Aurangabad Church should be governend as per 1934 Constitution of MOSC: Mahaloadalat

Written By: on Sep 20th, 2011 and filed under Columns, Opinions.

The Mahalokadalat held at Charity Commissioner office, Aurangabad, on Sunday, September 18 , 2011, declared that St Mary’s Orthodox Church, Aurangabad should be governend as per 1934 Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

This is a great victory for our Church, especially during the time of Our Bava Thirumeni’s fasting at Kolencherry for implementing our 1934 Constitution in Kolencherry Church, and is the fruit of prayer and fasting done by our beloved Bava Thirumeni.


St Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Aurangabad was established in 2005 and in the year 2005 itself, the Church have been registered as a trust in the Assistant Charitable Commissioner Office, Aurangabad, under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 bearing registration No. E 1079 dated 17-12-2005.
It should be noted that most of the parishes outside Kerala Dioceses are registered as Trusts according to the local situations. Only by doing this, the Parishes are accepted and recognized by the respective state or Government. As the law of the land, this type of registration was allowed by the Holy Episcopal Synod of the Church.

Since all the parishes are bound by the rules and regulations laid in the Constitution of 1934, the same constitution should be reproduced and submitted before the Honorable Charity Commissioner. It is allowed to prepare and formulate according local situations but cannot change any rules and regulations laid in the Constitution of 1934. That means even though the Parish is registered as a public Trust, the Parish should governed and ruled by the articles and traditions of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

Unfortunately, the Scheme submitted by St.Marys Orthodox Syrian Church, Aurangabad before the Honorable Charity Commissioner in the year 2005 was with many contradictions with the Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Some of the articles in the trust deed No.E 1079 are entirely against the rules and regulations laid in the constitution of 1934. According to the registered deed, the power of general management of the Parish was vested in Parish Managing Committee and not with the General Body. The Management committee have the right to expel any of the parish member, without the permission of General body, Diocesan Metropolitan and even the Malankara Metropolitan. The Trust law empowered them to sell or lease any of the property of the Church either by the Auction or by private contract. This trust deed made many administrative and operational constrains in almost all the parishes outside Kerala.

With the view to overcome this administrative crisis and operational constrains the General Body meeting of the Parish on 19th April, 2009, unanimously passed the resolution amending the clauses of the existing rules and regulations of the Trust deed E. 1079. The said General Body proposed amendment, with signature of Diocesan Metropolitan and copy of the resolution were submitted to the Charity Commissioner office. But some of the Parishioners were against this amendment and they gave appeal against the decision of the General Body and of Diocesan Metropolitan, before the Charity Commissioner. Thus the litigations started.

Court Verdit

By the grace of God, and I believe, this verdict mainly because prayer and fasting of Our Bava, His Holiness Baselius Marthoma Paulose II. We got this verdict, completely in favour of our Church.

Main points of the verdict are fallowing:-

1.St.Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church, Aurangabad should be governed as per 1934 Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Church, which was approved by Honorable Supreme Court of India.

2. The problematic clauses of Trust Deed become invalid and the Charity Commission will produce a new Scheme as per the 1934 Constitution and the back bone of this Scheme will be the 1934 constitution.

Fr.Thomas Philipose is the Asst. Vicar of Aurangabad St Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church

Click For More Articles By:

Readers are welcome to leave their thoughts and reflections below by posting a comment on this topic.
(No Ratings Yet)

Email This Post Email This Post

Print This Post Print This Post

Disclaimer: Indian Orthodox Herald does not moderate or edit the comments posted in this column. All opinions are solely of the writers and IOH holds no responsibility what so ever for the views written here below.

15 Responses for “Aurangabad Church should be governend as per 1934 Constitution of MOSC: Mahaloadalat”

  1. It is a clear example of the validity of 1934 Constitution of the Church. Good. Thank God

  2. Reni Daniel says:


    The arguemtn goes Christians should n’t take anothe rChristian to court
    (1 Corinthians 6:1-8).
    But who is the Christian here?
    is is the Hon’be judge of the Supreme Court who ruled that the CHURCH IS ONE


    Is it the so calle CHRISTIAN who says DIVIDE THE CHURCH?


    WISE KING Solomon said this before Jesus said it while he walked on earth.
    Now all the foreugn linked Curches want to divide the Church ‘to make peace’

  3. Mr Saji George’s opportunistic statements/arguments brings to my mind the words of one of the women who approached King Solomon claiming the motherhood of the living child “ok divide the child let us both have a ‘living’ half “.

  4. Reni Daniel says:

    The intention of Saji is divsion of the Chuch.. Mr Saji, your divisive mind is working against the spirit of Christ who calls for unity.

    The Supreme Court judgment 1995 upholds the unity of the Church.
    But satan is inspiring many among us to divide the body of Christ and they hate the Hon’ble judges calling for unity, spaking the same words which Chirst uttred 2000 years ago.

  5. saji george says:

    I am not supporting any factio. What I want to tell finally is stop all these court litigations and fighting and divide the church as per the majority. By doing these fightings, both factions are loosing your young generation who are least interested. All these fights are created to protect the interest of few people, majority of which are bishops and priests from both parties.

  6. Dear Mr Shaji George,

    Would you mind explaining what you really mean by “the whole world” ?
    A few hundred thousand people in India and a few thousand in Syria and elsewhere ? As far as the whole RC community in the world is concerned I wonder how many even have heard about your so called ‘successor of St Peter’

    I quote Rev Fr Mathai Edayanal and challenge you to produce atleast one truthful statement to support any of the claims of the Patriarchal faction.

  7. Fr.Thomas says:

    here iam not interested in involving the issue regarding the pratriachal supremacy.that is another isssue.pls come to the point. and post ur opinions regarding the issue highlighed in the above arritcle,i hope shebaly achen can write something about the above mentioned issue. i tried to point out importance of the supremacy of 1934 constitution over all churches, which belongs to malankara orthodox church.our churches through out the world should be govern as per the rules and regulations laid down in the 1934 constitution.we shuld notallow the parishes to formulate thier own constitutions to safe guard their own vested is very sad to see that, some of our parishes in outside kerela dioceses are violating the instruction of holy episcopal synod, when they are formulating trusts should not be allowed and all the problematic deeds should amend asper 1934 constitution.

  8. Reni Daniel says:




  9. Reni Daniel says:

    Mr Saji George,
    Patriach is not the authority that appoints the priest in any church. It is the Dicesan Metropolitan who has been consecrated accordiing to the 1934 constituion. The Patriaach is NO extra constitutional authority and can only work as the 1934 Constitution stipulates.

    There are 5 people who now claim to be the legitimate successor of St Peter in that part..
    The Constitution of the Antioch Church says that the Patrich should be a person well-versed in Arabic Literature. Was St Peter an Arab and what about his knowledge of Arabic literature. So the constititution of the Antyoch Churhc should be declared RACIAL as it contains many clauses that desciminates its members on thebasis of one’s racial status. The Patriach has himself violated teh 1934 Constittion by apointing a parael Patriach and many other bishops.

    The Supreme Court decree of 1995 says the power of Patriach in Malankara has reached a vanishing point. Now as reputed NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE reports the Arab Church is also vanioshing.

    There is no doubt that the Chuch in Antioch will vanish and it is not our interest to link our Chuch with the Arab Church

  10. At this juncture may I bring a related matter to the attention of all concerned. From the Dutch/Potrugese/Btirish involvement in our Country, satan has used many forces/entities to fragment our Great Church. The recent opinion from an RC bishop that the fasting of our Bava Thitumeni and the Doicesan Bishop wast not “christianly” , I have one advice “hey bro take the twig out of your eye so that you could see the dust in your friend’s eye”

  11. Editor says:

    Dear Saji:

    1 The Malankara Church is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch.

    2 The Malankara Church was founded by St.Thomas the Apostle and is included in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is the Catholicos.

    these are the 2 articles in MOSC constitution.

    According to the constitution HH patriarch of Antioch is the the primate of Orthodox Syrian Church. This church comes under Malankara and there is a primate for the church in article 2.

    So the answer is very simple.

    Point no. 2:
    The patriarchal group was a part of Malankara till 2002. Supreme court of India ordered to conduct the 2002 Malankara Association. It was held under the supervision of Justice Malimad. 4 Bishops and many priests and churches participated in the Malankara Association and united with the Malankara Church.

    A set of people under HB Thomas seperated from the church and the same day the formed another group and parted with Malankara Church. This is a separate church and a society now. If the HH Patriarch is with this group, he does not come under the constitution article No.1

    Do not be confused.

  12. saji george says:

    Here there is a hitch. As per 1934 constitution, HH Patrairch of Antioc is the supreme spiritual head and those priest approved by him only can do spirtual service in the church. …….. So please dont complicate the issue and there is no dispute for this church (I think so……) from Jacobites. So it is an internal issue and please dont publicise these things and precipitate issues again

  13. Yes, this is one of THE major internal problem of our Church, especially in the outside Kerala.We can find, this type of deeds in many of our parishes.We have to understand that, we are the part of a one Holy Body, and and we do not have a separate existence.Even the Supreme court of India accept that, there is only one Malankara orthodox church, only one Catholicos and it should be governed by 1934 constitution. Then how we can made different deeds, to safe guard our own vested interests? It should not be allowed.Now Aurangabad judgement is a magnacrata of our church.With the help of this judgement, we can amend all the problematic deeds existing in our parishes.I appeal to all our church members, if any clauses existing against 1934 constitution, in our registered deeds, please take initiative to amend the deeds and please produce the true copy of 1934 constitution before the charity commissioners. Once, the charity commissioners became aware of 1934 constitution, especially it was approved by the supreme court of India, surely they will allow to amend the existing clauses, which are seen against of 1934 constitution in registered deed.hope this judgement, and hope that above article will lead to a healthy discussion, so that it will create awareness among our church members.

  14. John says:

    This is the internal problem.

  15. Reni Daniel says:

    There is only one Church constitution that has teh approval the apex court of India. No other established church has this system of Episcopacy coupled with democracy. But unfortunately our peopel are unaware of our strengths and unique status.. Unfortunately our leadership too miserably faiel in this mission to educate our people.

    I think our HH Bava Thirumeni’s fasting has changed everything. So we have to know our worth, God is using our bava thirumeni to bless us all. I humbly request our synod to produce a booklet to educate the faithful on the uniquenss of the Church.

    may I congratulate our Aurangabad St Mary’s Orthodox Syrian Church members, managing committe and vicars of the Church.

    Our respectful congratulations to Fr.Thomas Philipose for sharingthis goodnews with us.

Leave a Reply

Advertisement CLICK HERE

Photo Gallery

Log in / © 2002-2009 BMM Creations Inc. All Rights Reserved.