You sound like a very intelligent, rational person. I
appreciate your remarks and your sincerity in seeking
a peaceful resolution to a diffcult situation. You
seem to know much history of the current crisis and
could be a valuable person in the peace process, if
the two groups were to ever come together for such a
meeting. As the saying goes, 'It takes two to tango.'
Peace is not one group over another group. It is
humility and love expressed with selfless concern for
others. The goal must be fair and clear. When and if
the two groups can get to this point, I think we will
begin to see the emergence of the peace process.
If you think I am trying to confuse people, then you
are sadly mistaken. I preach what our Lord preached
'Love and peace' for all. I wonder what you would
have said about our Lord had you been living during
His times. He was a radical speaker during His times.
Many did not like His message. Even today, many in
both churches do not like this message of peace. But,
if we are going to be true followers of Jesus, can
there be any other way? The division of the Holy
Church has been referred to as 'the final wound in the
body of Christ'. Christ can only have (and wants) one
unified body. If we are not going to follow this wish
of His, why bother following anything else. What was
His words? If we fail to keep one of the
commandments, it is as if we have broken them all.
> Anyway iam sure that rev dn would not have done it
> on purpose because there had been some long postings
> from the dn earlier on the need to respect each
> others bishops.
I thank you for pointing out my mistake. It was very
kind of you to not take advantage of the situation as
many would have. It takes real strength of character
to be 'good' as being 'bad' is what comes naturally.
Actually, what I was going to write was 'The Patriarch
and the Catholicose should set up committees�����."
But, because both groups have a 'Catholicose', I
decided to specify which one to not cause confusion.
Here I am referring to an office, not a person,
because more than likely, representatives of 'HH the
Patriarch' and 'HH the Catholicose' would be engaged
in discussion and not necessarly two heads of the
> It seems some people have got up from their sleep
> only now to talk on the need to have unity among the
> two churches. Probably they are in the dark on the
> results of the "dialogues" conducted earlier. I can
> point out atleast 20 peace initiatives which took
> place in the last century. Starting from the peace
> initiatives by HH Ignatious Elias the third at
> uruppampady, alwaye, and panampady. Then there was
?> the "Alwaye dialogue" later. Then there was
> the "Chingavanam round table conference", then there
> was the "palampadom initiaive", to name only a few.
Now, some real points of discussion. Can you briefly
describe these 20 peace initiatives and the pros and
cons of each? Many in this forum may not be aware of
such initiatives. I definitely am not aware. Maybe
we can discuss this and find out where the process
broke (rather than making subjective statements, like
'All of those efforts fell through because IOC was not
sincere in having peace.') and what could have
happened to make the process of peace smoother.
People can then start from these points rather than
starter from scratch.
> Any peace brokered with out attending to the "core
> issues" will fall apart. If we look into the basic
> differences in the community, it centers around two
You mentioned two points of concern. I think these
are legitimate points of concern on the side of the
1. Is the authority of the Patriarch only spiritual
or is it also temporal?
2. Is a parish an autonomous entity that can decide
But in fairness, can you or anyone describe the
legitimate concerns of the Orthodox group?
Let the discussions move to substantiative points
rather than emotional conjecture. Let us learn
Dn George Mathew