ബിഷപ്പ് അങ്ങാടിയത്തിന്റെയും സില്‍ബന്ധികളുടെയും ചെപ്പിടി വിദ്യ ഇനി അമേരിക്കയില്‍ വിലപ്പോകില്ല. പൊതുജനങ്ങളെ വിരട്ടിയും ശപിച്ചും തന്‍റെ ക്ലാവര്‍ കുരിശ് അമേരിക്കന്‍ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ തോണ്ടയില്‍ക്കൂടി കുത്തിയിറക്കാം എന്ന വ്യാമോഹം ബുദ്ധിയുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ അദ്ദേഹം ഉപേക്ഷിക്കേണ്ട കാലം കഴിഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നു.
കാലം മാറിയിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന സത്യം നമ്മുടെ അധികാരികള്‍ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നില്ല. പഞ്ചപുച്ചമടക്കി അച്ചന്മാര്‍ വിളമ്പുന്ന എന്തും കണ്ണുമടച്ചു ജനങ്ങള്‍ വിഴുങ്ങിയിരുന്ന കാലം മാറി. കാലത്തിനൊത്തു മാറാന്‍ തക്ക വിവരം നമ്മുടെ ബിഷപ്പിനും അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്‍റെ സഹചാരികള്‍ക്കും ഇല്ലാതെ പോയി.
കൊല്ലം രണ്ട്‌ കഴിഞ്ഞു, ഞങ്ങള്‍ ബിഷപ്പിനെയും അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്‍റെ വിശ്വസ്ത അനുയായികളെയും വെല്ലുവിളിക്കുന്നു. ക്ലാവര്‍ കുരിശിനെ സാധൂകരിക്കുന്ന രേഖകള്‍ എന്തെങ്കിലും ഉണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ അവ അമേരിക്കന്‍ സീറോ മലബാര്‍ വിശ്വാസികള്‍ക്ക് മുന്‍പില്‍ ഹാജരാക്കുവാന്‍. ഇന്നുവരെ ബിഷപ്പോ, അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്‍റെ ആയിരം നാവുള്ള ചാന്‍സലറോ , ഇവരെ കണ്ണുമടച്ചു പിന്താങ്ങി, പിന്‍ തുടരുന്ന ഇവരുടെ കൂലിപ്പട്ടാളക്കാരോ ഞങ്ങളുടെ വെല്ലുവിളിയെ നേരിടാന്‍ തയ്യാറായിട്ടില്ല. നേരെ മറിച്ച്, മാര്‍ അങ്ങാടിയത്ത് ക്ലാവര്‍ കുരിശും അള്‍ത്താര വിരിയും ഇവിടെ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ മേല്‍ അടിചെല്‍പ്പിക്കുന്നത്, സഭാവിരുധവും, ജനദ്രോഹപരവും, സീറോ മലബാര്‍ സിനടിന്റെ തീരുമാനത്തിന് കടക വിരുദ്ധവുമാണെന്നുള്ളതിനു അനവധി തെളിവുകള്‍ ഈ ബ്ലോഗില്‍ തന്നെ ഞങ്ങള്‍ നല്‍കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. എന്നിട്ടും സത്യത്തിനു നേരെ കണ്ണടച്ച് തന്‍റെ അന്ധവിശ്വാസങ്ങള്‍ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ മേല്‍ അടിച്ചേല്‍പ്പിക്കുക എന്ന ഒരേ ഒരു ദൌത്യവുമായി മുമ്പോട്ട്‌ പോകുകയാണ് ബിഷപ്‌ അങ്ങാടിയത്ത്.
ബിഷപ്‌ അങ്ങാടിയത്തിന് ഇക്കാര്യത്തില്‍ അമളി പറ്റിയിരിക്കുന്നു. അതു മനസ്സിലാക്കാന്‍ അമേരിക്കന്‍ വിശ്വാസികള്‍ തയ്യാറാണ്. പക്ഷെ പറ്റിയ അമളികള്‍ സ്വയം മനസ്സിലാക്കിയില്ലെങ്കിലും മറ്റ് സഹബിഷപ്പുമാരും, സീറോ മലബാര്‍ സഭയും തന്നെ ചൂണ്ടി ക്കാട്ടിത്തരുമ്പോള്‍ അതിന് നേരെ കണ്ണടക്കുന്നത് ഭോഷത്വമല്ലെങ്കില്‍ തന്റെടമാണ്. ഫാസിസമാണ്‌. അതിനെതിരെ പടവാളുയര്‍ത്തെണ്ടത് എല്ലാ വിശ്വാസികളുടെയും കടമയുമാണ്. ധ്യാനപ്രസംഗകരുടെ പ്രച്ഛഹ്ന്ന വേഷം കെട്ടിയ കൂലി പ്രാസംഗികരെ പള്ളികളില്‍ കൊണ്ടു വന്നു പ്രസംഗിപ്പിക്കാം. ക്ലാവര്‍ കുരിശിന്റെ മഹത്വം വായിലെ വെള്ളം പറ്റുവോളം അവര്‍ക്ക് പുലമ്പിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കാം. എങ്കിലും സത്യ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ ഹൃദയത്തില്‍ ക്ലാവര്‍ ക്ലാവര്‍ അല്ലാതായിത്തീരുന്നില്ല. ക്രൂശിത രൂപം ക്ലാവര്‍ കുരിശായി രൂപാന്തരപ്പെടുന്നില്ല. പ്രത്യുത തന്‍റെ വ്യാജസുവിശേഷം പ്രസംഗിക്കുവാന്‍ ആത്മീയമൂല്യച്ച്യുതി വന്ന ധ്യാനക്കച്ചവടക്കാരെ ആശ്രയിക്കേണ്ടി വരുന്നു എന്നത് സഭാധികാരികളുടെ ഉള്‍ഭയവും അങ്കലാപ്പുമാണ് ജനങ്ങളുടെ മുമ്പില്‍ തുറന്ന് കാട്ടുന്നത്.
16 comments:
St. Thomas never brought a cross with lotus to India since lotus had not been a symbol of India.
Given this situation let us come to following conclusion.
1. The history takes us to the very first Holy Mass where there was no curtain. The curtain that was hanging in Jerusalem Temple was torn from top to bottom signifying the needlessness of a curtain in the Temple.
2. The cross used for the first Holy Mass was not the disputed Cross.
3. Since there was not curtain used for the first Holy Mass, St. Thomas never used curtain and the disputed cross whenever he said Holy Mass.
4. Since St. Thomas came and preach in India we get direct information and tradition from St. Thomas himself. St. Thomas did not go after the “Indianisation” of Holy Mass as he was not a spokesperson of gospel of compromise but gospel of Jesus Christ. So there would be any way of imparting the tradition of pulling the curtain during Holy Mass. The people at that time were comfortable with the way of Holy Mass offered by St. Thomas.
5. This thinking will prompt us to infer that latter addition of curtain and the disputed cross are foreign to the first Christians of Kerela.
6. Whoever added these curtain and the disputed cross did a irrecoverable damage to our church.
7. We need not look on to any church outside India like Antioch church, Chaldean church or any Syrian church for our tradition. Our tradition comes from Jesus through St. Thomas to Kerela Christians. Whoever comes in between are/should/cannot be accepted/treated as the makers of our church tradition.
8. Some say disciples of St. Thomas played an important role in shaping our liturgy. That too cannot be accepted since we had our own liturgy as taught by St. Thomas.
No disciple is greater than the Master.
Whoever is pro for the role of the disciples of St. Thomas should answer the following questions.
1. How we offered Holy Mass after the death of St. Thomas and before the arrival of any other missionary whomsoever?
2. Did the first Christians use curtain and the disputed cross for that Mass before the arrival of these missionaries?
3. What was the form of that liturgy? Eastern or Western?
4. Is it not just and proper to omit whatever was incorporated in to our own liturgy whether from disciple or any other missionary?
5. Why do you speak against Westerners and not against those who came from the East who had anything to do with our liturgy?
6. Why did the Easterners added to our liturgy, since we had our own liturgy inherited from St. Thomas.
7. If at all anything were wrong with our liturgy, St. Thomas would have corrected it by adding or omitting. So what was the role of these disciples? Who gave them the authority to change/add to/omit from our own liturgy?
So let us turn to our history and tradition which does not have curtain and disputed Cross and follow it. Let us seek what unite us and not disunite us.
It is not the style of Cross but the one who hang on the Cross is important.
God is not concerned with the curtain but with the way of our dressing while being in the church.
Part 1.
St. Thomas never brought a cross with lotus to India since lotus had not been a symbol of India.
Given this situation let us come to following conclusion.
1. The history takes us to the very first Holy Mass where there was no curtain. The curtain that was hanging in Jerusalem Temple was torn from top to bottom signifying the needlessness of a curtain in the Temple.
2. The cross used for the first Holy Mass was not the disputed Cross.
3. Since there was not curtain used for the first Holy Mass, St. Thomas never used curtain and the disputed cross whenever he said Holy Mass.
4. Since St. Thomas came and preach in India we get direct information and tradition from St. Thomas himself. St. Thomas did not go after the “Indianisation” of Holy Mass as he was not a spokesperson of gospel of compromise but gospel of Jesus Christ. So there would be any way of imparting the tradition of pulling the curtain during Holy Mass. The people at that time were comfortable with the way of Holy Mass offered by St. Thomas.
5. This thinking will prompt us to infer that latter addition of curtain and the disputed cross are foreign to the first Christians of Kerela.
6. Whoever added these curtain and the disputed cross did a irrecoverable damage to our church.
7. We need not look on to any church outside India like Antioch church, Chaldean church or any Syrian church for our tradition. Our tradition comes from Jesus through St. Thomas to Kerela Christians. Whoever comes in between are/should/cannot be accepted/treated as the makers of our church tradition.
8. Some say disciples of St. Thomas played an important role in shaping our liturgy. That too cannot be accepted since we had our own liturgy as taught by St. Thomas.
No disciple is greater than the Master.
Part 2.
Whoever is pro for the role of the disciples of St. Thomas should answer the following questions.
1. How we offered Holy Mass after the death of St. Thomas and before the arrival of any other missionary whomsoever?
2. Did the first Christians use curtain and the disputed cross for that Mass before the arrival of these missionaries?
3. What was the form of that liturgy? Eastern or Western?
4. Is it not just and proper to omit whatever was incorporated in to our own liturgy whether from disciple or any other missionary?
5. Why do you speak against Westerners and not against those who came from the East who had anything to do with our liturgy?
6. Why did the Easterners added to our liturgy, since we had our own liturgy inherited from St. Thomas.
7. If at all anything were wrong with our liturgy, St. Thomas would have corrected it by adding or omitting. So what was the role of these disciples? Who gave them the authority to change/add to/omit from our own liturgy?
So let us turn to our history and tradition which does not have curtain and disputed Cross and follow it. Let us seek what unite us and not disunite us.
It is not the style of Cross but the one who hang on the Cross is important.
God is not concerned with the curtain but with the way of our dressing while being in the church.
What do you think is the motive behind Bishop Powathil to throw away Crucifix and keep 'Manikyan cross' on the alter instead of crucifix of Jesus Christ?
He has a dream- of becoming the Emperor- Patriarchies of the East.
അന്ധവിശ്വാസങ്ങള്‍ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ മേല്‍ അടിച്ചേല്‍പ്പിക്കുക
ചിഹ്ന്നങ്ങളുടെയും പൌരാണികതയുടെയും പിന്നാലെ പോകുന്ന നേതൃത്വം സഭയെ പിളര്‍ത്തും
There is one thing i found about people of changanasserry pala kanjirapilly...they are scared of priests and bishops.Priests and bishop from that part are so arrogent. They dont care a least about the jesus. Only thing they believe is damn claver and sheela.
I fully agree with the previous comment. The bishop of Pala reprimanded and withdraw the right to receive sacraments for am a family for getting their daughter to Jacobite boy. Now remember that the Syro Malabar church accepts agree with the baptism and its system integration with the Jacobite church. In other words if a jacobite comes to Syro Malabar Catholic church or vice versa they don’t have to be Baptised. Yet this poor family from Valavoor was withdrawn the right to receive holy sacraments. At the very same duration a family from Kadanadu who married their daughter to an Ezhava boy with converting to Syro Malabar catholic church was never punished because they surrendered a big sum to the money hungry Pallikaparambil. People this is the coward bishop who refused last sacraments and an honorable burial according to the catholic beliefs to Joseph sir from Kuravinlangadu. Also don’t forget the ruling of the Munsif court of Pala punishing with a penalty to the tune of more than 100,000 Rupees. People from Pala, Changanasseri and Kanjirappilly has no guts and back bone to respond. In short a bunch of Napumsakangal. All they want to pretend to believe is the Bishop and his army (the priests) are always right and the key to heaven is in their pocket. Another incident from Changanasseri where a a priest raped a sister of his own friend priest and she becomes pregnant. What did the Diocese do? When the baby was born they sent the baby to the orphanage and gave some what a good job for the girl who was under aged at the time of rape. An d the priest is still a practicing priest. What a wonderful profession. And I have explanation for the “SHANTATHUAM” of the friend priest and his family. These are typical example for people from Pala, Changanasseri and Kanjirappally. So what more you can expect.
ഈ വിളിച്ചു ചോല്ലലുകളുടെ രഹസ്യം മറ്റൊന്നുമല്ല.
Coppell Director Fr. Varghese അച്ചന് ആളുകളെ സുഖിപ്പിക്കണം.
വെറുതെ അര്‍ത്ഥമില്ലാത്ത വിളിച്ചു ചൊല്ലലുകള്‍.
അതിനുവേണ്ടി നിങ്ങളുടെ പട്ടിക്കൊരു കുഞ്ഞുണ്ടായാലും ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടാല്‍ അദ്ദേഹം അത് പള്ളിയില്‍ വിളിച്ചു പറയും.
അച്ഛന്‍ എടുക്കുന്ന ഏത് തീരുമാനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് പിറകിലും ഒറ്റരു ഉദ്ദേശമേയുള്ളൂ.
ഗതികേടിന്റെ കാലത്ത് തനിക്ക് വേണ്ടി നിലകൊള്ളുന്ന ഒരു കലാല്‍പ്പടയെ പടുത്തുയര്‍ത്തുക.
In 1995, Father Cyriac Karthikapally, a parish priest of Kurumbanadam church in the Changanacherry archdiocese, lured a 15-year old school-going girl to his bedroom. For the next two years, the priest entered into a sexual relationship with the minor girl that she gave birth to a female child on September 15, 1998.
The Changacherry police registered a case against Father Karthikapally for raping, abducting and compelling the victim for abortion. The police has submitted before the local judicial court a first information report against the priest under sections 315, 316 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code that deal with provisions on rape and abduction.
When the Father Karthikapally sex scandal rocked the Changanacherry archdiocese, what the Archbishop did was to get him tried in the diocese's own tribunal, which "punished" him by removing him from the pastoral ministry and offering remuneration to the girl.
"The accused priest is still with the diocese. His residence is provided by the diocese and he is protected by the church while his daughter is growing up in an orphanage.
Catholic activists claim in many dioceses across Kerala, many "clerical gangsters" have come up. "Our information is that Father Karthikapally used to take the minor girl to his priest friends in other parishes. They had actually formed a sex racket involving many girls.
As for Father Karthikapally sex case, the diocesan tribunal decided to try the priest after the victim's parents approached Archbishop Joseph Powathil for a settlement on the case from the church side.
"In the tribunal the priest confessed to his crime. We found him guilty and punished him by relieving him of all pastoral duties. He is now living in a remote village without serving any parish or other diocesan institutes," Father Naduviledam said.
As to the accusation that the diocese did not take the case to the police, he said "it was not the duty of the church." "It was the duty of the offended party to approach the police. But the girl's parents instead wanted that the priest should be tried by the church tribunal only," Father Naduviledam added.
FR.VARGHESE IN COPPELL TODAYS SERMON he stated that if you pledge to God some money you should give it immediately or face UTHARIPPUKADAM . THE FUNNY PART IS WE DID NOT PLEDGE TO GOD ANY MONEY OFFERING period. That is absolutely wrong if any body did it because that is a bargain to God .GOD is not there to do any money bargaining, he hates those bussinesman remember JERUSALEM TEMPLE, Is that what Fr.Varghse wants??? YOU are 100% wrong .
FR.vraghese, we promised to Fr. Saji not to God ok. SO the highpriestsFR.ROY,fr.vinodh,FR.ZachTHE SO CALLED CURIA INCLUDING BISHOP FIRED fr.SAJI FOR installing crucifix in the ater.YOu all said Whatever Fr.saji said it is not vlued any more . SO whatever we promised to Fr.Saji is not vauable anymore. So show the respect and earn the respect the way he did to the church then we will think about it,so don't try to fool us again you all fooled us before. OH,NO, NOT AGAIN OK...
Don't fool us with that UTHARIPPUKADAM CRAP, You said curse is coming to us and our family now utharippukadam whatelse is out ther e in your NIKAANDU. yOU SAID BEFORE YOU ARE STUDYING CANNON LAW TO GET RID OF PEOPLE FROM CHURCH BECAUSE PEOPLE MAKING PROBLEM. Why dont you consult our famous cannon law Dr. FR Kaduppan. He fired a noble priest named FR. Sajy. Have'nt you guy's learned anything from that yet, you won't ,because you are so cruel to a priest. HOW CAN YOU NOT TO BE CRUEL TO LAITY. WE LOST OUR FAITH IN YOU GUYS.BUT WE STILL BELIEVE IN GOD.
Remove or deport all bad elements from the chicago DIOCEES ,that is the only way to recover from all these mess. When people loose their faith in the authority,that is the wright time to make the major changes. Hope some one will consider our request to save SMC in USA . This is worse than politics. Are they real followers of JESUS or too many JUDAS
When too many Judas working together what is the outcome???That is what is going on in CHICAGO DIOCEES. What is the role for vicar genaral ?? Last time when he came to Coppel at least he listened to the people but he had a secret meeting with ONLY CHANGANASSERY PEOPLE !!!!ONLY HOLY SPIRIT CAN DO GOOD WORK.Can you show any LOVE AND PEACE from these self proclaimed high priests!! NO HOLY SPIRIT that is the main problem,,,
This is the first time I heard about threatening poor laity evoking Cannon Law. Will Fr.Varghese clarify which Cannon law he is going to use? Latin Canons law or the Cannon law for the eastern churches which applicable only to certain rites as provided in its preamble , which not included Syro Malabar?. It will be easy for the Bishop to proclaim Mahron to 8 families in Coppell rather than to the remaining 235!, whih will solve the problem here in the church.
If there is Utharippukadom , it will fall in to the heads of present Chicago diocesan officials, not to the laity.
Post a Comment