2002 Parumala Association â Facts - Malankara Syriac Voice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

But this proposed meeting was postponed to 20 th Dec 2001. In the letter sent from Bangalore on 10 th Dec 2001 informing about this change of date, J. Mulimutt asked Mor Divannasios (HB Mor Baselios Thomas I) to send his objections and suggestions to reach him before 18 th Dec 2001. Accordingly Mor Divannasios (HB Mor Baselios Thomas I) sent him a letter in four pages raising nine points which were our contentions. In between, Mathews II had sent a notice kalpana on 15th Dec 2001 to churches which was also published in Malayala manorama ( Malayala manorama of 15th Dec 2001, KTM edition, pg 9 ). The meeting was held at Kottayam on 20th Dec 2001 and representatives of both factions were present in the meeting. The first point raised was the usage of St. Thomas throne in Mathews II’s Kalpana and the usage of Malankara Metropolitan in the same Notice kalpana of 15th Dec. The relevant Supreme Court order in which Mathews II was asked to call the association by name was shown to the observer and he accepted our contention. After this initial problem was solved, the main issue of the actual conduct of the association meeting was taken up.. At this stage, we have to explain our main contentions and the reasons for the same a bit in detail for proper understanding... 1. Even before the first meeting took place between the concerned parties in the presence of the observer on 20th December, the Methran Kakshis had already gone ahead with the preparations and issuing Notice Kalpanas ( 15th Dec) to Churches and in newspapers. At this juncture, it is very important to understand that, the Supreme Court had ruled in its verdict that all elections and the office bearers elected in both factions held after 1971 are only partial and they are not representative of the whole church. While this directive of the court was in force, Methran Kakshis went ahead with making arrangements for the association meeting as per the ' Nadapadi Chattam ' passed unilaterally by them on 1 st June 1989 even before both parties had met. So in the beginning itself Methran Kakshis were going ahead on their own without taking us into confidence. 2. The unrealistic dates for the election process. The last date on which we were asked to report on the membership of each parish based on which the number of
epresentatives were to be decided was 20th Dec 2001 which in itself was unrealistic. The notice kalpana was issued on 15th Dec, Saturday. Even if the next day all membership was finalized and sent on Monday the 17th itself, reaching Kottayam from all the parishes before 20th was unrealistic. 3. Next was the issue of the number of churches to be represented. Definitely every parish has the right for representation. But we have to consider the issue within the context of the church feud and the reasons that led to this association meeting. This association meeting was a culmination of the church case which started in 1975. The Supreme Court had clearly and unambiguously directed that any further action was to be taken on the basis of the situation on 1st Jan 1971. So going by the Supreme Court verdict, it was only natural that the number of churches to be considered for this association meeting was 1064 churches as in the original suit. The churches built by both factions post 1971 could always join the association formed in 2002 and that was the right way to go ahead. a. The same Supreme Court has also ruled that the Knanaya churches, Simhasana churches, EAE churches and Honnavar mission churches are out of the purview of the Malankara Association and under the control of the Patriarch directly. It plainly means these churches have nothing to do with Malankara association or Malankara metropolitan. So deducting those churches the remaining number of churches to which Kalpanas had to be sent were only 913 churches. The Methran Kakshis had filed a case during this time in Thrissur munsiff court asking for a stay on the Knanaya association elections. The court rejected the appeal saying that the 1934 constitution is not applicable to Knanaya diocese until and unless they decide so. We have mentioned this here just to let you know what the legal system considered as proper in 2001/2002. Now, instead of sending Kalpanas to 913 churches Mathews II claimed 1650 churches were to participate in the association. Let us make a realistic analysis of the situation in Kerala. Even if we ignore the number of people who have left the church and joined the Pentecostal groups, there has been no considerable proportionate increase in the membership of the church. When there is no considerable increase in the membership of the church how is it that, in 25 years the number of churches increased by 600 Almost 50 %. Is this is realistically possible So something really fishy had happened in deciding the number of churches by the Methran Kakshis.
Page 1: 2002 Parumala Association - Facts T
Page 5 and 6: 6. It was not made clear who would
Page 7 and 8: Means, one single church could send
Page 9: 18. Mangalam - 22nd march 2202.....

2002 Parumala Association â Facts - Malankara Syriac Voice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

2002 Parumala Association â Facts - Malankara Syriac Voice