Doubt of an innocent MOSC faithfull....
- Dear all,
I went through a posting of Sajy, kathmandu in ICON Forum. He has raised an intresting question. But seriously I was amused that till now after all his postings in ICON and SOCM he dont have an answer for it.
>>>>>> But let me try to shed some light to the very common issue with any layman like me.To be very frank I don't know what is the official status of Church.MOC leadership says we will not surrender to any foreign powers, but we want to implement SC judgment. Don't you think these are very contradictory statements? I am not talking about surrendering MOC to SOC but if Church welcomes SC verdict obviously it is welcoming HH Zakha Iwas's constitutional right & so his successors. Second issue,what is church's priority? Whether it is church building or people in that church. If church building is the priority then current system of litigation is more than enough.. But if people are important MOC has to think how they can create confidence among people who want unity but prefer SOC link.>>>>unquote..
Its not an open secret that MOSC leadership doesnt have anything to do with HH the Patriarch in their scheme of things. If Sajy kathmandu hasnt understood that till now we can only be sorry for him.( He can get enlightened on this subject by watching the vedios of kottayam "mahasammelan")
What MOSC wants is a church which is entirely nationalistic and Autocephalus. Both these things have been expressly denied by 95 SC. But even then they are trying to reach that goal through massive misrepresantation of facts.
The only thing that hasnt been implimented in 95 SC is the rightfull place of honour of HH the Patriarch. When MOSC states that 95 SC judgement is not implimented, its true, as regards the place of Honour of HH the Patriarch in MOSC. 95 SC has clearly stated that HH the Patriarch is the head of MOSC.. But they wont accept it in reality. They will accept HH in court, but in practice they will deny Him.
This dubious stance of MOSC right from the days of H G vattaserril mar Divanasious had been the root cause of the never ending church litigation. Remember the infamous deposition of H G Mar Vattaserril Divanasious in court. "I dont know who put His hand on my head while I got ordained". Now if a common layman asks " them why He went all the way to jerusalem to get ordained without knowing who is ordaining Him", can he be faulted with. Common hands are plenty over here also.
The legacy of the father continues irrespective of the passage of time...
From 76 onwards two of the predecissors of HH Didimos first have submitted sworn affidavets in court, stating that HH the Patriarch is head of MOSC. But what have HH Didimaos first have to say in kottaym sammelan. " I have only Akashathilulla Bava over me"
The legacy of the father should definitly continue...
For MOSC the name of HH the Patriarch is fine only for one thing.To cheat some sections of the Jacobite Church from time to time . It happened in 58, then in 76 and yet again in 95. They will tell that they accept HH only to pull some people from JSC.
Even so called well learned bishops fall for it. What is their role now... Abuse HH even further... How else to survive in that Church.
Sajy Kathmandu will never get an authentic answer for his question. The maximun he may get is a long posting on oriental orthodoxy from Thomas P. It will contain atleasts 15 quotes and 20 links to God only knows sites.
Same is the case with the other important issue. Temporal independence of Parish churches. You be sure that there wont be any authentic answer for this question. It can never be answered by MOSC. Because the answer may not be liked by even their own parishes...
- Dear Gleeson Baby
Thank you for posting my message in SOCM. I am also prepared to receive
a series of postings based on this.
I hope you might have noticed my other messages also. If not, please
browse through archives to have an elaborate view.
I have noticed some comments about lack of response from SOCM members
who always post messages on peace. Kindly be informed, this was not
because there were no responses, but it was because Moderators
preferred to disapprove them. However, I respect their voluntary
service to the Church.
Sajy Thannikkottu, Kathmandu
From the desk of Moderators
We always approve messages from both the factions if the messages are constructive. Even when Sajy being an IOC member, we have approved all his messages we received from him and other so called 'message on peace'. However, we can't approve messages or authors who ridicule our church leaders, who are the right succussors of apostolic faith. We have found that people who writes so called 'message on peace' write very dirty languages in other forums against the fathers of the true church. We can't entertain such 'peace lovers' in our forum. 'Peace' in our definition is not surrendering to the Kottayam Catholicose but bringing the peace which existed in the church before the split. This means the church has to remain under the spiritual leadership of Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and can only accept the bishops ordained with approval of him, as the church was before the split. We promote the autonomy of the church but not the autocephaly. We do not entertain the nationality based churches as seen in the Byzantine Orthodox churches which are blindly being imitated in some Oriental Orthodox churches in recent years. We promote a church, which is 'Catholic' in nature and is independent of race, ethnicity or nationality. This was the concept existed in the church before the split. We can't entertain any deviation of truth or historical truths by allowing so called 'messages on peace' which are usually against the truth.