contents.

iii. The salmoosa adopts a harsh and unforgiving tone towards dissenters from the church and this gives us the impression that the context in which Malankara Sabha operated at that point has to be examined."

He then goes to the bible to explain the harsh tones of St.Paul against trouble makers. Georgie is very perfect when he narrates the background to explain the threats that the church in Malankara faced at that time and the measures taken by Patriarch Pater 1V to remedy this. I quote him,

"The year was 1876. Patriarch Peter IV* had recently arrived in Malankara at a time when the church was undergoing great churn as a result of the `reform movement' initiated by Palakkunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasius. The Patriarch had earlier excommunicated him. After
the arrival of the patriarch, the Travancore government too withdrew the royal proclamation in favour of Mar Athanasius. But the dissensions caused within the church as a result of Mar Athanasius' reign as the de jure Malankara Metropolitan for 24 long years since 1852 by exploiting the influence of the British was considerable. The convening of the Mulanthuruthy Synod was one way by which the Patriarch tried to stabilise the situation. The reaffirmation of
faith in very strong language in the salmoosas of the newly ordained bishops could have been another."

The last sentense he wrote is to go to his conclusion that the Salmoosa is also another precaution to keep the faith and protect the faith in the context of the threat from the reformist group. We have to be mindful that the church is founded on faith and truth. Georgie went to another extreme perspective that at least a group of people in our church now holds or promotes. They show by conduct and word that a lie, bribe or a forgery can be done to ' win a case ' in civil courts. We can see that some leaders are giving false witness in the court to ' win the case '. Even fabrication of documents, bribing and encroaching are done to ' win the case '.

Living in a situation like this we can also assume that the situations detailed above were also of the same pattern. But to the best of my convictions our fathers like Parumala thirumeni and those with him were not mere legal fighters. They fought to defend their faith and church. They professed the faith and spirituality in their life when they fought in courts.

One incident in the life of Parumala thirumeni who gave witness in the court against the interest of the Karingachira Church to stick to truth is famous. In this case the church lost but Parumala thirumeni witnessed to the truth only. It is evident that the Saint only stick to truth and truth only. The intelligent way of watering down of this truth amounts to diabolic temptation. Please keep aloof.

Georgi's next Explanation is as follows:

"iv. Internal evidence from the text of the salmoosa seems to bear this out. For example when Parumala Thirumeni says: ``I will, never, at no time…ordain anyone who has not come forward justly without deceit and guile, ordain anyone without inquiry and testing…'', it appears as though it's a direct reference to Mathews Mar Athanasius, who, legend has it, was ordained as a bishop by Patriarch Elias II on the basis of forged letters of support from believers in Malankara. In truth, the patriarch ordained him ``without inquiry and testing''.

Again when Parumala Thirumeni says that ``I will, never, at no time… accept in any way, permit or agree to accept anyone who has been accursed or excommunicated by the Holy Fathers of Antioch, commune or dialogue in any way with any of them…'', the reference seems unmistakably to the recently excommunicated Mathews Mar Athanasius. Also, Parumala Thirumeni says, ``I will, never, at no time… disobey any commandment from the Holy Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatios of Antioch to go or arrive at any place at any time even if weakened by illness or by age or anything else, or do anything that my ordination I have accepted or will accept permits, such as a chastised metropolitan consecrating another metropolitan, or other deeds…'' It may be noted that in 1869 or thereabouts**, Mathews Mar Athanasius, who had lost the trust of the reigning Patriarch, had consecrated his own nephew Thomas Mar Athanasius as his successor. Here too, the reference ``chastised metropolitan consecrating another metropolitan'' seems to be pointed straight at Mathews Mar Athanasius."

In the above quotation and brief inferences of Georgie's, two points are to be specially noted. The first one is a well calculated but baseless allegation that it was against the act of Patriarch Elias 11 who consecrated Palakkunnath Mathews Metropolitan ' without inquiry and testing '. But anyone who is making a glimpse of the canon or the ordination of clerics can see that it is a general direction to all high ranking persons of the hierarchy. The act of Patriarch Elis 11 was actually not without documents and recomendations from Malankara. Palakkunnath Malpan and his friends actually presented before the Patriarch documents of recomendations and requests for consecration as Metropolitan was presented before the Patriarch. At that time how can the Patriarch verify these documents other than to believe it. He came to know of these forgery only later, when letters from Malankara reached there after the consecration and the new Metropolitan reached India. That expression in the Salmoosa is a pointer to all ordinations and consecrations in churches everywhere at all times. It is not at all a specific direction to the times of Parumala thirumeni.

The second allegation is that the reference of oath not to 'consecrate another Metropolitan' by himself. Georgie has to note that this is an explanation to the main clause that he will not ever disobey the Patriarch. It is also supplemented by another clause 'other deeds'. It is very clear that here it is mentioned about the unconditional obedience to the Patriarch of Antioch. ( In this context we have to remember also the condition that was offered by Mathews 11 Bava to receive the Metropolitans from the SOC to the IOC. He writes," who in writing swear allegience to the constitution ... and submit to the authority of the Catholicose of the East and Malankara Metropolitan will be accomodated" No.52/'97). Parumala Thirumeni volunteered his allegience to the head of the church in his Salmoosa. This should be viewd as an expression of allegience . This cannot be diluted by referring to the act of the consecration of Thomas Athanasius by Mathews Mar Athanasius. This also is a canonical stipulation that at least three Metropolitans should be present to consecrate another Metropolitan.

We have seen these types of violation in the 1912 episodes in IOC. There may be contextual explanations to these acts too from masterminds like Georgie!

In the light of my exposition above we shall read the conclusion of Georgie given below:

"Therefore, when we place the salmoosa in its context, we will realise that it was written at a time when the Malankara Sabha was passing through a difficult period, and that it was expressly
intended to stamp out Protestant-influenced dissensions, shore up the traditional faith, and prevent the newly-ordained bishops from having any association with the `reformists'. Separating the
salmoosa from its context, and using its wordings to run down Vattasseril Mar Dionysius Thirumeni and his legacy, as our Jacobite brothers are doing, is highly unfair. This is especially so since Parumala Thirumeni was not alive when the split occurred in 1911. Also, Vattasseril Thirumeni himself was a disciple of Parumala Thirumeni, and the conduct of his adversary Patriarch Abdulla II in Malankara was very highhanded according to many traditions."

When we read this conclusion we are tempted to believe that the Salmoosa of Parumala thirumeni was written solely as an expression to counter the reformist movement. But I have tried to make it clear clause by clause that the general tone of this Salmoosa as well as any other Salmoosas will be the same. All Salmoosas are to declare the adherence to the faith of the church and to declare the allegience to the Patriarch and the Synod. This is an oath taken before the Patriarch, the Synod and more emphatically before the Holy Spirit and the Altar. It cannot at all be changed or interpreted to the context or according to the personal conveniences and choices. I can understand the difficulty of the IOC justifiers in accepting this basic truth because of the acts of Murimattom Bava, Vattaseril Thirumeni, Augen Bava and the recent defecters. They all did the same deviation from thier pledges before the Holy Spirit.

To justify them Georgie went direct back to our common venerated saint Mor Gregoriose and tried to create this smoke screen of contextualisation. He thinks that he could whitewash all the rest by doing this with Parumala Thirumeni. But be sure that any vow or pledge taken before the Holy Spirit, the Altar and the Holy Eucharist cannot be ignored or ratified by these type of flimsy arguments like contextualisation, if you believe in the true presence of the Holy Spirit and Sacraments.

I am sure Parumala Thirumeni will never dare to think for a moment in the line which Georgie has 'mythified' his Salmoosa.

Georgie also bases his argument on Vattaseril Thirumeni's discipleship of Parumala Thirumeni. To counter this I must remind Georgie that Poulose Mor Coorelose Metropolitan, Poulose Mor Athanasius Metropolitan and many other Malpans and senior priests who stood strongly with the Patriarch were also disciples of Parumala Thirumeni.

Next : My thoughts on 'Conceptual Clarity'

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

Top