This is in continuation of my posting on the same subject a couple of days ago.This part I am dealing with his statements on the name PauloseII which has been given to the newly consecrated Catholicose.He states that there were two other Cathlicose of the East who were named PauloseI and Paulose II and therefore the present Catholicose should have been named PauloseIII.
Although Catholicate in Malankara is a continuation of the Throne of St.Thomas which was in existence in the erstwhile Persian Empire,it has many characteristics of its own too.The relationship between the ancient Persian Church is one of the cornerstones of the Catholicate in India.It is a re establishment of the throne of St.Thomas which fell vacant consequent upon the position of Catholicose and Mafriana becoming defunct in Baghdad and Tigris respectively.Moreover it is a continuity of the titular head of the Church in Malankara which underwent quiet a few metamorphoses with the passage of time and development of the Church.From the position of Arch Deacon or Archadiackhon or Jathikku Karthavian,to that of Metropolitan to that of Malankara Metropolitan,to that of the Catholicose of the east,the metamorphoses that has taken place to the Head of the Church is in line with the development of the Church.This stream also occupies its place in the foundation of the Catholicate.
Therefore the Catholicate in India has a distinct character of its own.Hence the Catholicose of east in Malankara has some characteristics in common with Persian Catholicate and the Mafrianate in Thigris.It also has the characteristics of the ancient Malankara Church.Therefore the name Paulose II is most appropriate for the new Catholicose
Problem with persons with similar mindset as being expressed by Babu Paul is that they can see things only from the point of view of a slave who cannot even dream of leading a liberated life.The slave thinks that he will not be able to face the world without his master's patronage.He enjoys being exploited AND EVEN BEING TORTURED.People with such mindset can never be liberated and are eternally condemned to suffer slavery.At times they may try to liberate themselves,but will become uncomfortable after a while.I find no other explanation to the oscillating stances of Babu Paul on Church matters.
He at one point of time stated that patriarch ZachausI has consecrated Mafrian ThomasI as the Catholicose of a Society headquartered at Puthen Cruz.Now he has expanded the Mafrian's jurisdiction a little more.He now says that ThomasI is Catholicose of India!!!!!,a good promotion.He says Zaka I also promoted St.Thomas as an Apostle in the line of St.Peter and St.Paul.So by one stroke of pen,the patriarch of Antioch has promoted St.Thomas a mind boggling number of steps in Church hierarchy.Yakoob III had with one stroke of pen demoted St.Thomas to the level of a Sexton.....his successor promotes the same St.Thomas to the status of the leaders of the Apostolic Community....by another stroke of pen.
WHAT AN ABSURDITY MY COUNTRYMEN.OUR DEPARTED ARE LUCKY THAT THE WERE NOT PART OR WITNESSES TO THESE ABSURD DRAMAS
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Babu Paul's Rumblings On Newly Consecrated Catholicose
It is a certain commonly accepted civility that people wish well when someone occupies a high office or for that matter on any significant achievement.Irrespective of whether one has difference of opinion with that person or not. Such common civilities are a way of nice behavior .It also demands that while doing so,one should not rake up controversies or unsavory issues that might be there between the person being complimented or the one who is giving it.If one has serious difference of opinion,one can either refrain from wishing or even go to the extent of voicing the difference without pretending to compliment the reciever.But presenting such differences under the pretext of complementing the person is like sugarcoated poison or wolf in the lamb's skin.
These thoughts occurred to me on reading Dr D Babu Paul's article "Mangala Nerunnu"that appeared in Knanaya Deepam,and subsiquently republished in Mangalam Daily.No one can deny a person holding a view which he thinks is right and propagating it.All that I am saying is that he could have done it without pretending to be wishing H.H.Paulos II on his accession to the throne.
All that is about niceties.People like Babu Paul may have their own definitions for civilised behavior,let us leave that out and come to the specifics.His first point is that not inviting the Patriarch of Antioch for the consecration of the Catholicose is in violation of the 1934 Constitution of MOC.Let us examine that .It is true that the constitution has such a proviso.But it also specifies that this invitation is conditional to the existence of a Patriarch of Antioch duly approved by MOC .The Supreme Court Judgment of1995 has approved HH Marthoma Mathews II as Catholicose of MOC,but does not say anything about the status of HH ZachiusI.The process of reconciliation the Supreme Court had envisaged by that judgment has only been partly fulfilled.Therefore the present Patriarch of Antioch's positon vis-a-vis the constitution of 1934 is still in doubt.There has been any number of violation of Constitution by the Patriarch like consecration of Bishops in the Indian Church without the approval of Malankara Association,,visits to Churches in India without invitation from the Constitutional Catholicose,to name a few.How can a person who pays no heed to the provisions of the Constitution claim the benefits of that Constitution?
One can approach this from another angle.The Kalpana of HH Abdul Massiha after the consecration of the first Catholicose of Malankara says that the synod of Malankara can consecrate Catholicose as and when the need arises without reference to Antioch.The fact that HH Abdul Masiha was a CANONICAL Patriarch bears testimony even today by the presence of HH at Kurkuma Monastery where the Tombs of the Patriarchs of Antioch are situated.Therefore if one accepts the argument that the present patriarch is above constitution,the same applies to HH Abdumasiha too....
These thoughts occurred to me on reading Dr D Babu Paul's article "Mangala Nerunnu"that appeared in Knanaya Deepam,and subsiquently republished in Mangalam Daily.No one can deny a person holding a view which he thinks is right and propagating it.All that I am saying is that he could have done it without pretending to be wishing H.H.Paulos II on his accession to the throne.
All that is about niceties.People like Babu Paul may have their own definitions for civilised behavior,let us leave that out and come to the specifics.His first point is that not inviting the Patriarch of Antioch for the consecration of the Catholicose is in violation of the 1934 Constitution of MOC.Let us examine that .It is true that the constitution has such a proviso.But it also specifies that this invitation is conditional to the existence of a Patriarch of Antioch duly approved by MOC .The Supreme Court Judgment of1995 has approved HH Marthoma Mathews II as Catholicose of MOC,but does not say anything about the status of HH ZachiusI.The process of reconciliation the Supreme Court had envisaged by that judgment has only been partly fulfilled.Therefore the present Patriarch of Antioch's positon vis-a-vis the constitution of 1934 is still in doubt.There has been any number of violation of Constitution by the Patriarch like consecration of Bishops in the Indian Church without the approval of Malankara Association,,visits to Churches in India without invitation from the Constitutional Catholicose,to name a few.How can a person who pays no heed to the provisions of the Constitution claim the benefits of that Constitution?
One can approach this from another angle.The Kalpana of HH Abdul Massiha after the consecration of the first Catholicose of Malankara says that the synod of Malankara can consecrate Catholicose as and when the need arises without reference to Antioch.The fact that HH Abdul Masiha was a CANONICAL Patriarch bears testimony even today by the presence of HH at Kurkuma Monastery where the Tombs of the Patriarchs of Antioch are situated.Therefore if one accepts the argument that the present patriarch is above constitution,the same applies to HH Abdumasiha too....
I know that this line of argument is little far stretched.But I am confident that it is not absurd like that of the Jacobite fanatics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)