CSIPASS,Puthiyara(A Fellowship of CSI Puthiyara Church members.(CALICUT(Kozhikode)-4,Kerala,South INDIA).This is a Registered SOCIAL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION under the Indian Societies Act, working for Social Justice,rights and benefits of church members and engaged in Social Work. We are not against any Laymen,Bishops,Priests or Church workers.But we are here to expose the people who give disregard to the Laws of the Land.
10 comments:
Congratulations!!!
Such serious issues should be brought to light. Congratulations CSIPASS.
The CSI is fast deteriorating spiritually and it is reflected in all the materialistic and other activities of the churches.
Spiritual rejuvenation and revivification should come from within the church. the material aspects can be safeguarded only under the surveillance of some stringent laws which will be properly enrouted and executed by a Govt. agency.
It's high time that we awaken and sing the song "Onward Christian soldiers ..." and march and fight for justice.
The so-called benign reverend Vicars and the so-called masters of justice holding different posts will not appreciate and welcome it because then they will lose their monopoly and dictatorship in the administration of the church activities which for them is pure professional business and other administrative business they conduct day to day.
Thus we are pressed by a dire necessity to have a LAW to manage, maintain and protect it. CSIPASS should take initiative for it.
Sure the entire CSI community will come out to encourage and support.
Very good comment Mr.cliffard.Persons like you must advice and help us.
ebby.
It is a reality that the Bishop is in trouble.we the members of a small church is most worried about the future of our church.
As you know very well one ad hoc committee was formed by the synod to conduct the election and perform the day to day administration of the diocese.
But to spoil the name of our church our own pastorate committee treasurer filed a case in kalpetta court to get a stay.He demanded the court not allow the said committee in the administration of wayanad district council.But the case has been dismissed by the kalpetta court instructing the petitioner to pay the cost of litigation charges to synod.
Sir,we know that the person performed this judicial fraud is a supporter of the Bishop.
Lot of innocent church members were ex communicated by the Bishop on flimsy grounds and courts canceled number of similar orders of the Bishop.
Here this person has filed a suit against the synod and spoiled the image of our church.No action has been initiated so far.
where we should go for spiritual rejuvenation?
Protection is needed not only for assets but also for the families of vicars and church workers.
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
We laymen till date trust what you teach - "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Mathew- 6:33
Now you are seeking earthly protection when almighty GOD is waiting to serve all humanity that comes to Him.
How ridiculous of you to make such absurd comments!!!
proves outright you are just a professional like any other working man. will we hear about you people forming trade unions and striking work??
Dear Sabu Meppadi,
spiritual rejuvenation should come from within the Church. Church doesn't mean Vicar or Bishop or Synod.
"Church" in the original text is "Ecclesia".
The Septuagint is the Old Testament as used by the Apostles and all the Ancient Church.
The word Ecclesia is also used (136 times) in the Septuagint (Old Testament), and is used 114 times in the New Testament itself.
Ecclesia means convocation, gathering, congregation, meeting, etc. "Ecclesia tou demou" (meeting of the citizens) was in ancient Athens the meeting of the citizens of Athens to decide on the affairs of their city. Ecclesia in the New Testament (and the Old) is the people of the city of God, that is, not a part of them (the clergy, monks or any part whatever), but all the faithful.
From this meaning comes also the naming of local churches (ekklesiai), that is the whole communities of the faithful in various cities, and again not a part of them. for e.g. in Apocalypse, where John writes to the Churches (Ecclesiai) of Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. Paul wrote also to various churches, and writing to the church of Rome he says what the church is: "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" - To all the faithful, that is a church.
This is the fact. These facts will not be taught by the VICARS as it is their FOOD and the laymen do not want to know what is what.
So, what I am telling is the CHURCH or in other words, the faithful gatherings should protest against evil, injustice, corruption, immorality and faithlessness in GOD.
The Vicars are keeping the people in dark. teaching the only what they want the people to know, interpreting and manipulating the way they want it. They adopt the DIVIDE and RULE policy.
lay men should realize this and act accordingly. Its high time to act to uplift the name of GOD.
Now, Let me tell you what is A Bishop and Vicar.
Bishop, a word formed in our language out of the Greek episcopus, signifieth an overseer or superintendent of any business, and particularly a pastor or shepherd; and thence by metaphor was taken, not only amongst the Jews that were originally shepherds, but also amongst the heathen, to signify the office of a king, or any other ruler or guide of people, whether he ruled by laws or doctrine. And so the Apostles were the first Christian bishops, instituted by Christ himself: in which sense the apostleship of Judas is called "his bishoprick." And afterwards, when there were constituted elders in the Christian churches, with charge to guide Christ's flock by their doctrine and advice, these elders were also called bishops. Timothy was an elder (which word elder, in the New Testament, is a name of office as well as of age); yet he was also a bishop. And bishops were then content with the title of elders. Nay, St. John himself, the Apostle beloved of our Lord, beginneth his Second Epistle with these words, "The elder to the elect lady." By which it is evident that bishop, pastor, elder, doctor, that is to say, teacher, were but so many diverse names of the same office in the time of the Apostles. For there was then no government by coercion, but only by doctrine and persuading.
VICAR.
Church of England.
1. a person acting as priest of a parish in place of the rector, or as representative of a religious community to which tithes belong.
2.The priest of a parish the tithes of which are impropriated and who receives only the smaller tithes or a salary.
Protestant Episcopal Church.
1. a member of the clergy whose sole or chief charge is a chapel dependent on the church of a parish.
2. a bishop's assistant in charge of a church or mission.
Roman Catholic Church.
1. an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop.
2. a person who acts in place of another; substitute.
3. a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God's vicar on earth.
Sir,your comment is excellent.Thank you for the same.
But why these Bishops are ruling like medieval kings.
we the priests have limitations.
Dear Anonymous,
To know why... We will have to look back to history.I have already said who is a Bishop. now, let me explain it...
30-150 AD: The original Bible pattern for church government: The period of the Eldership/Presbytery with autonomous local churches: Congregational oligarchy where each local church is independent and self governing. There is a plurality of Bishops ruling each local church and their authority does not extend outside their local church.
150-250 AD: The period of the "Episcopal Presbytery" of autonomous local churches. Local churches were governed by a single bishop/overseer (Episcopate) over a group of elders (Presbytery). The only change was that the office of elder/bishop was split into two separate offices within each local church. At first, one elder was seen as the leading elder. (150 AD) Then this leading elder began to take on exclusive title of Bishop. (200 AD)
250-451 AD: The period of the 5 Patriarchs: The oligarchic diocesan episcopate. Three changes take place in this era. 1. The rise of diocesan bishops who rule a small group of churches in addition to his own local church. (250 AD) 2. The rise of metropolitans who were nothing more than the diocesan bishops from the large and important cities. (300 AD) 3. The rise of patriarchs who were nothing more than the metropolitans from the largest and most important cities. (381 AD)
Contd......
451-588 AD: The period of the 5 Patriarchs who rule the church as and Autocephalous oligarchy within their own respective territories. (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.) Rome and Constantinople are seen as near equals, with Rome having the highest honours, but neither Rome or Constantinople had universal authority. Rome was the only Patriarch of the west, while Constantinople was seen as the leading patriarch among the other three eastern patriarchs.
588-606 AD: The final "dog-fight" between Rome and Constantinople for the top position of "universal bishop" where only one bishop wins the prize of ruling the entire church world wide. Constantinople was first to make the claim of Universal Bishop, but Gregory said no man should wear the title, not even the Himself as the Bishop of Rome. Gregory called such a title the earmark of the anti-Christ. Eight years later the Boniface III, Bishop of Rome, takes the formal title of "Universal Bishop" and has so to the present time. The Pope was born in its present organizational form.
606 AD-Today: Boniface III, Bishop of Rome is the first bishop of Rome to take the title: "universal Bishop": Catholicism is formally born in its present organizational form. Constantinople however, never agrees and eventually proclaims itself the Universal bishop of the east. Noting has really changed in 1400 years. Rome is head of the Latin/Western church and Constantinople is the head of the Greek/Eastern church. But the way they govern is quite different. The Bishop of Rome went on to take total absolute control of western church. Remember Rome was the only Western Patriarch. Constantinople, however, governed the eastern church in the tradition of the period of the 5 Patriarchs (451-588 AD). While Rome proclaimed itself sole monarch with absolute power throughout the western church, Constantinople, in the spirit of the period of the 5 Patriarchs (451-588 AD) called itself "the first among equals" and does so to the present time. When the Muslims slashed their way with the bloodied sword in an attempt for world domination in 622 AD, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, were all but wiped out. This left only two dominant players on the world stage to rule the church: Rome in the West and Constantinople in the East. It remains so to the present day. No further organization developments have occurred since 606 AD. The basic structure of Rome and Constantinople was solidified in 606 AD and remains basically unchanged to the present time. Yes many more Patriarchs were added in the East, but after the same order and design of Constantinople in 606AD, echoing the period of the 5 Patriarchs (451-588 AD).
Hope this will tell you the reasons.
Post a Comment