The Piravom Church verdict

[Elvis_George]

Shlam to all of my friends out there! While this question is mostly for Nasranis,what are your thoughts in the piravom church verdict?

 

[Vico]

Shlam to all of my friends out there! While this question is mostly for Nasranis,what are your thoughts in the piravom church verdict?

I am Byzantine Catholic and I have only read about this recently. I think it is the issue of the court ruling on the ownership of St. Mary Church in Piravom at Ernakulam to the Malankara Orthodox faction (20%) and not the Jacobite Syrian faction (80%), and that the Jacobite Syrian have been blocking the use by the Malankara Orthodox. Is this correct?

 

[Elvis_George]

Kind of…I think some history will help you. Originally,all of us Nasrani were NestorianWe lived harmoniously until the Portuguese came. They latinised us and destroyed our traditions in the Synod of Diamper. Not pleased, the archdeacon of the time Mar Thoma I sent letters to the Patriarch of Antioch,Patriarch of Alexandria,and the Patriarch of Babylon asking them to consecrate Mar Thoma I as the Malankara Metropolitan. Mor Ahatallah,a Syriac Catholic bishop responded first. He was considered an impostor by the Portuguese,and was either drowned or brought to Rome,where he died. Heart broken,Mar Thoma I forged a letter claiming to be written by Mor Ahatallah stating that if 12 kathanars (priests) may consecrate Mar Thoma II as the Malankara Metropolitan. He did so,and because he was popular among the Nasranis,he was accepted as the Malankara Metropolitan even though that was illegitimate. The Portuguese were furious,but we Nasranis were already tired of them. Mor Gregorios Abdul,bishop of Jerusalem, came to Kerala and reguralised his ordination. They Nasranis shifted from the East Syriac Tradition to the West Syriac tradition,which pissed off most Nasranis. The latin bishop convinced 60% of the Nasranis to join the Catholic church,and this become the Syro Malabar Catholic church. They other 40% joined the Syriac Orthodox church. They became the Malankara church. Things however got rocky after a Syriac Orthodox bishop ordained a new malankara metropolitan, Mor Cyril,as the current Metropolitan did not treat this bishop well. The Metropolitan refused to accept Mor Cyril,and Mor Cyril joined a separatist church known as the Malabar Independent church. Another faction of the wanted a reform and made another church known as the Mar Thoma Syrian church. In the early 1900s, back in Syria,the Patriarch of Antioch Mor Abed Mesih was deposed by the Ottomans. The Malankara church seized an opportunity and asked him Mesih to consecrate a Catholicos for them,independent from Antioch. Around 75% of the Malankara church joined them and they are located below Kottayam. The Malankara church above Kottayam was not to happy with this and remained in communion with Antioch. They became the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church. The 2 churches started fighting viciously for ownership of churches,and in 1950 they joined as 1 again as a truce. The Jacobite church,wanting to join Antioch again,joined Antioch in the 1970s and they consecrated their own Catholicos,in communion with Antioch in 2002. The Orthodox started claiming to be the only Malankara church,even though there were at least 5 Malankara churches. In 2017,the Orthodox seeked ownership of the Piravom church. Most people living here were Jacobite,and the Jacobite living here did not want the Orthodox to take their churches. The Supreme Court intervened and gave all Malankara churches to the Orthodox. The Kerala High court knew this verdict would be disastrous and refused to do so. In 2019,september,the Orthodox striked again and the supreme court warned the Kerala high chief. Piravom church was then given to the Orthodox… What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Vico]

… Piravom church was then given to the Orthodox… What are your thoughts on this?

I read a history that was on Wikipedia once for St. Thomas Christians and saw the diagram there, which is complex. I can see that the court most recently has upheld a 1934 agreement, but that in 1934 the two were split.

I don’t understand how the 1934 document is an agreement since the split occurred in 1912?

This reminds me of the schism in Europe (1378-1417), between Avignon, Rome, and Pisa - with three popes simultaneously. Eventually there was a period without any pope and a new Pope of Rome was elected Martin V (Council of Constance).