I had been reading with intense interest writings of Dr Thomas Mar Athanasius Metropolitan in Diocesan Bulletin of Kandanad East Diocesan,particularly,Thirumeni's Memories of Service to the Church spanning 2 Decades.It appeared to me as a candid and honest account of Thirumeni's trials and turbulence in life and efforts to render selfless service to Church without deviating from convictions.For the same reason I feel duty bound to point out some of the wrong perceptions as stated in the 10th part of the said memories published in the issue dated February 15 th,2011.
What I am referring to is the following statements featuring in the said article pertaining to HH Basilio's GeevargheseII,the late lamented Catholicose of the east and Malankara Metropolitan.The statements in brief can be translated as follows:
1.Post 1958 unification of the Church,HH GeevargheseII Catholicose humiliated H.G.Paulose Mar Philaxinose(later HH Basaliose PauloseII)at the instigation of H G Augean Mar Timotheus.
2.HH Basaliose Geevarghese II also insulted Vayaliparambil Thirumeni also in an open Synod meeting
The two prelates at the receiving end reacted differently to the humiliations ,but these incidents were the seeds for the Antiochian Movement
It is extremely difficult to check the facts of these incidents since all involved are now on the other side of the wail.Even the ones who could possibly give some secondary testimony are also far advanced in age to give any meaningful testimony.But I am willing to accept the account of HG mar Athanasious at face value,recognizing the fact that there could be some distortions in the narrations Thirumeni may have received from sources HG has reason to believe.
This issue appears to have caused heated debates in MOC Managing Committee and Synod.Thirumeni had been on the receiving end of criticism,but there were some who admired the action of the then Catholicose in exercising HH's authority over his Bishops!!! Perceptions also vary from person to person.
The point that I want to make is not about the propriety or otherwise of what Thirumeni wrote.In the total context of Thirumenis memories this could be considered as a perception HG gained based on accounts the ones whom Thirumeni trusted for this information.Purpose of this note is to draw the attention of those interested in Church History to certain facts relating to post 1958 events.
The Supreme Court verdict of 1958 had no ambiguities unlike the one in 1998.It was 100% victory for HH GeevargheseII.The result of the verdict had been that if the Patriarchal Party chose to have a separate identity,it would have become necessary for them to build new Churches and to pay about 12 lakhs by way of Costs of litigation.In such a circumstances, it was the magnanimity of HH Basaliose GeevargheseII that paved the way for a unification.A large majority in the Catholicose Party was elated at the victory in litigation and were wanting to avenge the humiliations from the Patriarchal group.
But H.H.Basaliose Geevarghese II took a highly Christian view that the victory in the court cases is meaningless if your brethren on the other side of the factional divide is thrown out into the streets.There were many even in the synod which HH was presiding over,who could not digest the idea.But H.H.could impose his noble vision on them.
Therefore when he found Paulose Mar Philexinose Metropolitan tried to reopen the factional feud,it might have caused indignation in HH and might not have minced words in expression his disapproval.He always maintained that the Catholicose had the duty and authority to correct the erring Bishops.But he always tried to console those wounded by words or actions at the earliest opportunity.But Paulose Philaxinose Metropolitan could not function as a disciplined Bishop and believed in doing things at his whims and fancies.
One cannot ignore the fact that on either side of the factional divide there were many who could not digest the unification of 1958.The Patriarchal faction accepted the reunification since they had no other option and the Catholicose faction since HH GeevargheseII imposed it on them.I am not saying that as a universal truth.
I am talking about a good number of activists.Paulose Philaxinoese Metropolitan became a rallying point for the activists from Patriarchal faction who had severe indigtion of the idea of unity.Although Vayaliparambil Thirumeni took the unification in letter and spirit and did all he could to strengthen it,it was not the case with the activists of Angamaly Diocese.This perhaps could have disturbed HH GeevargheseII and the sharp reactions could have its roots therein.To imply that HH GeevargheseII didnot give respect to the Bishops from Patriarchal side post unification is not factually correct.HH's concern was unity and discipline,two cardinal principles HH was fully committed.
I will be the last person to suggest that Dr Thomas Mar Athanssios Thirumeni made a distorted statement.HG was making a point that unification process needs a healing touch and the official faction has more responsibility to provide that.But inadvertently HG implied that behavior of HH Geevarghese II was crude and impertinent.This dissenting note is only against that implication.
What I am referring to is the following statements featuring in the said article pertaining to HH Basilio's GeevargheseII,the late lamented Catholicose of the east and Malankara Metropolitan.The statements in brief can be translated as follows:
1.Post 1958 unification of the Church,HH GeevargheseII Catholicose humiliated H.G.Paulose Mar Philaxinose(later HH Basaliose PauloseII)at the instigation of H G Augean Mar Timotheus.
2.HH Basaliose Geevarghese II also insulted Vayaliparambil Thirumeni also in an open Synod meeting
The two prelates at the receiving end reacted differently to the humiliations ,but these incidents were the seeds for the Antiochian Movement
It is extremely difficult to check the facts of these incidents since all involved are now on the other side of the wail.Even the ones who could possibly give some secondary testimony are also far advanced in age to give any meaningful testimony.But I am willing to accept the account of HG mar Athanasious at face value,recognizing the fact that there could be some distortions in the narrations Thirumeni may have received from sources HG has reason to believe.
This issue appears to have caused heated debates in MOC Managing Committee and Synod.Thirumeni had been on the receiving end of criticism,but there were some who admired the action of the then Catholicose in exercising HH's authority over his Bishops!!! Perceptions also vary from person to person.
The point that I want to make is not about the propriety or otherwise of what Thirumeni wrote.In the total context of Thirumenis memories this could be considered as a perception HG gained based on accounts the ones whom Thirumeni trusted for this information.Purpose of this note is to draw the attention of those interested in Church History to certain facts relating to post 1958 events.
The Supreme Court verdict of 1958 had no ambiguities unlike the one in 1998.It was 100% victory for HH GeevargheseII.The result of the verdict had been that if the Patriarchal Party chose to have a separate identity,it would have become necessary for them to build new Churches and to pay about 12 lakhs by way of Costs of litigation.In such a circumstances, it was the magnanimity of HH Basaliose GeevargheseII that paved the way for a unification.A large majority in the Catholicose Party was elated at the victory in litigation and were wanting to avenge the humiliations from the Patriarchal group.
But H.H.Basaliose Geevarghese II took a highly Christian view that the victory in the court cases is meaningless if your brethren on the other side of the factional divide is thrown out into the streets.There were many even in the synod which HH was presiding over,who could not digest the idea.But H.H.could impose his noble vision on them.
Therefore when he found Paulose Mar Philexinose Metropolitan tried to reopen the factional feud,it might have caused indignation in HH and might not have minced words in expression his disapproval.He always maintained that the Catholicose had the duty and authority to correct the erring Bishops.But he always tried to console those wounded by words or actions at the earliest opportunity.But Paulose Philaxinose Metropolitan could not function as a disciplined Bishop and believed in doing things at his whims and fancies.
One cannot ignore the fact that on either side of the factional divide there were many who could not digest the unification of 1958.The Patriarchal faction accepted the reunification since they had no other option and the Catholicose faction since HH GeevargheseII imposed it on them.I am not saying that as a universal truth.
I am talking about a good number of activists.Paulose Philaxinoese Metropolitan became a rallying point for the activists from Patriarchal faction who had severe indigtion of the idea of unity.Although Vayaliparambil Thirumeni took the unification in letter and spirit and did all he could to strengthen it,it was not the case with the activists of Angamaly Diocese.This perhaps could have disturbed HH GeevargheseII and the sharp reactions could have its roots therein.To imply that HH GeevargheseII didnot give respect to the Bishops from Patriarchal side post unification is not factually correct.HH's concern was unity and discipline,two cardinal principles HH was fully committed.
I will be the last person to suggest that Dr Thomas Mar Athanssios Thirumeni made a distorted statement.HG was making a point that unification process needs a healing touch and the official faction has more responsibility to provide that.But inadvertently HG implied that behavior of HH Geevarghese II was crude and impertinent.This dissenting note is only against that implication.
No comments:
Post a Comment