Mr. Philip Ayyamplackal wrote: In the Supreme Court (SC) verdict, the reference to the Patriarch is nothing new which is on the basis of our 1934Message 1 of 5 , Dec 2 8:39 PMView SourceMr. Philip Ayyamplackal wrote: "In the Supreme Court (SC) verdict,
the reference to the Patriarch is nothing new which is on the basis
of our 1934 constitution. The problem is people try to interpret the
role of Patriarch the way they want. The SC is not saying to
surrender to the Patriarch. The Patriarch is given some privileges as
per our constitution and it is due only to the Patriarch who is
selected with the knowledge of our Church. How can such privileges be
given to a person who is not selected with out the knowledge of our
church? If we give it then what is the validity of the constitution
and the SC verdict?"
I agree to these words. But my question is where the breaking point
is? I am sure we can't expect HB Thomas I in the courtyard with this
ball as probably I should say he is born for division. From recent
experiences I don't think HH Zakha Iwas will take any initiative.
Obviously next Patriarch will also be elected without MOSC's
knowledge. And similarly all future SOC Patriarchs. So in my thinking
convincing common man is the only remedy. In order to break this
trauma someone has to take an initiative through cooperation &
forgiveness. And any common man should be convinced about that
initiation & that should be based on long term vision but not short
term. Why MOSC can't take any such initiative?
I really felt proud (probably for the first time) after seeing such a
discipline & lack of political presence in recent Kottayam meeting.
Let us hope we will continue better than this.
Sajy Thannikottu, Kathmandu
Dear Friends, There is no ball to play in Church. The church is a place of worshipping the God and not place of warships.Church is the body of Christ. TheMessage 1 of 5 , Dec 3 7:02 AMView SourceDear Friends,
There is no ball to play in Church. The church is a place of
worshipping the God and not place of warships.Church is the body of
Christ. The faithful/believers are different organs of the body
Jesus christ did not appoint Peter as head of visible church.Peter
never claimed himself as supreme Elder of early church.The syrian
Partrirch and his appointed clergy in Malankara are fighting for
wealth/proprties and not for witnessing the Truth or not following
In old testament we have an example of Abraham's and Lot's seperation.
(gen:13)"You go one way and I will go the other"(gen 13:9)This is how
our spirutual leaders should behave.Those people who do not accept
1934 constituition and do not recognize the catholicate of Malankara
orthodox church should not claim for wealth/and proprties of MOC.
Lastly priesthood is not for Sale.This what Syrian Partriarchs did in
Malankara church. They falsley obtained an oath of allegience from
the Malankara metropolitans and bishops during their ordination.the
oath of allegiance is that they (malankara metropolitans/bishops are
subordinate to Syrian Partriarch and declare Partriarch as their head
and submit themselves to the holy throne of Antioch, the holy see of
st. Peter. Acts of apostle 13;1-4 describes how,where and who
ordained apostle Paul and Barnabas.There there was no oath of
allegiance apostle Paul or Barnabas made to those who gave them the
priesthood or to the holy throne of Antioch. St. Peter always taught
St.Paul as an equal apostle like him.(2 Peter 3:15)Jesus sais his
disciples you are given the auhority and and power for free and you
give them free.Now judge yourself and see where to play the Ball.
Thomas Samuel, Nairobi