Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ICON] Digest Number 1545, 4 - Shuddhimathikal

Expand Messages
  • E.S. John
    Dear Raji Johnson, I appreciate your allegorical sense of humour, but the allegory should not be aligned and confused with the statutes and covenants and
    Message 1 of 1114 , May 19, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Raji Johnson,

      I appreciate your allegorical sense of humour, but the allegory should not be aligned and confused with the statutes and covenants and commandments God gave down through the centuries through His priestly hierarchy and prophets. Despite the budding of the Kingdom of God starts here, the real Kingdom blooms only in the other world of luminance. Both man and woman will share the Heavenly bliss depending on the the meritorious status of ' great' and ' small' that one acquires by piety and righteousness in the land of the living.

      E.S.John, Australia
    • Thomas P
      Reading a misleading article made me write this. Every Orthodox Church has a constitution. Consitution is for the functioning of the Church in the world.
      Message 1114 of 1114 , Oct 18, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Reading a misleading article made me write this. Every Orthodox Church
        has a constitution. Consitution is for the functioning of the Church
        in the world.

        Recently a member of the Malankara Church was challenging the
        consitution of the Malankara Church. Let me ask him one question? SOC
        also has a consitution. How the constitution of SOC originated? Was
        the Malankara Church involved in drafting it? SOC made several
        revisions to the constituion not involving Malankara Synod.

        Following is from an article about SOC consitution: "Every institution
        has a constitution rules and regulations of its own. They are
        considered to be binding. Every constitution and every law has three
        basic elements: firstly the party establishing the constitution,
        secondly, the party declaring it; thirdly, the party abiding by it"
        "Both the board of clergy and the board of trustees have the power to
        set up by-laws that do not conflict with the constitution of the
        Church its general law and judgments, nor with the decisions of the
        Holy Synods or the laws or the country where the diocese is
        established." {Source: Syrian Orthodox Church, Canada Diocese}

        So, SOC agrees that every institution has a constitution of its own.

        It was in 1933 that SOC officially adopted a consitution. Evidence is
        here: "the Synod of Homs which was held in February 1933 and set out a
        complete constitution for the church clarifying the jurisdiction ..."
        (The Concept of Jurisdiction and Authority in the Syrian Orthodox
        Church on Antioch Article by His Grace Mor Gregorios Johanna Ibrahim
        Metropolitan of Aleppo)

        "The articles of the Synod of Homs in the year 1933 became the basis
        for what is known today as the Church Constitution. In spite of this
        brief time many amendments have been made to this constitution by
        several synods which were held after that date. The last one was the
        Synod of Damascus in 1991 ..." (Ibid)

        So, they have amended the constitution drafted in 1933.

        Too much pride is not good for any one. Christianity requires
        accepting the realities and accepting each other. Other than rejecting
        it for pride reasons, what is there in the consitution of 1934 that is
        unacceptable to an Orthodox believer? It allows honoring the Patriarch
        of SOC (not in an exaggerated way, but in a practical way).
        It is only for ego that people fight and cause divisions. What is
        there so special in the new Jacobite constitution of 2000? Why is it
        not made public in the web?

        -Thomas
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.