|
|
The Byzantine Church is composed of the four ancient sees of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and 11 other autocephalous
churches. (Source: encarta) The heads of all these churches are considered equals
with only the primacy of honor granted to the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople (Istanbul)*. In other words, he is considered the first among
equals and exercises only moral authority over the 14 other autocephalous
churches in the Byzantine communion. The Metran faction of the Malankara
Orthodox Church wants the same concept adopted in the relationship between the
Syriac Patriarch and the Catholicos of Malankara. Our Jacobite brothers counter
it by saying that the concept of first among equals does not exist among the
Oriental Orthodox communion. This contention is not based on a correct
interpretation of the facts on the ground:
a.) Let me quote from articles 1 and 2 of the protocol signed between the
Eritrean Orthodox Church (EOC) and the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Article 1: The Church of Alexandria recognizes the autocephaly (independence) of
the Eritrean Orthodox Church
Article 2: His Holiness, the Pope of Alexandria, being the successor of St. Mark
the Apostle, has the first position of honor, in accordance with the Church
traditions and the resolutions of the canonical ecumenical councils confessed by
the two Churches and also due to the historical links between the two Churches,
in a manner that does not belittle the independent status of the EOC.
This protocol clearly states that for the EOC, the status of the Patriarch of
Alexandria is that of first among equals. It also makes it clear that such an
honor does not take way from the independent status of the EOC. Here's a link
for those interested. (I thank Thomas Paul for bringing this page to my notice. I
wouldn't have located it on my own.)
b.) Let me also quote from the history page on the website of the Catholicate of
Cilicia at Antilyas (Lebanon), narrating the relationship between the
Catholicate of Cilicia and the Catholicate of Ejmiadzin: "Therefore, since 1441,
there have been two Catholicates in the Armenian Church with equal rights and
privileges, and with their respective jurisdictions. The primacy of honor of the
Catholicate of Etchmiadzin has always been recognized by the Catholicate of
Cilicia."
This makes it clear that both the Catholicoi at Antilyas and Ejmiadzin enjoy
"equal rights and privileges", but the Catholicos at Ejmiadzin enjoy the honor
of being first among equals. Here's a link.
Conclusion: The concept of first among equals is generally associated with the
Byzantine Church. But the examples of the Armenian Church and the Eritrean
Church show that it's not non-existent among the Oriental Orthodox communion.
Our Jacobite brothers should at least be willing to discuss the issue calmly for
arriving at a meeting of minds.
Note: *Present incumbent Bartholomew I (since 1991).
The Protocol of primacy between the Patriarch and
the Catholicose in the Syrian Orthodox Church is the next issue dealt by our
friend Georgy. He defines first his 'myth' as follows. I quote, "Conclusion: The
concept of first among equals is generally associated with the Byzantine
Church."
He claims in his Myth that 'someone' says that this concept of 'co equality' is
'exclusively' Byzantine and after his detailed explanations, he concludes by
saying that it is 'generally' associated with the Byzantine Church. Here his own
difference of concept is identifiable in his two words, 'exclusively and
generally'.
Let us see the facts of the concept of 'equality' of the Patriarch and the
Catholicose in the Syrian Orthodox Church. Before entering into the details I
invite you all to read again the fact reported by Georgy on the concept of terms
'primacy of honor and first among equals'.
"Fact: The Byzantine Church is composed of the four ancient sees of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and 11 other autocephalous
churches. (Source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572657_2/Orthodox_/Church.html).
The heads of all these churches are considered equals with only the primacy of
honor granted to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul)*. In
other words, he is considered the first among equals and exercises only moral
authority over the 14 other autocephalous churches in the Byzantine communion.
The Metran faction of the Malankara Orthodox Church wants the same concept
adopted in the relationship between the Syriac Patriarch and the Catholicose of
Malankara."
He acknowledges these features as exclusively a Byzantine concept and also
demands by himself for the MOC the same to be adopted in the relations between
the Patriarch and Catholicose of Malankara.
My observations are as follows:
1.The protocol of primacy in the Syrian Orthodox Church should be discussed in
the light of the historical settings of facts in the Syrian Church. The
Patriarch of Antioch is the spiritual Supreme of the Church of Antioch and all
the East by virtue of the canonical decision of the General Council of Nicea.
This was really a canonization on the basis of the prevailing factual situation
in the Church. There also was another dignitary in the Syrian Church titled
'Great Metropolitan of the East', created for the smooth functioning of the
Eastern part of the church in the 3rd century. This Great Metropolitan was given
the title of the 'Catholicose' by another canonical decision of the Council of
Nicea. It is again mentioned there about the protocol of seating and mentioning
of his name etc. This is the basis of all concepts of the protocol and primacy
of the Patriarch and Catholicose in the SOC. If we are thinking about these
posts outside the Syrian Church there we can see many other models like that of
the Byzantines or the Armenians where they have a Patriarch(titular) under their
Catholicose or there are double titled posts as among the Georgians, known as
Cathicose-Patriarch.
2.When this Catholicose embraced Nestorianism they proclaimed themselves
autocephalous and equalled him to the supreme head of any other Church. So they
claimed equality with the Patriarch. Because their immediate rival was the
Patriarch of Antioch and so they equalled the Catholicose with him. Again this
situation arose outside the Syrian Orthodox Church. The former post of the
Catholicose as per the protocol of the Nicean canon was continuing there in the
East as the Maphrian. So here the protocol of primacy should be judged on the
basis of the Nicean canon and the ecclesial relations as seen between the
Patriarch and the Maphrian. This can be seen in the History of Bar Ebroyo.
3.Now let us see what happened in Malankara: The unchallenged catholicate in
Malankara was established in 1964. What was the protocol then? The famous
statement by Augen Bava to Vettikkunnel achan,Manarcadu, explains by itself.
When Achan invited Augen Bava to Manarcadu to participate in the reception along
with Yacoob 111 bava, Augen Bava replied, 'Thalayullidathu Valum Undu'( Where
the head is there will be the tail). The pledge of Augen Bava at the time of his
installation is also another pointer to this. Every act and word of Augen Bava
from 64-70 disproves the claims of Georgy. I request here to read the documents
I have collected and compiled in my book, 'Perumpilly Thirumeni:Malankara
Sabhayude Kal Noottandu' to know more about this.
4.What happened in 1912? What was Mor Abdul Messiah doing in 1912? Was he
creating a new post equal in rank to him in Malankara? His circular says that he
was transferring the Maphrianate of Tigris to Malankara.(I am not going here
into the inaccuracies of his act here. Those interested can read my book '
Pourathya Catholica Sthapanathinte Yadhartha Nila')We are all told that the
Catholicate in Malankara is the continuation of the Catholicate/Maphriante in
the Syrian Orthodox Church. The installation and related issues of the 1912
Catholicate prove to this effect. Then where comes the status of equality or
primacy of honor, etc.? Georgie's ideas are really a misfit to the history of
the Catholicate of the SOC and the documents related to the transferring of it
to Malankara where it be in 1912 or in 1964.
5. Eritrean example of the protocol signed with the Alexandrean church is not a
model to the historical settings of the establishment in the SOC for 17 plus
centuries. It is a very new establishment and as I mentioned earlier it is the
aftermath of an autocephalous declaration of a church on 'national' spirit. If
the MOC catholicate is accepted as a Catholicate similar to the Eritrean
hierarchy formed by the separation from its mother church, then we will have to
think of such a protocol to be made to differentiate with the lineage of the
Catholicate/Maphrianate that was in existence in the SOC. In my opinion it is
not the model for the canonically bound Catholicate , but it may be useful for
the peaceful coexistence of the 'national' Catholicate with the Catholicate of
SOC lineage. I am only happy to accept such a catholicate in India because it is
a fact and none could revert it. Just as the formation of the independent
Ethiopian or the Eritrean church and its autocephalous hierarchy, the IOC
autocephalous Catholicate is a reality. It should be accepted as its with its
own claims. I think we must jointly work to get it accepted among both factions
and should try to get it accepted mutually. My humble plea in this context will
be to invite my IO friends also to reciprocate by trying to uphold our views and
concepts of the lineage of the Catholicate in the traditions and history of the
SOC. Respecting our views and allowing our people and parishes to continue in
their concepts will evolve new 'protocols' in the Eritrean model and it will
settle all litigations and strives at parish levels.
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
