|
|
Today for a change we take up a myth prevalent in the Indian Orthodox Church. I strongly believe that knowing the truth is very important for any reconciliation to take place.
The Indian Orthodox Church is de facto (in
reality) autocephalous for the following reasons:
1.) We have been Christians since antiquity, and our church is undoubtedly one
of the oldest in the world.
2.) Our St Thomas tradition lends us the rare status of an apostolic church.
3.) The independent status of our church is unquestionable, but as a result of
the vicissitudes of history, we've had to surrender our independence to foreign
churches several times. We've managed to assert our independence each time, but
we've also lost something in the bargain every time.
4.) Since the time we liberated ourselves from the Roman Catholic Church in
1653, we were in close association with the Syriac Orthodox Church. On our
request, HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II of the above church consecrated a
Catholicos for us in 1912. He also granted to our church all the rights and
privileges of an autocephalous church through two bulls issued on September 17,
1912, and February 19, 1913. Various courts of the land, including the highest
court, have unambiguously affirmed the legality of the same.
5.) We've asserted our autocephalous status many times, and the rest of the
Christian world views us as such. We are in communion with other Oriental
Orthodox Churches, although our relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church has
become strained.
6.) Like other autocephalous churches, the head of our church is answerable to
no other foreign prelate, but only to our own Holy Synod, and his actions are
subject only to our own constitution.
This is the de facto position, but the myth I've listed above concerns the legal
status of the Indian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous entity. In other words,
what is the de jure status?
One of the primary objectives in writing this series was to make a convincing
case for the autocephalous status of the Malankara Church, which I, rather
immodestly, believe to have done. But careful readers would have noticed that
while I spoke about the desirability and quest for autocephaly, I did not say
that the Indian Orthodox Church is legally autocephalous. There's a reason for
this.
The Supreme Court in its 1995 majority judgement (Most Revn P.M.A. Metropolitan
v. Moran Mar Marthoma {AIR 1995 SC 2001}) saw merit in most contentions of the
Indian Orthodox Church. But on two crucial aspects, its verdict gave reasons for
us to pause. One was about the episcopal nature of our church. Since it deserves
a fuller treatment, I am not elaborating.
The second aspect was the court's view on the autocephalous status of our
church. Let us now turn to what the judgement had to say about the autocephalous
status of the Malankara Church. I quote:
"It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to record a finding on the question
whether the Malankara Church is an autocephalous church as claimed by the
plaintiffs. If it is found necessary to do so, we may indicate that we agree
with the finding of the Division Bench recorded in Para 99 of the judgment under
appeal." (source: Justice Jeevan Reddy's majority judgement)
In plain words, the Supreme Court bench says that while it's not giving a ruling
on the matter, if found necessary to do so, it may indicate agreement with the
ruling of the Kerala High Court division bench which had previously studied the
issue. The High Court division bench's ruling on the matter is not found in
Justice Jeevan Reddy's judgement. But fortunately for us, it's recorded in the
minority view of Justice R M Sahai. This is what the high court said:
"We, therefore, hold that the Malankara Church is not an autocephalous church
but is a part or division of the world Orthodox Syrian Church and set aside the
finding of learned single judge that the Catholicos group has now established an
autocephalous Church. We hold that while Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the
World Orthodox Syrian church. Catholics of the East who is subject to the
Constitution is head of the Malankara Church and the relationship between
Patriarchate and the Malankara Church is governed by the provisions of the
Constitution."
From this, we can understand that the Supreme Court of India is inclined to the
view that our church is not legally autocephalous.
The Supreme Court in its majority ruling has hinted at why it was inclined to
take this view: "It is significant to notice that even after the 1967 amendments
to the 1934 Constitution, clause (1) still declares that '(T)he Malankara Church
is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Primate of the Orthodox Syrian
Church is the Patriarch of Antioch'. It is not brought to our notice that this
clause has been amended later so as to repudiate the affirmations contained in
it."
From this what I understand is that the High Court ruled and the Supreme Court
indicated that we are not autocephalous because we ourselves in our 1934
constitution (amended in 1967) declared that "we are a division of the Orthodox
Syrian Church". The matter is not so simple that just by amending the
constitution and removing all references to the Syriac Church our legal status
as an autocephalous church will be confirmed.
Thus, while we are in reality an autocephalous church, as a result of the
conflict within our church, we've been constrained to accept the courts of the
land as the final arbiter. The Supreme Court of India is inclined not to support
our autocephalous status because of the assertions made in our own constitution.
Therefore, we can state that we are a de facto autocephalous church, but not one
de jure.
Instead of being in denial, the challenge before our church leadership would be
to peacefully resolve this issue, even as we maintain our warm relationship with
the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches. In my view, autocephaly through
consensual route could be one way out of the present conflict in our church.
Instead of assuming that the Syriac Church wouldn't grant us the same, we should
first test the assumption either on our own or through the offices of other
Oriental Orthodox Church prelates.
The two Indian churches can then learn to co-exist peacefully, the Indian
Orthodox Church as an autocephalous church, and the Jacobite Church as an
autonomous one having a more umbilical relationship with the Syriac Church.
Georgy in his next article is trying to summarize
his arguments on the autocephaly of the Malankara Church. In the first part he
claims the 'autocephaly de facto'. All these issues raised by him were dealt in
detail in my former articles. So I am not repeating or summarizing the same
here. My arguments can be traced from the respective messages of the forum.
The second part goes to survey the claims of 'autocephaly de jure' based on the
latest Supreme court judgment. He arrives at the following conclusion that the
court did not accept the IOC claim of autocephaly. May be because of the legal
finalities in this issue he has put forwarded an appeal here to achieve
autocephaly through a consensus. You read now his own words and then we will
proceed.
"The Supreme Court of India is inclined not to support our autocephalous status
because of the assertions made in our own constitution. Therefore, we can state
that we are a de facto autocephalous church, but not one de jure. Instead of
being in denial, the challenge before our church leadership would be to
peacefully resolve this issue, even as we maintain our warm relationship with
the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches. In my view, autocephaly through
consensual route could be one way out of the present conflict in our church.
Instead of assuming that the Syriac Church wouldn't grant us the same, we should
first test the assumption either on our own or through the offices of other
Oriental Orthodox Church prelates. The two Indian churches can then learn to
co-exist peacefully, the Indian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous church, and
the Jacobite Church as an autonomous one having a more umbilical relationship
with the Syriac Church."
But Georgy has to remember that the reasons de facto mentioned were also
presented and pleaded before the trial court and the higher courts. But all the
courts flatly denied these claims. Anyone who glance through the affidavit filed
in the main case show that the main plea was centered in aiming declaration to
this effect. I am happy that the IO readers are told directly by one of their
diligent expositors that the court has not accepted their plea to declare
themselves autocephalous. The Malankara Church is not autocephalous de jure
because it is not autocephalous de facto.
Anyone going into the basic reason of the split in Malankara can beyond doubt
arrive at the conclusion that it was nothing other than the claim of autocephaly
declared by Augen Bava on Sept. 26, 1972. ( See the full text of the declaration
in my book, 'Perumpilly Thirumeni', pp 91-92) The litigation started on June 6,
1974 was also for declaring this autocephalous nature of the church and for a
declaration in favor of the Malankara Metropolitan to be the spiritual,
ecclesial and temporal authority over all properties of the Malankara church and
its parishes. Georgy should also note that the 1995 judgment of the SC of India
also make it clear that the parish churches and its properties were not all
affected by any of the findings of the apex court and that the Catholicose,
Malankara Metropolitan nor the diocesan Metropolitan has no authority over its
temporalities. The case was to declare the opposite. I hope you will accept this
also in the future. For fear of prolonging any further I am not going into the
other points dealt by the supreme court.
2.Let me try to concentrate on a very practical suggestion forwarded at the end
of the above quote from Georgy to make an end to these war and rift. I request
Georgy to propose a few guidelines to achieve the proposal. How can we arrive at
this peaceful co existence ? Can you persuade the litigation maniacs at your
church head quarters to accept this?
Your proposal is a ray of hope to end the rift and rivalry in our community. I
am sure SOC will accept this and has already declared its willingness to this
effect. The recent incidents of the reopening of parish churches prove this type
of peaceful co existence will be readily and willingly accepted by our people at
large. Moreover it is now clear that the real problems and fights are not
originated from among the people. They were mere puppets and tools in the hands
of the leadership. People wanted their churches to opened and the worship
services to be continued there. They are now least bothered about issues like
'autocephaly de facto or de jure'. So let us take an initiative at a larger
perspective to arrive at a conclusion put forwarded by you, if you can convince
your leaders. I don't even find the need of any mediators to implement this. If
the intentions are made very clear like this statement of yours it need no
intervention of the OO leaders or any other.
The declaration of the Mulanthuruthy Association 2005 under the president ship
of H.H. the Patriarch unequivocally declared that the SOC is willing to accept
IO as a sister church. I think it contains all your suggestions. I will add that
this is the only way out for the IO to become an 'autocephalous' church. The SOC
also will be at the gaining point that it will be fairly allowed to progress
without hindrance in its endeared ties with the Patriarchate of Antioch.
In this line we can resolve the petty issues magnified through the media as the
great 'war' between the two divisions in a great and glorious community. I
appeal all through this posting to pray for the success of the proposal made
here by Georgy. I would also like to remind about the failure(?) of the mission
carried out by the V. Rev. Dr. P.S. Samuel Corepiscopa, NY around this line
about year back. We had good reports of his mission till he went to India, but
nothing was heard after his return. So I find strong pressures of the (vested)
interested groups behind the perpetuation of rifts and keeping live issues.
To read Georgy in his full text please click to the following link.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianOrthodox/message/11301
Next: Myth 6: The Catholicos of the Jacobite faction in India is the no.2 in the universal Syriac Church.
Faith Home | History | Inspirational Articles | Essays | Sermons | Library - Home | Baselios Church Home
-------
Malankara World
A service of St. Basil's Syriac Orthodox
Church, Ohio
Copyright © 2009-2020 - ICBS Group. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer
Website designed, built, and hosted by
International Cyber Business Services, Inc., Hudson, Ohio
