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

KADAMATTOM CHURCH

Expand Messages
  • P J PHILIP
    DEAR MEMBERS, I AM ENCLOSING THE STATEMENT FILED BY HIS GRACE MATHEWS MAR SEVERIOS METROPOLITAN IN KADAMATTOM CHURCH. THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT SPEAKS FOR
    Message 1 of 1114 , Jul 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      DEAR MEMBERS,

      I AM ENCLOSING THE STATEMENT FILED BY HIS GRACE MATHEWS MAR
      SEVERIOS METROPOLITAN IN KADAMATTOM CHURCH. THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENT
      SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

      ========================================================

      BEFORE THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM

      O.S. No.1 of 20OO.
      "**-5-"
      K.P. Thankachan: Plaintiff Vs
      St. George Orthodox Syrian Church & Ors.: Respondents/Defendants
      STATEMENT FILED BY THE 8th DEFENDANT

      In the above case, evidence of the plaintiff is already started and the
      plaintiff�s evidence is almost reaching a stage of conclusion. We have filed
      a detailed written statement in the above suit. At present there is no
      faction in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, as also in the parish
      churches of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Some of the former patriarch
      group members under the leadership of, Thomas Dionysius left Malankara
      Orthodox Syrian Church, after He [Thomas Dionysius] agreed before the
      Hon�ble Supreme Court to conduct election to the managing committee of
      Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church by convening the Malankara Association.
      Under his [Thomas Dionysius] leadership a new church by name, Jacobite
      Syrian Christian church had been formed with a separate constitution of its
      own.

      2. In this case, it is admitted by all the plaintiff that the church in
      dispute namely, St. George Orthodox Syrian Church, Kadamatam is a
      constituent parish church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Therefore it
      is very easy for this Hon�ble court at this stage to grant directions to
      open the church to have the holly services in the church by the priest of
      Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church alone with the necessary prohibitory orders
      and protection as against the persons who opposes the Malankara Orthodox
      Syrian Church and it is hierarchy. It is also worth to notice that the
      compromise entered into between the former two factions on the basis of
      consensus made by the hierarchy of two factions was not able to continue in
      the church due to the unilateral withdrawal of former patriarch faction. We
      are ready to abide by the compromise decree passed by this Hon�ble court in
      O.S. 15/97 dated 08-01-1998.

      3. We still stand by our contention and are not ready or amenable for any
      kind of compromise sacrificing our rights over the church by accommodating
      any other person of any other denomination not recognized and authorized by
      Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in the plaint church in conducting
      religious services and sacraments in the plaint church.

      This statement is filed only because when the trial was on the plaintiff
      proposed a compromise settlement during the course of trial and this Hon�ble
      court asked for our stand in the matter.

      Dated this the 29th day of July 2005
      -
      Dr. Mathews Mar Savarios 8th Defendant

      BIJU ABRAHAM
      =============================
      P J PHILIP,
      ADVOCATE, ERNAKULAM
      PRAISE THE LORD,
      PHILIP P J [PARAMBIL THARAKAN]
    • 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.