Kottayam Mahasammelanam & need for peace

There are several articles that summarize the recent 'Mahasammelanam' (big meeting? big rally? not sure of the direct translation) in Kottayam, organized by the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in response to the kalpana (letter) of HH Baselios Marthoma Didymos I

I've intentionally stayed away from this topic on this blog, as honestly all this never made sense to me even as a little kid. It's very clear in the Gospels that real-estate or wealth does not bring the faithful closer to Christ. More to the point, from Mathew 5:23-24,

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

Can't be any clearer than that! Of course, even during the days of the Apostles there were disputes and quarrels, and the egos and pride of man inevitably will be a constant distraction in our Christian world.

So, typically I avoid these topics .. however, this morning read on ICON a wonderful summary of the dispute written by Mr. Suraj Iype.

I copied the entire post below for those of you who are not members of ICON, and made bold font of the most eloquent and insightful question from the post that I pray the leaders of both sides of the faction asks God for wisdom and guidance as no-one is benefiting from this quarrel.

Re: Supreme Court Judgment

Dear Johnachen,

Seeking your blessings.

I have to put on record the time and effort put in by Rev Fr KK John to help me understand the complexities of the current dispute. Without achen's kind help and affection, I would still be doubtful about where I stand. With achen's permission, I would like to pen some of my thoughts in response, Barekmor.

Father has raised a good point about the implementation of the Supreme Court verdicts in full. I would suggest that everybody spend some time to read the majority and minority verdicts of the Supreme Court. It is important to be informed before judging.

In my reading, the Cochin Award, the Seminary case, the Vattipanam Case, the Samudayam case, the suits for MD schools and Bethany parishes, the verdicts of 1995 and 2002 have all followed in logical conclusion to each other providing clarity regarding the administrative foundations of our Church.

The last final and binding verdict of the court cannot be said to be a 100% victory for the Malankara Orthodox Church (ex rights of the EAE and Simhasana churches were protected by the court), however it is true that overwhelmingly the stand of MOSC was vindicated, the position of Malankara Metropolitan recognised and the 1934 constitution accepted. The verdict clearly laid down the road map for union to take place, provided people were ready for it. The unilateral withdrawal of one party from the process of reconciliation is undoubtedly the cause of the present muddle; why
that hapenned is also known to all of us.

What role did affection for the Patriarchal Throne play in the failure of negotiations after 1995 and 2002?

The answer to the above question clearly shows where the roots of the present dispute lie. Was not affection and loyalty to the Petrine Throne used ex post facto to justify the failure of negotiations?

The Court's acceptance of the role of the Patriarch vis a vis the Malankara Church, the position of the Catholicos, and the validation of the 1934 constitution has meant that we have a definite base and foundation for accepting the Patriarch. This removes the need for us to rely on contradicted histories and emotions, and there was a chance to make a new start.

However, when we have a situation where a forged copy of the Holy Canons of the Church as codified by Catholicos Gregorios al Faraj (the Hudoyo) is printed and passed off as genuine in contrast to the authentic translation by Konatt Abraham Malpan, and legal loopholes are used to avoid accepting the 1934 constitution by the same people who have submitted sworn affidavits in court accepting the same constitution to protect their positions as Metropolitans, there is very little scope for real progress. There is perhaps no other Orthodox Church which has so blatantly gone back on the granting of autocephaly as has been done by the Syrian Church. The Patriarch arrived in India and enthroned Moran Baselius Augen as Catholicos, then excommunicated the Catholicos on flimsy and heretical grounds and then raised a new Maphrianate (though whether the privelages of the same were given to the new Indian Maphrian are extremely doubtful).

From the liturgical point of view,in my limited understanding, there is no need to remove the name of the Patriarch from the diptychs as a sign of our independence. Strictly speaking is it not unnecessary for any local church to commemorate any hierarch except the Diocesan Episcopa?

The Diocesan Bishop in his person represents the fullness of the Apostolic Charism, just as each local church represents the fullness of the Catholic and Orthodox Church.
It is through the person of the Bishop that communion with rest of the Church is established. However, in almost all Churches it is now a practice to remember in the diptychs diocesan, national and other prelates in communion.

In the West Syrian Church in the middle east, Pope Mar Shenouda of the Coptic Church is also remembered in the Tubden. That does not mean that the West Syrian Church of Antioch is in anyway subordinate to the Alexandrine See. (What it represents is that Moran Ignatius and Moran Shenouda are patriarchs of the same Church, although each governs the flock in that geographical location that each has been assigned by Christ).

So the diptychs in themselves just represent the bonds of communion that tie each local Orthodox church with other local churches which together represent the One Orthodox Church. We are in communion with other local Orthodox churches(The Armenian Church, The Coptic Church, the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches), although the Syrian Patriarchate has excommunicated some of our Fathers, though we have not issued any
counter excommunication against them. When both the Syrian and the Indian Churches remain in communion with the other Orthodox Churches and thus share in the same Chalice (disregarding the instances of concelebration like the one between Mar Severios Zaka and Mar Paulos Gregorios), how can the bonds of communion be then said to have been completely broken? We are indeed now in a state of estrangement and impaired communion, but can we say that communion is broken definitively and eternally?

For e.g., there were long periods when the Chalcedonians of Constantinople failed to remember the Chalcedonian Pope of Rome even while remaining in communion and vice versa.

So remembering Moran Ignatius in the diptych is not necessarily a liturgical anomaly. If the Church decides to reflect on the current realities by removing the Patriarch of Antioch's name from the diptych and include the name of other hierarchs we are in communion with, there is nothing wrong with that either. But that does not prevent the re-inclusion of Mor Ignatius into the diptych as and when communion is re-established in its fullness.

In my personal opinion, remembering Mor Ignatius in the diptych acts first as a reminder to all of us about the need to re-establish reconciliation and peace in the Malankara Church. It helps the Church remember its priorities. There is no canonical justification for the existence of two Orthodox Churches in Kerala, and what could be more unfortunate than for us to come to see this anomaly as normal.

We all want to put this unfortunate and difficult situation behind and move ahead. That is a normal human response, but is that the Orthodox response? Is not all this similar to King Solomon and the unfortunate baby? What lessons should we draw from that?

As a member of the MOSC, I do not believe that we have done anything new or radical, our position from the time of the Vattipanam case has really not changed. Had our position and arguments changed, the verdict of 1995 and 2002 would not have been in our favour; so there cannot be a question of us doing what the Marthomites did: leaving our heritage behind and starting afresh. It is in fact my opinion that using the Patriarch of Antioch, it is the Patriarchal faction that chose to try and begin afresh at Puthencruz.

What the Marthomites did reflects their understanding of ecclessiology and what it means for them to constitute a church. Same cannot be said to apply for us.

As an aside, I think all of us should reflect on what we really desire. Do we desire unity in Malankara or do we merely desire to win this dispute? If we desire unity, then we should obviously understand that merely having parishes and hierarchs submit to the constitution will not bring unity. That is why the unity of 1958 eventually proved so fragile. People and their emotions have to be handled too, the failings of the MOSC are not with regards to facts and figures,
it is in our inability to reach out to the common man on the other side. As we reach the milestone of 50 years after 1958, should we not think also about what we lack and work on it?

C Suraj Iype, Sivasagar, Assam.

On an aside, it sure would be wonderful if Mr Suraj one day begins to blog :)