| |
|
|
|
Petrine Supremacy
Debate in SOCM-Forum
SOCM-Forum Message 15896
(Original message initiated the debate)
Dear Cecil,
It is my understanding that yes the Indian Orthodox Church has been
excommunicated by the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Church. What
this means is that a Syrian Orthodox Christian, in obedience to the Holy
Synod, does not receive holy communion from Indian Orthodox altars. It
does not say that their holy mysteries or sacraments are invalid. It
does not say that they are not Orthodox. It says that because of the
dispute between Indian Orthodox Church and Syrian Orthodox Church that
you are not in communion with them. They are excommunicate = not in
communion with you.
It is my understanding that the teaching and beliefs of the Indian
Orthodox Church are thoroughly Orthodox. They are not Roman Catholic
neither Protestant nor Nestorian. They are Orthodox. They believe the
same doctrines that Syrian Orthodox believe - the same teaching that my
own mother Church and Holy Synod, the Coptic Orthodox Church believes.
(Same as the Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches also).
You may believe them to be thoroughly and completely wrong in their
decisions concerning their desire to have an Indian Orthodox Church
independent from Antioch. You may consider their behavior unacceptable.
But this does not turn them into Roman Catholics or Protestants.
It does not mean their sacraments or holy mysteries are invalid. This
concept of judging someone else's sacraments as valid or invalid is a
Roman Catholic concept which I am not familiar with in Orthodoxy.
So yes the Indian Orthodox are excommunicate from yourselves -but no I
do not believe that this says their sacraments are not valid.
I pray that this deep and distressing division in our beloved family of
Oriental Orthodox Churches may be healed. God has made the heavens and
the earth by His great power and outstretched arm and there is nothing
too hard for Him - with God nothing shall be impossible.
Simon
ID number 4168
SOCM-Forum Message 15916
Dear Simon,
I do not agree with you in one thing. IOC belief is not same as ours. We
do not believe in St Thomas throne. We believe that Jesus gave the
authority to St. Peter to lead and guide His sheeps. None other than St
Peter has the authority for that because Jesus gave that authority only
to St. Peter. So only St Peter's descendents has the right to guide us.
With Prayers,
Leena
4136
SOCM-Forum Message 15946
Dear Leena Mathew
You are talking against orthodoxy. There is no Special authority given
to St. Peter by Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the head of church
(visible and invisible) Read Acts of Apostles Chapter 13 :1-3 whereby
you see that Saul (St. Paul) and Barnabas were ordained by certain
prophets and teachers, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucias of Cyrene and
Manaen who was raised with Herod Antipas. St. Paul wrote 14 Epistles and
St. Peter wrote 2 Epistles. St. Peter reminds his flock the teachings of
St. Paul.(1 Peter 3:15)In The Holy qurbana before the Evengelion We also
sing that "Paulose sleeha Dhanyan cholkatte nithevam"..... In 4th
Thubdhen we recite that "sleehanmarial thalavanmaraya unnathapetta mar
pathrosenayum,mar paulosineyum...."
Another thing is that in the early church,there were four Patriarchs:
Alexandria, Rome, Constantipole and Antioch. All are the same position
and equal. In Thubden (Diptychs) we also proclaim "Ennum Ee Auyskalthum....Nalu
bhagangalilulla daivathinte Vishudha sabhaye ( the holy churches of God
in the four quarters of the earth)
The excommunication of IOC synod is done by The H.H Patriarch and we
leave that to him or to his successor and laity should not drag the
issue to this forum or interpret it another way.
With prayers
Rinu Sam
ID#4038
From the desk of moderators
The Fathers of the Syriac Orthodox Church tried to give a theological
interpretation to the primacy of Saint Peter. They were fully convinced
of the unique office of Peter in the primitive Christian community.
Ephrem, Aphrahat and Marutha who were supposed to be the best exponents
of the early Syriac tradition unequivocally acknowledge the office of
Peter.
The Syriac Fathers following the rabbinic tradition call Jesus “Kepha”
for they see “rock” in the Old Testament as a messianic Symbol. When
Christ gave his own name “Kepha” to Simon he was giving him
participation in the person and office of Christ. Christ who is the
Kepha and shepherd made Simon the chief shepherd in his place and gave
him the very name Kepha and said that on Kepha he would build the
Church. Aphrahat shared the common Syriac tradition. For him Kepha is in
fact another name of Jesus, and Simon was given the right to share the
name. The person who receives somebody else’s name also obtains the
rights of the person who bestows the name. Aphrahat makes the stone
taken from Jordan a type of Peter. He says Jesus son of Nun set up the
stones for a witness in Israel; Jesus our Saviour called Simon Kepha
Sarirto and set him as the faithful witness among nations.
Again he says in his commentary on Deuteronomy that Moses brought forth
water from “rock” (Kepha) for the people and Jesus sent Simon Kepha to
carry his teachings among nations. Our Lord accepted him and made him
the foundation of the Church and called him Kepha. When he speaks about
transfiguration of Christ he calls him Simon Peter, the foundation of
the Church. Ephrem also shared the same view. The Armenian version of De
Virginitate records that Peter the Rock shunned honour Who was the head
of the Apostles. In a mimro of Efrem found in Holy Week Liturgy points
to the importance of Peter. Both Aphrahat and Ephrem represent the
authentic tradition of the Syrian Church. The different orders of
liturgies used for sanctification of Church building, marriage,
ordination etc. reveal that the primacy of Peter is a part of living
faith of the Church
Further debate is available on
following links
|
|
|
|
|
