Re: Ball in whose Court?
- 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 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