Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Network

3. Accepting Parumala Thirumeni as a saint and placing him along the ranks of the saints of antiquity would have required a radical departure from conventional thinking.

4. `Can there be a saint in Malankara from among us lowly Indians?' was the question, and it went unanswered.

5. Finally, the followers of Vattasseril Thirumeni broke the mould.

6. It took them 40 more years to gain the confidence to request Damascus for inclusion of Parumala Thirumeni's name along with the saints mentioned in the fifth diptych (toobden).

7. The name of the Malankara saint is read only in the Indian wing.

8. Flush with the nationalist spirit, we arrived at a universal truth that saints could come from anywhere.

9. It's we who first showed the courage to PROCLAIM HIS SAINTHOOD.

1. Georgy has tried very hard to legitimatize the deviation of IOC from the pledge of Parumala Thirumeni in his Salmoosa and to rationalize the clear violation of ecclesial affiliation Parumala Thirumeni held very dear to him. He says that the Malankara Syrians venerated only ' foreign saints ' ! I don't understand him when he demarcates saints in this geographical categories! Can he list the ' Indian ' saints who were sidelined before Parumala Thirumeni? Are you branding saints as a commodity of the Indian Church and other foreign churches? The saints and faith are to transcend all limitations of color, race and nationality. Otherwise we will have to think that in Paradise and Heaven there will be categories of saints with earthly limitations! Georgy's comment on the veneration of the saints of the Syrian tradition in India has to be understood in a different perspective. It is because we in the Malankara diocese took liturgy, calendar, creed, patristic writings, rituals and everything ditto from the Syrian Church of Antioch. It was because we were part and parcel of this church. Even many of the non Knanaya families of Kollam, Thiruvalla, Mulanthuruthy, Kothamangalam, etc. are the descendants of sporadic immigrants from this church. We were following the carbon copy of all liturgy and other prayers of the Syrian Church, not as imposed from above by a foreign church but was received as our own and with the thought that it is apt to edify our spiritual life. Parumala Thirumeni also used this for his spiritual edification. What is happening today also. We all are the stereotype of the Syrian Church in all fields of faith and worship. We do follow the calendar of it. Why then we accuse our forefathers who had a better understanding and who had 'conceptual clarity' on sainthood. They knew the universality and oneness of the church?

2. Georgie in his vehement persuit of hunting for arguments against the SOC perspectives is here pointing his gun of accusation against our dear forefathers and is disparaging them as ' who surrendered their ability to think independently '. We don't know much about the pre Portuguese period, but we know about the bold Indian Joseph who is famous in History. He visited Lisbon and also Rome. He was very brave to declare that the head of the Malabar church is the Patriarch of Antioch. It is said that he told this to none other the Pope of Rome. (see Christian Resaearches in India by Claudius Buchanan or Were the Syrian Christians Nestorians ? by Archbishop Mor Ivanios) Is this a statement of a 'surrendered mind? Again in the first conversation of our forefathers to the Portuguese is stated by Buchanan. They said to have enjoyed a succession of bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch. They negated the authority of the Pope who had 'empires and continents' under him, but ENJOYED the authority of the 'frail' Patriarchate. They said this not because they surrendered their independent thinking, but from their free will of conviction and commitment to the hierarchy to which they belong. Who can think that they (who surrendered their 'ability' to 'think' independently as per Georgy's thinking) fought against the Papist, Portuguese and the native authorities and took a vow against the Romish, who drowned their Patriarch, who came to nourish their church. They had independence of thought to keep their oneness with the church and hierarchy of Antioch to safeguard their faith and tradition. None other than the IOC think that sharing of faith and allegiance is servitude. It is only a myth created by Georgy to justify the argument and personal stand which he has taken. None in the Church of both faction has surrendered their 'ability to think and act independently. This is very evident in History and in our times too. Vattaseril Thirumeni took an independent perspective. Many followed him and many opposed him out of their free will. Malpan Palakkunnath had also followers like this. Even in our times in 1970s the Church leaders tried this but many opposed out of free will. Many followed out of free will. It is the ability to think independently that sustains the arguments. Many in this persuit changes affiliation and affection. It is really disparaging and under estimation to note that those who think differently have lost their 'ability to think independently'. People with intellectual potentials like Georgy should refrain from arguments like this.

3. Accepting Parumala Thirumeni as a saint needs no 'radical change' as Georgy envisages here. He was not made a saint in 1947 as Georgy says. He was accepted and acclaimed as a saint while he was living. His saintliness was very well accepted even when he was a Remban. Patriarch Peter1V elevated him to the episcopate mainly because of his affection to him also due to hisconvinction about his saintliness. The Malankara Church then at large accepted him as a saint. If I remember correctly reading the ' Idavaka Pathrika' (the Copy of it is back at home in India) the offertory on his 40th day was around Rs.3000/- at that time. It may be around 3 Millions today. Such was the affection and veneration this saint had among the people. It was really the people at large declared him as a saint. (Incidently this is the tradition of the Church. No Synod is authorized to declare anyone a saint. The Synod is accepting the accepted saintliness of a person as expressed by the veneration of the people). Even without the decision and declaration of the factional synod of the Malankara Church in 1946 Parumala Thirumeni was accepted a saint by all. So there is nothing 'radical' in this decision and declaration. We all know from the recent incidents that these types of declarations or synodal decisions cannot make any ' freedom fighters' a saint in the MINDS of the people.

4. The funniest myth Georgy formulated is this one. I repeat his question. "`Can there be a saint in Malankara from among us lowly Indians?' was the question, and it went unanswered."

I wonder who raised this baseless question? What was the context? I am sure Georgie framed this question only to base his argument. Surely, we have many saints among the clergy as well as the laity. But the saintliness of bishops attracts more attention and it was also for our benefit that he was consecrated a Metropolitan by which we are all benefited by his intercession and saintliness. When we conceive the fact that there are many saints in the Indian Church other than Parumala Thirumeni, known and unknown, we will not argue for this type of indignation or boast on the 'declaration' of this saint or any other. Now we are facing another curse of politicizing the declaration of saints. Saint Mor Athanasius Poulose of Aluva is being pulled into the IOC synodal agenda to be declaration as a saint. Is it from veneration ? Is there any ' conceptual clarity' defined here?

5. Georgy's fifth argument will become a bubble in the light of the aforesaid reasons. The disciples of Vattaseril Thirumeni had nothing to do with the 'mold' (by declaring him a saint). What they did by the formal declaration was the introduction of an unorthodox practice of 'declaring saints'. Till that time we had the tradition of saints being accepted and venerated by the people on the basis of the favors they received. So by the declaration of 1947 the IOC actually broke this tradition and the resulted aftermath was the giving priority of partisan spirit against real saintliness. So, to me, it was the starting of a very unorthodox practice in both sides. The 'politics' of the declaration is very well exhibited in the inclusion of Mor Basalius Yeldo along with that of Mor Gregoriose in 1947. We all know that Mor Yeldo Bava was a 'foreign' saint and his tomb was in a very strong Patriarchal parish. But the actual reason for including him by the IOC synod is well known. The Kothamangalam Cheriya Pally leaders of that time wanted and requested for such a move and it was also forwarded to Patriarch Mor Afrem 1. But he declined on the grounds I detailed earlier. There was some disappointment among the concerned parties. A few priests from Kothamangalam area at that time also had a leaning towards the IOC. This 'ripe' time was utilized by the IOC synod of Parumala in 1947 to 'declare' Mor Basalius Yeldo as a 'saint' to win over the disappointment of the parish. But this made no effect in the Kothamangalam parish and they all valiantly stood for SOC even now.

6. Georgy says in his next statement that it 'took 40 more years' to 'gain confidence' to 'request' 'Damascus' to include the name of Parumala Thirumeni in the 'thubden'. Please note the implication of the selected words in this remark. He has very intellectually framed this phrase to belittle the SOC as mere vassals who stoop before their overlord masters abroad even to make a humble submission! We have to consider two points here. The factual and serious one I will take first. It was not the act in 1987 that made Parumala thirumeni a saint among the SOCs. He was being accepted in the SOC a saint while he was alive. This was an action subliming his name along with the celebrated Fathers of the Church. This act is an endorsement of the acceptance and veneration of this saint along with Mor Elias 111 and Mor Yedho. It took no time for SOC to accept Parumala Thirumeni's saintliness. The second one is the belittling words that Georgy used here. We had the 'confidence' of interceding with him and consecrating chapels and shrines in his name much before your synodal declaration. Dear Georgy, I have noted your play of the expression 'request Damascus', but I am not responding to it but leave to your wisdom to ponder over it again.

7. Georgy is also trying to highlight the FACT that the name of Mor Gregoriose is remembered only in the Indian wing of the SOC. It is a reality. Georgie mentions this to discredit the MSOC. But he has to see the details of the fact. First and foremost 1987 addition of names was not only of Parumala Thirumeni it also included Moran Elias 111, Mor Yeldo Bava and above all St.Thomas. All these are remembered in the Indian wing not because they were ' Indian' but this was for the parishes in the Maphrianate. Like this there are additions in the Parishes in the Patriarchate made in the recent past not observed in the Maphrianate. There the name of Patriarch Baba Shenuda 111 of the Coptic Church is remembered in the first Thubden. If the Patriarchal Synod directs their parishes to remember these names there will be pressure from many sides/aspects to include so many names under different categories because names worth remembering are numerous there to all standards. Bar Ebroyo, Michael Rabo or even other apostles are not in the thubden. It is reasonable for us here in India to add these names. But it is not so easy there. Here also other saintly fathers like Mor Gregoriose Abdul Jaleel of Paravoor, Sleeba Mor Osthathiose of Kunnamkulam, Mor Athanasius Valiya Thirumeni of Aluva are not added to the Thubden. Please try to see matters of regional changes in its environs not simply through prejudices and narrow perspectives.

8. I don't know for certain how many of the readers are moved to an exotic sublimation when they read the rhetoric rendering of Georgy and the cultic creation of jubilation in the following words. I quote again,

" Flush with the nationalist spirit, we arrived at a universal truth that saints could come from anywhere."

Is this the boasting of the creation of a saint? Is this the jubilation of a nationalist? Is it affirmation of a universal truth on saintliness? Our great saint and spiritual Father Parumala Thirumeni lived as a saint in his commitment to our master and the Lord Jesus Christ. We venerate him only when we model him in our lives and when we uphold his spiritual values and in following the faith and practices he transmitted to us. Declaring him as a saint or including his name in thubden are only to help us in the above perspective. Anything other than this is mere vain glory.

9. It's we who first showed the courage to PROCLAIM HIS SAINTHOOD.

I have stated above that Saint Mor Gregoriose was considered a saint by our people even when he was alive. Georgy also refer to this fact elsewhere. Now the claim is about the proclamation to which I have made enough comments.

P.S. Now when I write these words of conclusion about the Salmoosa of our patron saint, I am sorry for being a part in this controversial argument. I seek pardon openly if I made any untoward comment ignorantly on anyone or any of the issues. What I tried here is to clear some aspects of the issue based on my innocent conviction. I know some consider it as from a blind partisan spirit and some others as rubbish and irrelevant!

Next : Autocephaly de jure

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

Top