Is The Catholicate Of The Romo-Syrians In India Canonically Genuine Or Bogus?
Misuse of the Titles ‘Catholicose’ ‘Malankara Metropolitan’ ‘Throne of St.Thomas’ evident from the following Websites of the Malankara Catholic Rite
Since our last cybercast critically reviewing the so-called Catholicate of the Romo-Syrians in India we have received many reactions from our readers. We do not have the time to elaborately analyze them for responses. However, we attempt to address some of the concerns.
Romo-Syrians?
Why did we coin the term “Romo-Syrians”, instead of “Syrian Catholic”? Actually this writer did not coin this term. British writers dealing with this group of Christians in Keralam had already used this term long before this writer was born! However, we give an honest response, and it is true.
The popes used to sign the official documents of the Roman Catholic Church with the title “Episcopus Ecclesiae Romanae Catholicae” (Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church). This used to be the official signature of the popes in the past. Here, the word Episcopus (bishop) signified not just the bishop of the Diocese of Rome, but the head (overseer) of the Roman Catholic Church including the uniates. We believe the Roman Catholic Syrians were and are members of this Church, and are under the Roman Pope? Can they deny this fact?
The Romo-Syrians do profess the faith and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. In the Fundamental Theology textbooks of the Roman Church, the authors have always highlighted the name of the Church as Roman Catholic Church. It is reported that Father Anastasius, a professor of theology at the Pontifical Institute of Theology at Alwaye, Keralam, four decades ago, believed and taught if one deliberately avoided the word “Roman“ when referring to the Church, he would be a heretic! Further, he also condemned the Melkite Patriarch Maximos of Antioch to purgatory because the Patriarch did deliberately speak in French in disobedience to Pope John XXIII who directed participants to use Latin in the Second Vatican Council! If the Romo-Syrians accept the Pope of Rome as their supreme head and follow the Roman Faith why are they ashamed of using the term “Roman” with their name? We believe that the Orthodox are the true Catholics according to the definition of the term”Catholic” as understood by the Fathers of the Council of Nicea who identified and established the four notes of the Church. Therefore the Roman Church does not really qualify for the note of catholicity, as understood by the Council of Nicea.
In connection with this consideration, let me focus on the megalomania of Rome claiming to be the trend-setter of every area of knowledge, although on the majority of cases they were all false. There are many Roman Catholic scholars (?), who think that whatever is spit by Rome is ultimate and authentic, and many of them come from India, and they generally think that scholarship and erudition are the monopoly of the Roman Church, when the truth is that Rome accepts a scholarship that tries to vindicate its claims. In the area of fixing names for a group or a movement, Rome seems to act that it is her prerogative to set names for Churches. Until the Second Vatican Council (1960’s), the phrase “Roman Catholic” was arbitrarily imposed on a follower of the Pope of Rome, and was accepted by everyone without complaint. But the delegates from Middle Eastern and other non-pro-western countries were not happy with that phrase because it reflected a stigma attached to religious colonialism and, to an extent, political colonialism (because Roman religious colonialism is an offshoot of political colonialism). This was one of the reasons why Melkite Patriarch Maximos of Antioch refused to use Latin on the Council floor although he was fluent in that language (instead, he used a popular modern language- French). In order to eliminate the stigma of religious colonialism, justifications to avoid the phrase were found in the New Testament, such as, the Church of Corinth, Church of Galatia, Church of Colossia, Church of Philippia, Church of Smyrna, Church of Thessalonica, etc. Council members from predominantly Orthodox countries pressed this New Testament idea in name coining because they wanted to emphasize that they were still part of the national Church although not spiritually dependent on them.
The Roman Catholic Syrians of the Malankara Rite are the most recent uniate group within the Roman faith, and from its inception in 1930 Archbishop Ivanios deliberately shied away from using the word Roman to his group due to many reasons. Strictly speaking, this writer thinks that he was not dogmatically enamored of the Roman doctrines (about this fact this writer had written in 1966 with evidence as expressed in our previous section of this series). He wanted to present his group as a genuinely eastern group, but definitely needed the financial and legal back up for his personal agenda from an ancient church, which just happened to be Rome. Rome also had its agenda and it used Bishop Ivanios to realize those agenda, which still Rome continues to do through the group initiated by Ivanios. Ivanios was not unhappy about using the word “Catholic”, but was opposed to using the word “Roman”.
On the contrary, the so-called Chaldean (now Malabarese) Roman Catholics were proud of calling themselves Roman Catholics (I have seen school documents of many students verifying this fact). However, Vatican II influenced them also to a new direction seeking an ethnic or national identity like any other eastern churches. In this process of seeking self-identity scholars of both the so-called Chaldean Roman Catholics and the Malankarese Syrian Catholics following Roman agenda, coined two innovative phrases to signify their groups. Although Malankara and Malabar were former names of the southwest part of India, and they both meant the same, each of these groups began to be recognized based on these names. In the mid-1960’s the ecclesiastical and liturgical status of the Roman Catholic Syrians (belonging to the Nestorian rite) was restored (?). (This is a joke, readers. Some of the ancient Nestorian-based liturgical books were brought on surface, and were translated into Malayalam. Vernacularization was the only reform that took place there. Other than that they act like Roman Catholics, their bishops and priests vest like the Romans except for the cope, they have an unbearded clergy, their wedding has no crowning, and the church life is totally western and Roma. The Rosary, the Way of the Cross and the Eucharistic Procession and Benediction are their most important exercises of piety. Their Major Archbishop Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil was totally vested like Roman Catholic Cardinal during the recent conclave to elect the pope unlike three other two other uniate cardinal who looked basically eastern in their vestments! We have to dedicate another editorial for them).
With the so-called restoration came a new name for them, probably as suggested by the scholars of liturgy and history of their Church. Thus the so-called Roman Catholic Chaldean Syrians were renamed the Syro-Malabar Catholic Rite, and the group started by Bishop Ivanios, who defected from Orthodoxy, was rechristened with the name “Syro-Malankara Catholic Rite”, because its close affinity with the name, Malankara. These names went through changes again. There was another movement demanding the status of a Church for them. Thus the word, Rite, was dropped, and it was replaced with the word, Church. Thus we had two Roman Eastern Churches in India, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. The confusion did not end there! Was the Church of Galatia, or the Church of Corinth called the Catholic Church of Corinth or the Catholic Church of Galatia? No! “Let us change the names again”, Rome must have mandated, or these groups must have demanded. Now these churches are without a “Catholic” character. They are now simply Syro-Malabar Church and Syro-Malankara Church! God! When a church goes through such a crisis of identity, what kind of character does it possess? Is it independent, self-governed, or genuine at all? This is what happens when you submit yourself as a slave before a foreign lord. He calls you with different names according his pleasure and mood. Yes, Rome has the ultimate authority to give you a name, and you accept it with deep devotion.
How could these groups deny that they are “Roman” Catholics? Let me ask the following:
* Do they not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son (the filioque clause) as taught by the Roman Church?
* Do they not believe that the epiklesis is not important for the elemental change in the Eucharist? Why do the unites still deeply bow before the elements immediately after the words of institution?
* Do they not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, the Mother of God?
* Do they not believe in purgatory and indulgences?
* Do they not follow the Roman Catholic practice of Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction, which are antithetical to the theology of the Eucharist according to Eastern theology?
* Is not their spirituality fundamentally Roman, which is anchored on rosaries, the way of cross, Marian devotions outside the liturgy, etc.?
* Do not they keep and encourage the Roman discipline of a celibate (?) clergy which is totally antithetical to the life of the Church according to Eastern theology?
* Do not they give assent to the Roman heresies of papal primacy and infallibility?
If these groups follow and accept the above mentioned Roman doctrines, how could they be anything but Roman Catholic? Yes, they are Roman Catholic Syrians.
Just before the new Pope, Benedict XVI, was presented to the faithful waiting in the St. Peter’s Square, the Proto-Deacon of the College of Cardinals, Jorge Arturo Cardinal Medina Estevez , came onto the Loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica and announced in Latin:
“Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam, Eminentissimum ac Reverentissimum Dominum, Dominum Iosephum, Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger, qui sibi nomen impisuit BENEDICTUM XVI”
Do not you belong to the Holy Roman Catholic Church that Cardinal Medina Estevez is referring to? Why are you ashamed of using the word, Roman with your name? Or is there a hidden agendum for not using the word, Roman, with your name? There are many churches other than the Roman Catholic Church that constantly use the adjective “Catholic” with their names, including the Anglican Church which is a Protestant Church. Some orthodox churches also use “Catholic” with their names. When all these churches are claiming to be Catholic, it is ludicrous to claim that catholicity is the sole property of the Roman Church. Let us be honest: the only character the Church of Rome can claim for itself is its Romanness, which no other Church tries to claim for itself. When we call the follower of the Roman Church a Roman Catholic, we are indeed more charitable to our brother who follows the faith of the Roman Church!
First of all our readers should know that a major archbishop is not the equivalent of a Catholicos or Patriarch. The title of Major Archbishop is a Roman term to signify the head of a semi-independent Roman Catholic national church. I used the word, ‘semi-independent’, because no major archiepiscopate is totally autonomous in the strictest sense like any other national orthodox churches. A Roman Catholic major archiepiscopate is legally under the jurisdiction of the Pope, who has universal jurisdiction over every part of the Roman Church. A major archbishop is mandated to send his periodic reports to the pope and his Congregation of the Oriental Rites (now Churches!). He acts only in accordance with the Oriental code of canon laws accepted by Rome. So there is no such thing as independence. Even a Uniate Patriarch has no independent authority, or otherwise called autocephaly.
Catholicos means universal or common head of a national Church, which is a Patriarchal rank in the East. Important primatial sees within the territories of the Roman Empire were recognized with patriarchates, the heads of which were patriarchs. Heads of primatial sees outside the Roman Empire were called Catholicoi; both a patriarch and Catholicos signified the same canonical ecclesiastical position. The Catholicos of the East was and is a Patriarch, just like the popes of Rome and Alexandria are also Patriarchs. This is very clear in the first diptych of the Syrian Church, where we pray for the living spiritual fathers. We read as follows: “Let us pray for … our holy, revered and blessed Patriarchs (see the plural here) our Farther Mor Ignatius, our Father Mor Basilios, and our Father Mor Gregorios…” This is taken from original Syriac texts. Of course when Patriarch Yakub III of Antioch started his innovative agendum to minimize the functions of the Catholicos in order to make him his suffragan, his group began to use the singular to denote just the Patriarch of Antioch.
When the Orthodox Catholicos of the East, who was a patriarchal functionary, became a Nestorian, there was need for an Orthodox occupant for that See. When an Orthodox Catholicos was reinstalled with the effort and cooperation of the Patriarch of Antioch, he named him, not a Catholicos, but a Mafriano, who is the suffragan of the Patriarch. But the Catholicos of the East independently enthroned by the Holy Synod of Malankara is not a suffragan of any patriarch, but the national head of an autocephalous Church, who enjoys all patriarchal functions de jure and de facto like the Catholicos of the East before the Nestorian heresy. Archbishop Cyril Basilios and his group do not understand this clearly. What the archbishop understood is what Patriarch Zakka I had done the installation of Basilios Thomas I, who is erroneously called the Catholicos of the East by the dissident group that follows the latter. This writer has investigated on this matter very thoroughly. He inquired about it with Syrian leaders in the Middle East and in America. They emphatically state that Patriarch Zakka I has not installed a Catholicos of the East; he installed just a MAFRIANO. Actually the dissident group in India might not understand the difference between a Catholicos and a Mafriano. Archbishop Cyril Basilios got into the same trap or he is just pretending that both functionaries are the same.
When Rome establishes a major archiepiscopate, it does it because it cannot offer anything more than that. For example, the Romo-Ukrainians are demanding for their own Patriarchate parallel to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Kiev. Rome, instead, gave them a major archiepiscopate, and emphatically denied a Patriarchate as long as there exists an Orthodox Patriarchate. The only exception considered is when the Orthodox Patriarch becomes a uniate, and under this circumstance there will be continuity for the uniate Patriarchate. However, it is said that the Ukrainian uniates claim that they possess a Patriarchate de facto. Similarly, it is reported that the Syro-Malabar Roman Catholics are demanding for their own Patriarchate, but Rome is reluctant to give in because there exists an Orthodox Catholicate in India, which is of a patriarchal rank. However, it is speculated that they might get it, because the existing Catholicate does not belong to their ecclesiastical and liturgical traditions.
The Romo-Malankara Syrians always wished that the Catholicos of the East defect to Roman Catholicism. They thought the dissident Mafriano might defect to Romanism. None of them did it. Now their effort is to create a Catholicos of their own. An aggressive and ambitious prelate with the spirit of the late Archbishop Ivanios, Archbishop Cyril Basilios would never rest until he finds himself on the throne of a Catholicos. Immediately after the announcement making him a major archbishop, his dream to become a Catholicos aggressively managed to convince the Papal Internuncio at New Delhi that a major archbishop and a catholicos are the same! What does a Latin prelate, who just happened to be a nuncio in India, know about the Catholicate or the Catholicos? Poor nuncio had to believe whatever the Romo-Malankara Syrian Archdiocese dictated or reiterated. After all, Rome does not care what title any bishop might hold; what concerns Rome is ultimately who he is under. As long as he is under the Pope and as long as he still carries the title Rome has given, no other ornamental title matters much.
Did anyone watch the news-picture of the announcement made by the internuncio at the Pattom Cathedral in Trivandrum? We saw Archbishop Cyril Basilios wearing a pectoral cross with TWO engalpions on its both sides. Can a suffragan Catholicos wear two engalpions? A Mafriano is supposed wear only a pectoral cross and one engalpion. Patriarch Yakub III demanded Catholicos Basilios Eugen I to wear only one pectoral cross and one engalpion, although the Church of Malankara rejected it. Mafriano Basilios Thomas I is authorized to use only a pectoral cross and ONE engalpion, although he sometimes shows off himself with two engalpions! Only a prelate in the Patriarchal rank can wear a pectoral cross and TWO engalpions. Or did Rome make Archbishop Cyril Basilios a Patriarch? What do you think this major archbishop is up to? Is he playing a Patriarch? Can we call it audacious?
Another question: Archbishop Basilios is Catholicos of “WHAT, WHERE”? Catholicos of Trivandrum? Is there a canonical Catholicos of Trivandrum? If so, it is a new invention. Catholicos of Malankara? Definitely Rome does not possess the stupidity to call him the Catholicos of the East.
Another very important concern: Do the canons of the Roman Church, whether Latin or Oriental, accommodate a Catholicos, or do they stipulate that a major archbishop is a Catholicos? I am challenging the Romo-Syrians to show any canonical evidence to substantiate their claim. Nowhere in the Roman Canon laws do we have any evidence to prove that a major archbishop is a Catholicos. If this is so, why did the Romo-Syrian Archdiocese of Trivandrum hastily create this illusion? Who is behind it? We definitely can guess who could be behind this media stunt. Why did not Archbishop Anthony Cardinal Padiyara declare himself a Patriarch or Catholicos (Catholicos was a legitimate patriarchal rank according to the (Nestorian) tradition of the Church of the East to which the Romo-Malabarese Syrians liturgically and ecclesiologically belong?
Let us ask Rome.
Readers, Rome has never issued a mandate establishing a Catholicate under the Pope. Let us quote the report from the Vatican regarding the elevation of Archbishop Cyril Basilios. (His Excellency Cyril Mar Baselius was the first Major Archbishop of the Malankara Catholic Rite).
“Other Pontifical Acts.
“Vatican City. February 10, 2005 (VIS). The Holy Father elevated the ‘sui juris” Metropolitan Church of the Syro-Malankara to the rank of Major Archiepiscopal Church, and he promoted Metropolitan Archbishop Cyril Mar Baselios Malancharuvil, OIC of Trivandrum of the Syro-Malankara , India to the dignity of Major Archbishop. (He was) born in Ullannor, India in 1935, and was ordained a priest in 1960. He was ordained a bishop in 1978 and was appointed Metropolitan Archbishop of Trivandrum of the Syro-Malankaras in 1995. …” Readers, can you find any mention of a Catholicos here? Definitely Rome has never dreamt this title for the head of the Romo-Malankara Syrians.
Then where could be the source of this irresponsible falsehood? Indeed it comes from the audacious and ambitious leaders of this group.
After the announcement, someone had the courage to say without any scruple that a major archbishop is a Catholicos according to the Antiochian tradition. If the Romo-Malankarese belong to the Antiochian tradition, why did they receive an alien title (major archbishop)? Why were they not given a Catholicos by the Pope with patriarchal functions, just like any uniate patriarch. Of course Rome never foresaw this trap.
There is no precedence in the Roman Church to justify that a major archbishop is a Catholicos. There is a saying: “while truth is putting on her boots, untruth and deception have traveled around the earth”. What else can I say about this blatant falsehood!
Is there any precedence or canon in the Eastern Church to substantiate the assumption that a major archbishop is a Catholicos? You will never find it. Why is a major archbishop so enamored of the Antiochian tradition, when he does not follow anything essential that belongs to the Antiochian tradition? Please answer the following question?
* Does the Antiochian tradition permit a priest to offer Eucharistic liturgies on week-days during the Great Lent, and during the Holy Week, except Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday?
* Does the Antiochian tradition permit you to use unleavened bread for the Eucharist?
* Does it permit Eucharistic adoration and benediction outside the Eucharistic Liturgy?
* Does it have a belief that elemental change takes place just by pronouncing the words of institution?
* Do her priests celebrate the Eucharist without the skull cap which is the symbol of the crown of thorns borne by Christ when offered His sacrifice on the cross?
* Does the Antiochian tradition justify an all celibate clergy?
* Does the Antiochian tradition entertain Marian devotions outside the Liturgy and canonical hours?
* Does not the Antiochian tradition require all her priests to wear black habits (under their vestments) during the times of performing sacraments and liturgies?
These questions can go on. If the Romo-Malankarese do consider the above practices unimportant, why are they so particular that a major archbishop should be a Catholicos? There are two obvious answers; unjustifiable craving for power, and inordinate desire to confuse the faithful of the Church of Malankara. Please do not create new practices when it has no foundation in history or canons.
The story from the fables goes like this: A jackal had a dream to become the king of the forest. He found a way to realize his dream. When somebody left a large bucket of colorful paint behind his house, the shrewd jackal sneaked and jumped into the bucket. He found himself handsome with the colorful paint all over his body. He pretended like a king. He went to the assembly of all wild animals and claimed to be king over them. All animals were very happy that they got a new king. In jubilation every animal shouted in its own natural voice. The self-proclaimed king of the forest could not control himself. Out of his extreme joy, he also shouted along with the rest of the animals in his own natural sounds just like any other jackal. Immediately the rest of the animals realized he was the old jackal, and not a real king… One can imagine what would have happened then. This writer deeply apologizes if this story offends anyone.
A week ago, one of my relatives in India emailed me about the festivities upon the news that the Romo-Malankarese have a “BAVA”. I wondered if they would call their new so-called Catholicos a “BAVA”. Bava comes from the Arabic word, BABA, which is the Arabic version of the Greek word, PAPAS, or PAPA. This is the same as Papa in Latin, which means Pope in the English language. Actually this is the title of the head of a Church. If the Romo-Syrians have a Catholicos and if he is under the Roman Pope, are there two Bavas or popes? Think about it seriously.
To conclude: A major archbishop is not a Catholicos. If the Romo-Syrians still insist that their major archbishop is a Catholicos now, his position is un canonical and has no foundation in Church history. The so-called Catholicate of the Romo-Malankarese is phony. It is indeed BOGUS.
Rt Rev Chorbishop Dr Kyriakose Thottupuram of Chicago
Director-OBL
10 Responses Leave a comment
*rolling eyes* Ah, Orthodox fundamentalism and its ignorance of basic Catholic ecclesiology…
thanks 4 sending the article regarding catholicose title of malankara catholic church to me. when i go through this article i understood that this is a response 4 another article which published earlier. will u pls sent that article also 2 me.
jiju.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, major archbishop is a title for an hierarchOrdinary
In those hierarchically organised churches of Western Christianity which have an ecclesiastical law system, an ordinary is an officer of the church who by reason of office has ordinary power to executive the church’s laws….
to whose archiepiscopal see is granted the same jurisdiction in his autonomous (sui juris) particular ChurchParticular Church
In Catholic theology and Canon law , a particular Church is an ecclesial community headed by a bishop or someone recognized as the equivalent of a bishop….
that an Eastern patriarchPatriarch
Originally a patriarch was a man who exercised Autocracy authority as a pater familias over an extended family. The system of such rule of families by senior males is called patriarchy….
has in his.
The title is used for archbishopArchbishop
In Christianity, an archbishop is an elevated bishop. In the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and others, this means that they lead a diocese of particular importance called an archdiocese, or in the Anglican Communion an Ecclesiastical Province, but this is not always the case….
s of episcopal sees that were founded more recently than the patriarchal sees and are therefore less prestigious. Consequently, there are differences between the two offices.
The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church believes that Apostle Thomas founded the Church in India, a tradition strongly held by the Church from ancient times. The Church is in the Oriental Orthodox family following the Orthodox faith of the three Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.
The chief primate of the Indian Orthodox Church is called “the Catholicos of the East, Catholicos of the Apostolic throne of St. Thomas, and the Malankara Metropolitan”: two titles with separate responsibilities, but always held by the same individual in accordance with the constitution of the Church adopted in 1934.
As Catholicos of the East, he consecrates bishops for the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (the Indian Orthodox Church), presides over the synod, declares and implements its decisions, conducts the administration on behalf of the synod, and consecrates the Holy Mooron (oil).
As Malankara Metropolitan, he is the head of the Malankara Church, the President of the Malankara Syrian Christian Association and the Managing Committee. The prime jurisdiction regarding the temporal, ecclesiastical, and spiritual administration of the Indian Orthodox Church is vested in the Malankara Metropolitan subject to the provisions of the Church constitution adopted in 1934.
The Indian Orthodox Church holds that the Catholicate was originally instituted by St. Thomas the Apostle, en route to India. The Synod of Markabata, presided over by Catholicos Dadyeshu, confirmed the Independence of the Persian church, dispelling any doubts. The Synod proclaimed:
“By the word of God we define: The Easterners cannot complain against the Patriarch to western Patriarchs; that every case that cannot be settled in his presence must await the judgement of Christ…(and) on no grounds whatever one can think or say that the Catholicos of the East can be judged by those who are below him, or by a Patriarch equal to him. He himself must be the judge of all those beneath him, and he can be judged only by Christ who has chosen him, elevated him and placed him at the head of his church.”
The church does recognize that the Catholicate was briefly brought under the Patriarchate of Antioch, during the Nestorian Persecution and reduced to the position of a ‘Maphriyan,’ roughly similar to an Arch-Metropolitan, or the Catholic post of “Major Archbishop.”
Even after such reduction of the see, the conflicts between the Patriarch and Maphriyan resulted in the Council of Capharthutha in February 869 AD. This assembly codified 8 canons dealing with the Patriarch and the Maphrian of Tigris. The canons are given below:
1. The bishops and the monks in the Mar Mathai’s Monastery, should submit to and obey the Maphrian whose seat is in Tigris.
2. The Patriarch should not interfere in the administration of the Church in Tigris, unless when invited. In the same way the maphrian should not interfere in the Patriarchal See.
3. When the Maphrian is present along with the Patriarch of Antioch he should be seated immediately at the right hand side of the Patriarch. The name of the Maphrian shall be mentioned immediately after that of the Patriarch, in the liturgy; and he should receive the Holy Qurbana after the Patriarch.
4. When a Maphrian is alive, a Patriarch should not be installed without his concurrence, otherwise, the orientals shall have the right to install the Maphrian by themselves. The question of who should perform the laying on of hands on the new Patriarch – ie, the Maphrian or the President of the Synod, shall be decided by four bishops, two each elected by the orientals and the westerners (Antiochan) respectively.
5. The Archdiocese of Kurdu, Beth-Sabdaya and also Najran, provided, the Arabs agree to it, shall vest with Tigris administration.
6. The mutual excommunications between the orientals and the Antiochans shall be withdrawn.
7. A final decision was taken about the three bishops consecrated by the Patriarch in the see of the Maphrian.
8. A bishop excommunicated by the Maphrian shall also be considered as excommunicated by the Patriarch.
One can see just how much authority the Patriarch had over the East Syriac Church from these canons, even though the Maphrian probably swore allegiance and obedience to the Patriarch at the time of his ordination. Such oaths were interpreted in the context of these canons. There was no way the Patriarch could practically exercise authority over the Maphriyan’s see.
According to one of the most famous Maphriyans, Mar Gregorios Bar Ebraya (Bar Hebraeus), Apostle Thomas is the first in the Apostolic succession of the East. Bar Ebraya did believe that the Eastern Church was an integral part of the Antiochian Church, due to the historical context of the time in which he lived. He did, however, vigorously defend his rights, as dictated by the church canons.
In 1238, the West Syrians installed Mar Philexnos as Patriarch without the concurrence or participation of Bar Ebraya. When Patriarchal delegates arrived at his monastery with apologies, he refused to receive them, rebuking them for their neglect of the canons. The Church in India and the Syriac Church of the East in Persia remained in one faith for many years. In 431, the Council of Ephesus condemned the teachings of Nestorius, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople. After the Ecumenical council of Ephesus, a significant portion of the Church in Persia adopted Nestorian teachings concerning the nature of Christ.
In 544, Theodosius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, ordained Bishop Mar Jacob Baradaeus for the expansion of a Syriac Church weakened by Byzantine persecution subsequent to the Council of Chalcedon. In 559, Jacob visited the east and consecrated a Catholicos for Orthodox Christians who accepted the Council of Ephesus and rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Mar Jacob himself was ordained a general bishop by Patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria.
The Church believes that this Catholicate, which is in the succession of Apostle Thomas, was re-located to India in 1912 due to the efforts of Ignatius Abdul Masih II, the Patriarch of Antioch and Vattaserill Mar Dionysius, the Malankara Metropolitan. Since the Indian church was under the Ancient Catholicate of Persia, and can be seen as the only remaining part of the Persian church, it is logical for the Catholicate to reside in India.
There have been six Catholicoi in direct succession since establishing the Catholicate of the East in India. The Catholicos has jurisdiction over the dioceses and churches in most parts of India as well as in the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, South Africa, Persian Gulf nations, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. The current Catholicos of the Indian Orthodox Church is Baselios Mar Thoma Dydymos[1]
The Indian Orthodox Church view is that the Catholicate of the East is autocephalous and in the legitimate succession of St. Thomas the Apostle. The term “throne of St.Thomas” used by the Catholicos is a reference to the church’s apostolic origin and heritage. It is not a title that was recently coined by the church. Indian prelates have used it for centuries. For example, the Vatican codex 22 written in Cranganore, 1301 AD mentions “Mar Jacob, Bishop Metropolitan, prelate and ruler of the Holy See of the Apostle St. Thomas, namely, our ruler and (the ruler) of the entire Holy Church of the Christians of India.” Again, in 1830, when Chepaud Mar Dionysius gave Mar Coorilos of Thozhiyur an Encyclical, it proclaimed that it was “From Metropolitan Philipose, known as Dionysius, shepherd to the lambs and ewes of Christ in Malayalam under India, father to the Jacobite Christian community, and seated on the throne of our blessed apostle St Thomas…” In light of such evidence, claims that the Thomasine title was “recently fabricated” by Indian Orthodox leadership is ridiculous. Indeed, it is amazing to see to what lengths the Syrian Orthodox Leadership went to crush this title, which in itself demanded the Malankara Church’s autocephaly. In the brief peace and unity of 1958, letters of mutual acceptance were exchanged between the Patriarch and the Catholicos. When the church was unified, all Metropolitans of the Patriarchal group handed in letters of obedience to the Catholicos of the East. The letter of one of them, Paulose Mar Philexinos, mentioned that “I solemnly submit that I will follow the canons of the Church, the Constitution in force, and the directions of Your Holiness..”
In a speech thereafter, the same Mar Philexinos said “We shall remain under the banner of the Catholicate till the moon and stars last. This Catholicate will exist for all time to come. May God Almighty be pleased that we all will stand united under the leadership of this Catholicos who graces the throne. I do not mean political or temporal matters. We have now the privilege of witnessing for our Lord unitedly under the stewardship of one Head. May this unity serve as a signal to all other Churches of India to fall in line under this common Father. We, Metropolitans, will hand in hand serve under the Holy throne of the Catholicate.”
Mar Philexinos later led the schismatic Jacobite group that again broke away from the unified church, and was ordained as Paulos I, the first rival Catholicos.
In the exchange of letters, Geevarghese stated that he was “seated on the Throne of the East of Apostle St. Thomas.” Patriarch Ignatius Ya`qub III made no objections at that time. Later, during the reign of Mar Baselios Augen, the Catholicos attended the Oriental Orthodox Conference in Addis Ababa, at which the same Patriarch Ya’kub III was present. The Catholicos was addressed as “The catholicos of the ancient see of St. Thomas.” Again, there was no objection from Patriarch Yakub. Later, when Augen sent a letter to the Patriarch, in which he named himself as “Catholicos of the Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas,” the Patriarch responded:
“…Sometime before your communication I was astonished to read another letter carrying the title `the throne of St Thomas’. Truth be told, ever since the Catholicate was established in the 4th century CE, no catholicoi or Maphryan has ever used such a title. Second, the apostle St Thomas has never founded any throne that can be referred to as the throne of St. Thomas. As is clear from the Gospel according to St John (20: 21-24), St Thomas had not been ordained a priest. Without being even a priest, how did he become a high priest? Without being a high priest, how did he establish a throne?…”
The Indian Church felt the Patriarch had defied the very Priesthood of St. Thomas in his efforts to deny the Indian church it’s Apostolic heritage. It is to be noted that the various sources within the Syriac Church have claimed afterwards that the Patriarch did not necessarily reflect the views of the church in that statement.[citation needed]
According to the view of the Malankara Orthodox Church, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church) is a schismatic group which separated in 2002 with a new constitution adopted in the same year against the constitution of 1934. The head of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church was elected without the permission of the Malankara Association, the largest assembly of the Malankara Church which consisted primarily of lay and priest representatives from Indian Orthodox parishes. The schism started as early as 1970 when Patriarch Ignatius Ya`qub III tried to intervene in internal administrative affairs of the Malankara Church and appointed a Syrian delegate which they held violated both the constitution and canons of the Church. A legal entity was organized as the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church by the Syrian delegate and Jacobite bishops who did not accept the Indian Orthodox view.
The Indian Orthodox were disturbed when they felt they detected a new trend among Syriac scholars to address their primate as “Prince Patriarch of Antioch,” and their Church as the “Universal Syriac Orthodox Church.” The Indian Orthodox felt that this move suggested a move towards Roman Catholicism[2][3] When the original Persian Catholicate was reduced to Maphriyana and brought under the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Syrian Patriarch, many Maphriyanas were ordained to the Patriarchate
History of Indian Orthodox Church
[edit] The first 17 centuries
Main article: History of the Saint Thomas Christians
Part of a series on
Christianity
in India
Background
Christianity
Malankara Church
Syrian Malabar Nasrani
Saint Thomas Christians
Holy Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas
Malankara Metropolitans
Knanaya
Events
Synod of Diamper
Coonan Cross Oath
Goa Inquisition
People/Saints
St Thomas
Thomas of Cana
Mar thoma metrans
St.Gregorios of Parumala
St Francis Xavier
St.Dionysius of Malankara
St.Gregorios of Pampady
Saint Gonsalo Garcia
St. Alphonsamma
Blessed Mother Teresa
Blessed Kuriakose Chavara
Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvares
Churches
Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church
Chaldean Syrian Church
Church of North India
Church of South India
Indian Orthodox Church
Indian Brethren
Indian Pentecostal Church
Jacobite Syrian Church
Malabar Independent Church
Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Roman Catholic Church
St. Thomas Evangelical Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Indian Christianity Portal
This box: view • talk • edit
Thomas the Apostle is credited by tradition for founding the Indian Church in 52 A.D.[3] This Nasrani faith had many similarities to Judaism, and, owing to the heritage of the Nasrani people, developed contacts with the non-Chalcedonian religious authorities of Edessa, Mesopotamia.
The local church maintained its autonomous character under its local leader. When the Portuguese established themselves in India in the 16th Century, they found the Church in Kerala as an administratively independent community. Following the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498, the Portuguese came to South India and established their political power there. They brought missionaries to carry out evangelistic work in order to establish churches in communion with Rome under the Portuguese patronage. These missionaries were eager to bring the Indian Church under the Pope’s control. They succeeded in their efforts in 1599 with the `Synod of Diamper’.The representatives of various parishes who attended the assembly were forced by Portuguese authorities to accept the Papal authority.
Following the synod, the Indian Church was governed by Portuguese prelates. They were generally unwilling to respect the integrity of the local church. This resulted in disaffection which led to a general revolt in 1653 known as “The Coonan Cross Oath”. This demanded administrative autonomy for the local church. Since it had no bishop, it faced serious difficulties.
It appealed to several eastern Christian churches for help. The Antiochene Syrian Patriarch responded and sent metropolitan Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem to India in 1665. He confirmed Marthoma I as the bishop and worked together with him to organize the Church.
[edit] The English assist in reviving church
In 1795 the British captured Malabar, Kerala. In 1806 the Marquis of Wellesley, the British Governor General of India, sent the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, an Anglican priest, to conduct research into the life of the ancient Church of St.Thomas in India. This started a new chapter in the life of the Malankara Church.
The Anglican missionaries were deeply interested in the welfare of the Malankara Church, and they helped the church to start a theological seminary at Kottayam in 1815. Soon, however, the missionaries began to impose Protestant doctrines on the seminarians. As a result the Malankara church discontinued the association.
This eventually gave rise to the division of the community into three bodies.
One of them set out to bring about major reforms in the liturgy and practices of the Church, but failed. After about half a century of conflict within the Church, this body withdrew, and organized itself as the Mar Thoma Church.
A smaller body of the Malankara Church opted to join with the missionaries and be absorbed into the Anglican Church.
A large majority of the community continued in the Malankara Orthodox Church without accepting the reforms.[citation needed]
[edit] Anglican Influence
The London Missionary Service was active in India. Bishop Norton inaugurated the first Anglican Church in Kerala at Thalavady in the house of one Itty Matthan Panickar. This church was later known as Christian Missionary Service and after Indian Independence it became the Church of South India. Lore says that Bishop Norton was tutored in Malayalam by Itty Matthan Panickar. Later the same person tutored Bishop Benjamin Bailey in Sanskrit & Malayalam, and was presented the chair on which the Bishop sat as a gift. Later in the 19th century, exposure to the doctrines of the Church of England inspired a reform movement led by Abraham Malpan. This led to the formation of the Mar Thoma Church.
In 1912, the Catholicate of the East was revived in India. The Malankara Orthodox Church wanted to retain its autocephalous nature. It appealed to Patriarch Ignatius Abdul Masih II of the Syriac Orthodox Church, who ordained Murimattathil Paulose Mar Ivanios as Baseliose Paulose, Catholicos of the East. The ceremony was held at St. Mary’s Church, Niranam in 1912.[citation needed]
While there have been several schisms since,[clarification needed] the resultant churches remain viable.[citation needed]
The Metropolitan Bishopric of the United States and Canada was created in 1979 with the appointment of Thomas Mar Makarios to the new diocese. The first church of this diocese was consecrated in 1980 as the St. George Malankara Orthodox Church, located on Cedar Grove Avenue in the New Dorp Beach section of Staten Island, New York. An additional 74 parishes have been established in the United States since then.[citation needed]
[edit] Catholicate
Baselios Marthoma Didymos I, The present Catholicos
Paulose Mar Milithios, the present Catholicos Designate.The word “Catholicos” means “The General Head”. It can be considered as equivalent to “Universal Bishop”. There were only three ranks of priesthood in the early Church: Episcopos (Bishop), Priest, and Deacon. By the end of the third century certain bishops of certain important cities in the Roman empire gained preeminence over other bishops and they came to be known as Metropolitans. The Ecumenical councils of the fourth century recognized the supreme authority of these Metropolitans. By the fifth century, the Bishops in major cities like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch etc. gained control over the churches in the surrounding cities. Gradually they became the heads of each independent regional church and were called Patriarch which means common father. The same rank in the Churches outside the Roman Empire was called Catholicos. There were three ancient Catholicates in the Church before the fifth century. They were the Catholicate of the East, the Catholicate of Armenia and the Catholicate of Georgia. None of these ranks and titles are the monopoly of any church. Any Apostolic and national church has the authority to declare and call its head, Catholicos, Pope, or Patriarch.
St. Thomas established the church in India and is recognized it’s first Head or Catholicos.
The reign of the Archdeacons started from the fourth century and lasted until the sixteenth century. The third stage started when the archdeacon was elevated to the position of a Bishop by the community with the name Marthoma I in 1653. Since then the head of the community was the Marthoma Metrans and later the position was developed to Malankara Metropolitan with more recognition.
In 1912, the Catholicate of the East was relocated to India, and Baselios Paulose I was seated in the Honorary Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas as the Catholicos of the East.
History of Indian Orthodox Church
[edit] The first 17 centuries
Main article: History of the Saint Thomas Christians
Part of a series on
Christianity
Christianity
Malankara Church
Syrian Malabar Nasrani
Saint Thomas Christians
Holy Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas
Malankara Metropolitans
Knanaya
Events
Synod of Diamper
Coonan Cross Oath
Goa Inquisition
People/Saints
St Thomas
Thomas of Cana
Mar thoma metrans
St.Gregorios of Parumala
St Francis Xavier
St.Dionysius of Malankara
St.Gregorios of Pampady
Saint Gonsalo Garcia
St. Alphonsamma
Blessed Mother Teresa
Blessed Kuriakose Chavara
Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvares
Churches
Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church
Chaldean Syrian Church
Church of North India
Church of South India
Indian Orthodox Church
Indian Brethren
Indian Pentecostal Church
Jacobite Syrian Church
Malabar Independent Church
Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Roman Catholic Church
St. Thomas Evangelical Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Indian Christianity Portal
This box: view • talk • edit
Thomas the Apostle is credited by tradition for founding the Indian Church in 52 A.D.[3] This Nasrani faith had many similarities to Judaism, and, owing to the heritage of the Nasrani people, developed contacts with the non-Chalcedonian religious authorities of Edessa, Mesopotamia.
The local church maintained its autonomous character under its local leader. When the Portuguese established themselves in India in the 16th Century, they found the Church in Kerala as an administratively independent community. Following the arrival of Vasco de Gama in 1498, the Portuguese came to South India and established their political power there. They brought missionaries to carry out evangelistic work in order to establish churches in communion with Rome under the Portuguese patronage. These missionaries were eager to bring the Indian Church under the Pope’s control. They succeeded in their efforts in 1599 with the `Synod of Diamper’.The representatives of various parishes who attended the assembly were forced by Portuguese authorities to accept the Papal authority.
Following the synod, the Indian Church was governed by Portuguese prelates. They were generally unwilling to respect the integrity of the local church. This resulted in disaffection which led to a general revolt in 1653 known as “The Coonan Cross Oath”. This demanded administrative autonomy for the local church. Since it had no bishop, it faced serious difficulties.
It appealed to several eastern Christian churches for help. The Antiochene Syrian Patriarch responded and sent metropolitan Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem to India in 1665. He confirmed Marthoma I as the bishop and worked together with him to organize the Church.
[edit] The English assist in reviving church
In 1795 the British captured Malabar, Kerala. In 1806 the Marquis of Wellesley, the British Governor General of India, sent the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, an Anglican priest, to conduct research into the life of the ancient Church of St.Thomas in India. This started a new chapter in the life of the Malankara Church.
The Anglican missionaries were deeply interested in the welfare of the Malankara Church, and they helped the church to start a theological seminary at Kottayam in 1815. Soon, however, the missionaries began to impose Protestant doctrines on the seminarians. As a result the Malankara church discontinued the association.
This eventually gave rise to the division of the community into three bodies.
One of them set out to bring about major reforms in the liturgy and practices of the Church, but failed. After about half a century of conflict within the Church, this body withdrew, and organized itself as the Mar Thoma Church.
A smaller body of the Malankara Church opted to join with the missionaries and be absorbed into the Anglican Church.
A large majority of the community continued in the Malankara Orthodox Church without accepting the reforms.[citation needed]
[edit] Anglican Influence
The London Missionary Service was active in India. Bishop Norton inaugurated the first Anglican Church in Kerala at Thalavady in the house of one Itty Matthan Panickar. This church was later known as Christian Missionary Service and after Indian Independence it became the Church of South India. Lore says that Bishop Norton was tutored in Malayalam by Itty Matthan Panickar. Later the same person tutored Bishop Benjamin Bailey in Sanskrit & Malayalam, and was presented the chair on which the Bishop sat as a gift. Later in the 19th century, exposure to the doctrines of the Church of England inspired a reform movement led by Abraham Malpan. This led to the formation of the Mar Thoma Church.
In 1912, the Catholicate of the East was revived in India. The Malankara Orthodox Church wanted to retain its autocephalous nature. It appealed to Patriarch Ignatius Abdul Masih II of the Syriac Orthodox Church, who ordained Murimattathil Paulose Mar Ivanios as Baseliose Paulose, Catholicos of the East. The ceremony was held at St. Mary’s Church, Niranam in 1912.[citation needed]
While there have been several schisms since,[clarification needed] the resultant churches remain viable.[citation needed]
The Metropolitan Bishopric of the United States and Canada was created in 1979 with the appointment of Thomas Mar Makarios to the new diocese. The first church of this diocese was consecrated in 1980 as the St. George Malankara Orthodox Church, located on Cedar Grove Avenue in the New Dorp Beach section of Staten Island, New York. An additional 74 parishes have been established in the United States since then.[citation needed]
[edit] Catholicate
Baselios Marthoma Didymos I, The present Catholicos
Paulose Mar Milithios, the present Catholicos Designate.The word “Catholicos” means “The General Head”. It can be considered as equivalent to “Universal Bishop”. There were only three ranks of priesthood in the early Church: Episcopos (Bishop), Priest, and Deacon. By the end of the third century certain bishops of certain important cities in the Roman empire gained preeminence over other bishops and they came to be known as Metropolitans. The Ecumenical councils of the fourth century recognized the supreme authority of these Metropolitans. By the fifth century, the Bishops in major cities like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch etc. gained control over the churches in the surrounding cities. Gradually they became the heads of each independent regional church and were called Patriarch which means common father. The same rank in the Churches outside the Roman Empire was called Catholicos. There were three ancient Catholicates in the Church before the fifth century. They were the Catholicate of the East, the Catholicate of Armenia and the Catholicate of Georgia. None of these ranks and titles are the monopoly of any church. Any Apostolic and national church has the authority to declare and call its head, Catholicos, Pope, or Patriarch.
St. Thomas established the church in India and is recognized it’s first Head or Catholicos.
The reign of the Archdeacons started from the fourth century and lasted until the sixteenth century. The third stage started when the archdeacon was elevated to the position of a Bishop by the community with the name Marthoma I in 1653. Since then the head of the community was the Marthoma Metrans and later the position was developed to Malankara Metropolitan with more recognition.
In 1912, the Catholicate of the East was relocated to India, and Baselios Paulose I was seated in the Honorary Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas as the Catholicos of the East.
The History of the Catholic Church is traced by the Church back to apostolic times and thus covers a period of nearly 2,000 years,[1] making it one of the world’s oldest institutions. The history of the Church is an integral part of the History of Christianity and the history of Western civilization.[2]
Catholics consider the Catholic Church to have been founded by Jesus Christ, its spiritual head. Catholic doctrine asserts that it is the continuation of the Church that was founded at the Confession of Peter. It interprets the Confession of Peter as Christ’s designation of Apostle Peter and his successors in Rome to be the temporal head of his Church. Thus, it asserts that the Bishop of Rome has the sole legitimate claim to Petrine authority and the primacy due to the Roman Pontiff.[3][4][5][6] The Catholic Church claims legitimacy of its bishops and priests via the doctrine of apostolic succession and authority of the Pope via the unbroken line of popes, successors to Simon Peter.[7]
The authority of the Apostle Peter and his successors is thus viewed as a continuous history from Jesus Christ.[8][9][10] The institution of the papacy as it exists today developed through the centuries. Church tradition records that Peter became the first leader of Christians in the Imperial capital of Rome. The apostles and many Christians traveled to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and Rome to found the first Christian communities. Christianity spread quickly through the Roman Empire, and by the second century there were many established bishoprics within the Empire including Northern Africa, France, Italy, Syria, and Asia Minor, and twenty bishoprics outside the empire, mainly in Armenia.[11] Irenaeus (d. 202) defended the apostolic tradition.[12]
In 313, the struggles of the early Church were lessened by the legalisation of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 383, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the capture of Constantinople. At this time there were considered five primary sees according to Eusebius: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.
After the destruction of the western Roman Empire, the church in the West was a major factor in the preservation of classical civilization, establishing monasteries, and sending missionaries to convert the peoples of northern Europe, as far as Ireland in the north. In the East, the Byzantine Empire preserved Catholicism, until the massive invasions of Islam in the mid-seventh century. The invasions of Islam devastated three of the five patriarchal sees, capturing Jerusalem first, then Alexandria, and then finally in the mid-eighth century, Antioch.
The whole period of the next five centuries was dominated by the struggle between Christianity and Islam throughout the Mediterranean. The battles of Poitiers, and Toulouse preserved the Catholic west, even though Rome itself was ravaged in 850, and Constantinople besieged.
In the 11th century, already strained relations between the primarily Greek church in the East, and the Latin church in the West, developed into a schism, partially due to conflicts over papal authority. The fourth crusade, and the sacking of Constantinople by renegade crusaders proved the final breach.
In the 16th century, in response to the Protestant Reformation, the Church engaged in a process of substantial reform and renewal, known as the Counter-Reformation.[13] In subsequent centuries, Catholicism spread widely across the world despite experiencing a reduction in its hold on European populations due to the growth of religious scepticism during and after the Enlightenment. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960s introduced the most significant changes to Catholic practices since the Council of Trent three centuries before.
without studying the facts about the holy catholic chruch are you not ashamed to publish this article.
peter you are the rock on whom i will built up my chruch. then who have the right to oppose it…………………………………………. yes the holy catholic chruch is the only chruch of jesus ………….. what merit you to question the prayer of rosary,way of cross……………..jesus was not antchocian then why are you beliving his teachings ………………. the truth of catholic chruch is greater than every thing like culture ,language…….yes we catholics are allllllll oneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ……………………..
LONG LIVE POPE …………… LONG LIVE CATHOLICOS -BASALIOS CLEEMIS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHRUCH