Malankara World

Faith of the Church

Malankara's Mythical Minefields

Throne of St. Thomas

Myth 8 i: The title, the 'Throne of St Thomas', was unheard of before the 1970s, when it suddenly made its appearance in Kalpanas issued by Devalokam.

Fact i: by Georgy S. Thomas, Bangalore:

In the very first letter issued by Geevarghese Bava to HH Patriarch Yakub III after the 1958 unity, he used the title of the Catholicos seated on the 'Throne of the East of Apostle St. Thomas'. (source: the Supreme Court majority judgement of 1995) But let's begin at the beginning. In this case, a chronological approach* listing instances where the 'throne of St. Thomas' was referred to, would clarify things: a.) 1st Century CE. From the Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 19, and Verses 27-28: "Then answered Peter and said unto him, behold, we have foresaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

St. Thomas, being one of the 12 apostles, had his own throne according to the scheme of Our Lord Jesus.

b.) Gregorius Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE). In the Hoodoyo Canon (Book of Directions, Paris, 1898), Chapter VII, Section I, Bar Hebraeus uses the term throne with respect to Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops alike. He also refers to the ceremony of "enthronement" for bishops. Additionally, Bar Hebraeus regards St Thomas as the first bishop of the East. Implication: Even bishops had thrones, and since St Thomas was regarded as the first bishop of the East, the use of the term 'Throne of St Thomas' is appropriate.

c.) 1905 (most likely). The judgement of the Royal Court of Appeal, Cochin, has used the expression, "Melpattakaran of the throne in Malayalam". (probably the Arthat case.)

d.) Early 20th Century. In the book, The Indian Church of St Thomas, by E M Philip (second edition, page 253), the following reference is found: "He upheld the contention of Mar Thomas Athanasius, and found that the Syrian Church was independent of the Patriarch of Antioch. Of course, the majority judgment prevailed, and Mar Dionysius V was established on the throne of St. Thomas."

It must be mentioned that E M Philip is an iconic figure for the Patriarchal faction.

e.) 1912. From the Bull issued on September 17, 1912**, by HH Abdul Masih Patriarch from St Mary's Church, Niranam: "...By virtue of the order of the office of the Shephard, entrusted to Simon Peter by our Lord Jesus Messiah, we are prompted to perpetuate for you Catholicos or Mapriyana to serve all spiritual requirements that are necessary for the conduct of the order of the holy true Church in accordance with its faith.... With Geevarghese Mar Dionysius Metropolitan, who is the head of the Metropolitans in Malankara and with other Metropolitans, Ascetics, Deacons and a large number of faithfuls, we have ordained in person our spiritually beloved Evanios in the name of Baselius as Mapriyana, i.e., as the Catholicos on the Throne of St.Thomas in the East, i.e., in India and other places, at the St.Mary's Church, Niranam on Sunday, 2nd Kanni, 1912 A.D. as per your request."

f.) 1934. Reference to the throne of St Thomas was made in the notice issued to vicars, priests, trustees, and parishioners to attend the MD Seminary meeting of the Malankara Association that year. This notice was presented as exhibit A-4 to the honourable Supreme Court of India during the course of the hearing leading to the 1995 judgement.

g.) 1958. After the Supreme Court gave its momentous judgement on September 12, 1958, rejecting the contention of the patriarchal faction that the followers of Vattasseril Thirumeni had become heretics, the efforts towards unity gathered pace. On December 9, 1958, Patriarch HH Yakub III issued a Bull to Geevarghese Bava, which among other things, included the following words: "..We also were longing for peace in the Malankara Church and the unity of the organs of the one body of the Church. We have expressed this desire of ours very clearly in the apostolic proclamation (reference is to the proclamation dated November 11, 1957) we issued to you soon after our ascension on the Throne. This desire of ours gained strength with all vigor day by day without in any way slackened and the Lord God has been pleased to end the dissension through us. Glory be to him. To bring forth the peace in the Malankara Church we hereby accept with pleasure Mar Baselious Gheevarghese as Catholicose. Therefore we send our hearty greetings"

Following many rounds of negotiations, the reply to this letter was exchanged with the Patriarchal representative Mar Julius Elias on December 16, 1958, at the Old Seminary in Kottayam by Geevarghese Bava. This letter (referred to earlier), presented as exhibit A 20 to the honorable Supreme Court of India, found the Catholicos describing himself in the following words: "the meek Baselious Catholicos named as Geevarghese II seated on the Throne of the East of Apostle St. Thomas". He went on to add, "We, for the sake of peace, in the Church, are pleased to accept Moran Mar Ignatius Yakub III as Patriarch of Antioch subject to the constitution passed by the Malankara Syrian Christian Association and now in force."

The Patriarch's reply to the letter came four months later dated April 8, 1959, (exhibit A 23 with the Supreme Court), wherein he made clear his displeasure: "...Your use of the expression holiness with your name is not right. This expression can be used only by the Patriarchs. Your assertion that you are sitting at the Throne of St. Thomas is unacceptable. No one has ever heard of St. Thomas establishing a Throne. Similarly your assumption that yours is the Church of the East and that you are Catholicos of the East is equally untrue and unwarranted..."

From all the above, we can see that the term 'Throne of St Thomas' has a long and illustrious history and was not suddenly sprung from Devalokam in the 1970s. As early as 1959, the Patriarch had objected to its usage. This gives the lie to the urban legend that the reference to the throne of St Thomas was unheard of before the 1970s.


Another Jacobite urban legend that has now acquired the sanctity of truth through constant repetition is that the honourable Supreme Court of India in its 1995 majority judgement said that the title 'Throne of St Thomas' should be understood merely as an honorific. This is another instance of spin, and I intent to use this opportunity to expose it.

Myth: 8 ii. The Supreme Court of India in its 1995 majority judgement said that the title 'Throne of St Thomas' should be understood merely as an honorific.

Fact 8 ii: by Georgy S. Thomas, Bangalore:

The fact that titles like 'His Holiness', 'Throne of St Thomas' etc. are honorifics was not in debate anywhere. That they were so was stated by Geevarghese Bava himself in one of his letters to HH Patriarch Yakub III which was presented as exhibit A 24*** before the honorable Supreme Court. For those who want more proof, I am quoting the relevant references: "...The propriety of using the title 'His Holiness' along with my name is questioned. Now I must bring to your notice the fact that customarily the same epithets have been attached to the Patriarch and the Catholicos in our church as evinced by our Holy writs and other books..." Here Geevarghese Bava describes the title 'His Holiness' as a mere epithet. He states further, "...The Throne of St. Thomas: Your Holiness says 'It is never heard that St. Thomas established a throne of the Catholicos or the Mapriano, either in India or in any other place'. I must, without presumption, ask your Holiness, whether for that matter, any apostle has established a throne anywhere. Is it not that such honors have been connected with them in latter times..." Here Geevarghese Bava describes the title 'Throne of St Thomas' as an honor or honorific. Therefore, we didn't want the Supreme Court to confirm that the titles are mere honorifics. We ourselves told the court it is so. Instead, what we expected the honorable court to do was to pronounce a verdict on whether it was appropriate for the Catholicos to use such titles. And I am happy to state here that the court ruled in our favor.

Why Did The Supreme Uphold The Usage Of Titles By The Catholicos?

Justice B P Jeevan Reddy who wrote the majority judgement, delivered his verdict through five fundamental facts (findings) and 11 summary findings. I will cite the relevant summary finding, and use quotes from the related fundamental fact to provide clarity.

Here's the relevant summary finding no.7 in full:

"Though the Patriarch raised objections to the honorifics (e.g., use of 'Holiness' with the name of the Catholicos and his assertion that he was seated 'on the Throne of St.Thomas in the East') and to the qualification added by the Catholicos in his Kalpana Ex.A.20 (i.e., accepting the Patriarch subject to the Constitution), the Patriarch must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India, pursuant to a canonical invitation from the Malankara Synod and installed and consecrated the new Catholicos on May 22, 1964. It is also worth noticing that a day before such installation/consecration, the Patriarch took care to have the territorial jurisdiction of Catholicate duly defined and de-limited by excluding certain areas in the Middle-East from the jurisdiction of the Catholicos."

Here it is in black and white. What the Supreme Court has said is that though the Patriarch raised objection to the use of the honorifics, his actions indicate that he had given up and abandoned all those objections to the use of the titles 'Holiness' and 'seated on the Throne of St Thomas' with respect to the Catholicos.

What does the Supreme Court mean by its reference to the demarcation of jurisdiction? Let me explain. HH Ougen I was consecrated as the new Catholicos by HH Patriarch Yakub III on May 22, 1964. A day before the consecration, the patriarch demanded that the territorial jurisdiction of the Catholicos should be demarcated. Accordingly, the then united synod of Malankara Sabha resolved the following:

"Hereafter the jurisdiction of the said see shall not be extended to the Arabian countries or Persia and that the see includes only eastern countries situated on the east of them. But H.H., the Patriarch shall agree to continue the present system of sending priests to the Arabian gulf countries from Malankara for ministering to the spiritual needs of the Malayali Parishioners as long as Malayalis stay there." (source: Justice Jeevan Reddy's judgement)

Why did the Patriarch demand the demarcation? Well, when HH Patriarch Abdul Masih consecrated a Catholicos for Malankara in 1912, it was construed as the transfer of the Maphryanite from Tikrit to Malankara. Based on this, the possibility existed that the Malankara Catholicos could at some point raise a claim to all the ancient territories in the Middle-East administered by the Iraqi Maphriyanite. For instance, areas under the present Syriac archbishophorics of Baghdad and Mosul were once under the Maphryanite. Therefore, HH Yakub III, in order to prevent the possibility of such a claim, demanded the demarcation. Is this my imagination running riot or does it find support from the Supreme Court's judgement? Let's turn to the fundamental facts listed by Justice Jeevan Reddy. Here's a relevant quote from fundamental fact number c.):

"As stated supra, the Patriarch came to India pursuant to a canonical invitation from the Malankara Synod and consecrated and duly installed the new Catholicos (Mar Ougen), who was elected by the Malankara Association in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. Before he did so, the Patriarch took care to see that the respective territorial jurisdictions of the Patriarchate and the Catholicate are duly defined and demarcated. The Middle East which was supposed to be hitherto under the jurisdiction of the Catholicos was excluded from his jurisdiction confining his authority to India and East alone."

Please notice the reference to "the Middle East which was supposed to be hitherto under the jurisdiction of the Catholicos was excluded from his jurisdiction..."

Okay, this proves why the Patriarch demanded the demarcation of jurisdiction. But why did the Supreme Court link this event to the usage of titles? Well, what the Supreme Court seems to imply is that if the Patriarch was so fundamentally opposed to use of the honorifics, he could have raised the condition that he wouldn't consecrate HH Ougen unless the Malankara Sabha gave up in writing that it was ready to abandon the use of such titles. After all, did he not raise the demarcation issue as a condition? In the same manner why didn't he raise the honorifics issue? The Supreme Court seems to be asking. Therefore, the court concluded that the Patriarch's actions indicate that "he must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India". It seems the Patriarch himself cared more about territory demarcation than about the use of such titles. It's only our Jacobite brothers who seem to be bothered. I hope they will review their position.

Notes:

* Notes: In the chronology list, a, b, c, d, f are obtained from the minority judgement of Justice R M Sahai. E and g are from the majority judgement. Three judges - Justices B P Jeevan Reddy, S C Sen and R M Sahai - heard the suit. The same documents were made available to all three with the same numberings. Justice Sahai in his judgement has referred to the documents in detail. I found in them a treasure trove of information and have cited them. Justice Sahai's rulings are given vide seven findings and three declarations. Since it's the minority ruling, I have not used any of them.

** During the course of the hearing, the patriarchal faction alleged that this letter (exhibit A 13) was not authentic, and claimed that HH Abdul Masih had issued only one letter (exhibit A 14). The IOC claimed that without the first letter, there couldn't have been the second, since one logically follows the other. The Supreme Court in its majority view agreed with our contention. I quote from the relevant fundamental fact (finding): "Now what do the above facts signify? Do they not show that Patriarch had, by 1964, recognized and accepted the revival of the Catholicate, A.13, A.14 and the 1934 Constitution? Do they not show that the Patriarch had also given up his objections to the use of the words 'seated on the throne of St. Thomas in the East' and to the "qualification" added by Catholicos in A.20? We think, they do." The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the actions of the Patriarch showed that he had accepted both A 13 (first letter) and A14 (second letter) of HH Abdul Masih. Let nobody claim otherwise.

*** Quoted in Justice R M Sahai's verdict.

Response by Very Rev. Kuriakose Moolayil, CorEpiscopa:

Controversial Throne of St.Thomas

Georgy's 'Myth' series continues to explore the history and the authority of the 'St. Thomas' throne as claimed by the Catholicose faction. It is really funny to read his conclusion which highlight the fallacy of the 'long' history of the controversial throne attributed to St. Thomas. First read his conclusion.

I quote, "From all the above, we can see that the term `Throne of St Thomas' has a long and illustrious history and was not suddenly sprung from Devalokam in the 1970s. As early as 1959, the Patriarch had objected to its usage. This gives the lie to the urban legend that the reference to the throne of St Thomas was unheard of before the 1970s."

We have to see this statement at different levels on the ground of Georgy's arguments. But before elaborating such a discussion I would like to remind the readers that the Catholicose faction was received into the SO Church and the 'peaceful co existence' came into effect only in 1958. Georgy agrees that in 1959 Patriarch objected to it. Let us look into the time gap between these incidents. It was on Dec.16 that the Catholicose was accepted by the Patriarch. The reply of the Catholicose was also of the same date and it reached the Patriarchate and the reply from the Patriarch reached Kottayam in four months time. The time gap between the acceptance and the questioning of the usage took only four months. Remembering the slow mail moving of those times we can be sure that the Patriarch's disapproval to this usage was comparatively very immediate.

Even though Geevarghese Bava resisted at the beginning to the disapproval of the Patriarch,but we can see that he too slowly withdrew from this usage, I believe for the scope of unity. We see Augen Bava almost completely refrained from using this title till the time of controversy. This being the fact, Georgy tries to 'spin', 'spin' and 'spin' to 'prove' that St.Thomas throne is not a controversy that started in '1970 'but was a controversy even in '1959' onwards !.See the 'long illustrious history' of this throne ! We will see further details below.

Now let us see the threads that he used to spun his myth.

1.He quotes the verse Matt.19:27-28. Georgy says that St. Thomas has a throne because the Lord promised all the twelve apostles twelve thrones. The contention to Georgy's argument on the controversial St. Thomas throne is very evidently stated in that reply to Peter. There it is said about the reward that they receive for following Him forsaking everything. It is said there "in the regeneration... when son of man sit on the throne of his glory..." the apostles also "shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel". Georgy concludes this argument with the following words.

"St Thomas, being one of the 12 apostles, had his own throne according to the scheme of Our Lord Jesus."

It would be a correct statement if he could change the statement from past perfect tense to future perfect by changing 'had' to 'will have'. Then it will be 'St. Thomas ...will have his own throne ... ' to sit with the Lord to judge the twelve tribes. This will be the sharing of the glory by the apostles at the final judgment. St. Thomas will have a throne there to sit to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, including the community and society in which Peter and his fellow apostles forsook everything to follow the Lord. This is the promise of the sharing of the eschatological glory. This throne has nothing to do with the apostolic throne of succession of priesthood nor to the controversial claim recently originated in Malankara..

2. I quote fully the next argument raised by Georgy.

"Gregorius Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE). In the Hoodoyo Canon (Book of Directions, Paris, 1898), Chapter VII, Section I, Bar Hebraeus uses the term throne with respect to Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops alike. He also refers to the ceremony of ``enthronement'' for bishops. Additionally, Bar Hebraeus regards St Thomas as the first bishop of the East. Implication: Even bishops had thrones, and since St Thomas was regarded as the first bishop of the East, the use of the term 'Throne of St Thomas' is appropriate."

In the first statement he was saying that St. Thomas had a throne because he will have a throne in the final judgement day. When he quotes Bar Ebroyo and his Nomocanon he justifies his wishful thinking that St. Thomas has a throne because all bishops have a throne. Bishops de facto have thrones by 'Sunthroneeso' (enthronement). By this argument Georgy is 'degrading' the Apostle Thomas to the level of a bishop or is he equating the throne of the Catholicose to the level of an episcopal throne!

He also affix a note to the Nomocanon, known as Hoodaya canon in brackets, 'Book of Directions, Paris 1898'. This note is a big twist to revert the authentic version of the canon. Paul Bedjan a Roman Catholic Syriac scholar priest has printed an edited version of the Nomocanon in 1898 and was published in Paris. Thus came the name Paris canon. He has written an introduction to this edition in French saying that he has edited (modified) the manuscript of Bar Ebroyo to suit the Roman ecclesiology. Examples are the directions in this version authorizing all bishops to consecrate Holy Mooron, proclaiming Patriarch of Rome as the general head of all Patriarchs. (Reesh Patriarch) Upholding the Roman edition of the Nomocanon and repudiating the directions in it is another 'spin' and a twist of fact by the Catholicose faction. The whole 1934 constitution becomes a paradox if someone takes an affirmative stand that this Paris canon is to be followed seriously in IO administration.

Finally coming back to Bar Ebroyo, I would like to transliterate the reference from him quoted by Georgy to state that St.Thomas was referred to as the first bishop of the east. 'Thooma Sleeho reesh kohne kadmoyo de madanho'. Reesh Kohne means high priest, kadmoyo= first and de madanho = of the East. (St. Thomas the first high priest of the East) Payne Smith dictionary differentiates between 'Reesh Kohne' and 'Reesh Abohoso' (=Patriarch). This difference is having very important meaning in reference to our topic of discussion. Reesh Kohne is a bishop, not a Patriarch. What does it mean? There is no reference here that he consecrated his successor Adai nor he has established a succession line . Bar Ebroyo himself says later in this book that the bishops of the east received investiture from Antioch. His Canon testifies that the Council of Nicaea confirmed the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the East. The Church in the east was included in the Patriarchate of Antioch and hence there cannot be any to duplication of authority in one church. This excludes all possibility of the existence of a throne in the church of the east. Throne in the ecclesial meaning is the apostolic priestly succession. It is not at all mentioned there. Surely, Bar Ebroyo gives no hint to the apostolic throne of St. Thomas. I have also noted from IO propagandists that they are interested only in this one and single sentence from Bar Ebroyo. They are totally ignoring all other direct references by him on the relations between the Patriarchate and the Catholicate.

2.Georgy's reference to the judgment of the Kochi Royal Court and E.M. Philip are discussed together in this reply. In both cases the reference is to the episcopal throne. The 'throne in Malayalam' is referring to the episcopate in Malankara. All episcopos are 'enthroned' to the episcopate and no one has ever protested to the use of throne in this context. All bishops have thrones of their episcopal sees. E.M. Philip also uses a figurative language to refer the church in India as the church of St. Thomas. His book is also titled the 'Indian Church of St. Thomas'. He refers by this usage only to the St. Thomas tradition, apostolic origin and antiquity of this Church to which the SOC upholds with high esteem. This honor is given to the Metropolitan in Malankara. It is never intended to refer to any equal status with the Patriarch or refers to any autocephalous church in Malankara. The Tablet at Rakkad Church gives this honor to none other than the delegate of the Patriarch. The 1972 declaration of St. Thomas throne was not at all in this line. It was the declaration of independence from the Patriarch and the SOC. This is the core issue. You have to address this point in relation to the autocephaly and St. Thomas throne. Do any of your reference on St. Thomas throne prove to the autocephaly of Malankara Church or the equal status of the Malankara Metropolitan/Catholicose to the Patriarch?. St. Thomas throne was equated to the claim of autocephaly. It is in this context that all the judgments in the recent church case flatly denied the issue of autocephaly. Georgy yourself has stated that the Malankara Church is not autocephalous de jurie.


3. Next is another controversial document which has not been ratified by any other contemporary translation or even proper publication. H.G. Dr. Thomas Mor Athanasius has discussed in detail about this in his book, 'Ithu Viswasathinte Karyam'. (See page 40,41 or for relevant quotation on page No.218 and 219 of my book, 'Perumpilly Thirumeni'.) Before going into the details of this I would like to refer to the more known Abdul Messiah document of Kumbhom 8, 1913. It admonishes all not to "slacken your Petrine faith". Here he says not to the 'Thomite Apostolic faith' . For the better unprejudiced understanding of my readers I am quoting Georgy in full.

"From the letter issued on September 17, 1912**, by HH Abdul Masiah Patriarch from St Mary's Church, Niranam: '...By virtue of the order of the office of the Shepherd entrusted to Simon Peter by our Lord Jesus Messiah, we are prompted to perpetuate for you Catholicos or Mapriyana to serve all spiritual requirements that are necessary for the conduct of the order of the holy true Church in accordance with its faith.... With Geevarghese Mar Dionysius Metropolitan, who is the head of the Metropolitans in Malankara and with other Metropolitans, Ascetics, Deacons and a large number of faithfuls, we have ordained in person our spiritually beloved Evanios in the name of Baselius as Mapriyana, i.e., as the Catholicos on the Throne of St. Thomas in the East, i.e., in India and other places, at the St. Mary's Church, Niranam on Sunday, 2nd Kanni, 1912 A.D. as per your request.'

Here Georgy is attracted only to the mention of St. Thomas throne in this document. Forgetting the apprehensions about the authenticity of this document I am convinced to say that it is really arguing all against Georgy's claims. See my points listed below.

1. The alleged author (!) of this letter writes this on his authority as the Shepherd in virtue of the Petrine authority. Here it is evident that, even if we agree to all the 'rights and privileges' of this DEPOSED Patriarch who acted without any knowledge of the Synod and the Church at large, had no authority over the 'independent, autocephalous' Thomite Church in India as claimed recently by IOC . Even if he refers to a St. Thomas throne what he can do is nothing beyond his capacity as a (deposed) Patriarch of Antioch. He cannot transfer a St. Thomas throne from his Church because there is no such a throne there. He cannot consecrate in Malankara a Mafrian from the SOC without the knowledge of its synod and the ruling Patriarch. He cannot again de facto consecrate anyone to a Catholicate in the line of the Nestorian Church. He cannot also create a St.Thomas throne all by himself here in Malankara. Whatever he could do was, even though illegally and illicitly, act to the whims and fancies dictated to him at Niranam and the result was to create a 'moth eaten' and illegitimate Mafrian with the title Catholicose. He did that and at the same time strongly admonished not to 'slacken' its bond with the Patriarchate.

2. Abdul Messiah in this Kalpana equates the Catholicose to a ('moth eaten') Mapfrian all against the arguments made by Georgy earlier that the Malankara Catholicose is not in the line of the mafrianate..

3. Abdul Messiah in the above quoted document instructs the Catholicose to perform his duties 'in accordance with the faith and the Malankara Metropolitan who is the head of the Metropolitans..." Here the cat is out! It clearly says about the concept of Metran faction of that time. Here it is evident that the Malankara Metropolitan is the actual head of the Church and it makes very clear that the Catholicose at that time was only a titular position. The fact was that the Catholicose of the IO faction was above the Malankara Metropolitan on Sundays and the vice versa on all other days of the week.

4. Here again this document says that he has ordained "in person ...Mor Ivanios.. on the Throne of St. Thomas". Even if we agree to all claims of Georgy, this document clearly says that it was the deposed Patriarch who "in person" ordained Mor Ivanios on the alleged throne. The 'apostolicity, long history and antiquity' of this 'illustrious' throne is well exposed in this document. Thank you Georgy for referring to this.

5. A few of the next citations are from the Notice Kalpana and peace Kalpana from Geevarghese 1 Bava bearing the St. Thomas throne. His argument is that these were all exhibits in the SC court of India and so they all have sanctity and legal appeal. The curse of even our intelligentsia is the fallacy of the notion about the approval of the courts and the sanctity it gets being an exhibit in the court. But here I am happy that Georgy has quoted the reference to the 1957 Kalpana of Yacob III Bava. It makes very clear that Yacob III intended for peace and as many think the peace initiative was not a surrender after 1958 judgment. I quote,
"Patriarch HH Yakub III issued a Bull to Geevarghese Bava, which among other things, included the following words: '...We also were longing for peace in the Malankara Church and the unity of the organs of the one body of the Church. We have expressed this desire of ours very clearly in the apostolic proclamation (reference is to the proclamation dated November 11, 1957) we issued to you soon after our ascension on the Throne. This desire of ours gained strength with all vigor day by day without in any way slackened and the Lord God has been pleased to end the dissension through us. Glory be to him. To bring forth the peace in the Malankara Church we hereby accept with pleasure Mar Baselious Gheevarghese as Catholicose. Therefore we send our hearty greetings...'

Following many rounds of negotiations, the reply to this letter was exchanged with the Patriarchal representative Mar Julius Elias on December 16, 1958, at the Old Seminary in Kottayam by Geevarghese Bava. This letter (referred to earlier), presented as exhibit A 20 to the honorable Supreme Court of India, found the Catholicos describing himself in the following words: 'the meek Baselious Catholicos named as Geevarghese II seated on the Throne of the East of Apostle St. Thomas'. He went on to add, 'We, for the sake of peace, in the Church, are pleased to accept Moran Mar Ignatius Yakub III as Patriarch of Antioch subject to the constitution passed by the Malankara Syrian Christian Association and now in force.'' The Patriarch's reply to the letter came four months later dated April 8, 1959, (exhibit A 23 with the Supreme Court), wherein he made clear his displeasure: '...Your use of the expression holiness with your name is not right. This expression can be used only by the Patriarchs. Your assertion that you are sitting at the Throne of St. Thomas is unacceptable. No one has ever heard of St. Thomas establishing a Throne. Similarly your assumption that yours is the Church of the East and that you are Catholicos of the East is equally untrue and unwarranted...'

The above quotation from Georgy proves the following:

1. The 1958 Kalpana of H.H. Yacoob III came to India much before the actual exchange took place on Dec.18,1958. It was signed on Dec.9 at Damascus. We all know that the negotiation here was on the draft of the "Kanthari" Kalpana. Even the exchange of letters was prolonged till midnight and several calls and drafts passed in between Chingavanam and Devalokam. It was for the 'sake of peace' that the Kanthari Kalpana* was received at the eleventh hour.

2. Patriarch was willing for an acceptance even before the 1958 SC judgment. See the 1957 Kalpana's full text in my book, Perumpilly Thirumeni Pages153-55.

3. The genuine approach for the sake of peace was subdued in the efforts to uphold the 'Kanthari' spirit of the reply by the Catholicose. The Two Kanthari were the Constitution and the the St. Thomas throne.

4. The controversial usage of the St. Thomas throne as well as the honorific 'His Holiness' were first used in the united church in this 'Kanthari' Kalpana and was challenged by the Patriarch on April 8, 1959, after a few months of time , leaving beside the delivery time of that time we can say it was challenged 'immediately'. Even though the attitude of Geevarghese II Bava was tough at the beginning but he also turned mild and we can see him using the heading paper without the controversial throne in the peace times. Then after Augen Bava ascended he was famous for not using this till the controversy took momentum.

1. Georgy himself proved that the St. Thomas throne was nothing beyond the honorific throne of the episcopate. But the claims in the controversy was that it was equal to the Apostolic Petrine office and the symbol of autocephaly.

2. The claim of the apostolicity of the St. Thomas throne is negated by its alleged founder Mor Abdul Messiah himself. He says that he established the Mafrian in his authority as the shepherd on the Petrine throne. (Actually he was deposed and hence had no authority)

3.In the Church we have thrones for the Patriarch, Catholicose and the Metropolitan/Episcopa. The sees of these thrones confine to their authority in the Church and its specific jurisdiction. Thrones of authority over the divisions of the universal Church were established by the Holy Ecumenical Synods. To our tradition it cannot be declared unilaterally.

4.Apostolic throne of St. Peter is upheld for the canonical validity of its succession and priesthood. The alleged Abdul Messiah document points to this concept. The Metran faction leaders of that time also held the same view.

5. The reference by Bar Ebraya says nothing about the apostolic succession in India or to the succession line of the St. Thomas Throne anywhere.

6.The documents cited by Georgy before the 1912 incident are merely in honor of the episcopate in Malankara and in the honor of the founder of the Malankara Church. It has nothing to do with the present day claims of the autocephalous throne in Malankara.

7. The alleged succession of the Persian Nestorian Catholicate has nothing to do with the 1912 Catholicate or the commonly accepted 1958/64 Catholicate in Malankara. The Malankara Catholicate is nothing but the resurgent 'moth eaten' (Sorry to repeat this quote from Georgy) Mafrianate in the Syrian Orthodox Church. The list of the Catholicoi succession published by the IOC is also of the Mafrianate line. During the period of the unity and peace this title was not used by Augen Bava. The working committee of the united church has resolved and requested Augen Bava not to use this title. The united church never agreed to the use of this title from 1958 onwards.

8. The Mafrianate has no apostolic succession from our Patron Saint St. Thomas. All the Mafrians in history were second in rank to the Patriarch of Antioch and were usually consecrated by the Patriarchs.

9.The biblical reference to the throne promised to St. Thomas and other apostles are the thrones to share the glory of the judgment of the 12 tribes of Israel.

10. Absence of any reference to the St. Thomas throne and autocephaly in the 1934 constitution itself points that these issues are not part of the original ideology of its factional founders. It only refers to the declaration that the primate of this church is the Patriarch of Antioch and also declares that the Church is a division of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The 1934 constitution itself speaks against the claims of autocephaly and St. Thomas throne.

'Kanthari' is the very hot but small chilly of Kerala. When Mor Julius jokingly remarked that the Kalpana handed over to the Catholicose was 'heavy' and the one given to him by the Catholicose was comparatively very 'light', the Catholicose replied that it is like the Kanthari, small but very hot. This statement proves even in the argument of Georgy.
 

Next: Myth 9: HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II didn't have the authority to consecrate a Catholicos for Malankara in 1912.

Previous: Myth 7: The Patriarch enjoys only spiritual overlordship and has no temporal authority over the Indian wing of the 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 © 2009-2017 - ICBS Group. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer
Website designed, built, and hosted by International Cyber Business Services, Inc., Hudson, Ohio