Catholicos of The East and Malankara Metropolitan - Controversy Over Legitimacy

Controversy Over Legitimacy

The Indian Orthodox Church view is that the Catholicate of the East is autocephalous and in the legitimate succession of St. Thomas the Apostle. This 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's letter said that he was "seated on the Throne of the East of Apostle St. Thomas." The Patriarch made no objection 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 was present. The Catholicos was addressed as "The catholicos of the ancient see of St. Thomas." Again, there were no objections 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 thus:

"...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 catholicos 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 believed that in this letter, the Patriarch had defied the very Priesthood of St. Thomas in his efforts to deny the Indian church it's Apostolic heritage. This claim that "St.Thomas had not been ordained a priest" would be condemned as heresy by any Orthodox opinion. 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.

According to the view of the Malankara Orthodox Church, the Malankara Jacobites 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 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 Yakub III tried to intervene in internal administrative affairs of the Malankara Church and appointed a Syrian delegate violating both the constitution and canons of the Church. A legal entity was organized as the Malankara Jacobite Church by the Syrian delegate and Jacobite bishops who did not accept the Indian Orthodox view. It is disturbing to note that a new trend among Syriac scholars, possibly as a result of closer association with the Roman Catholic Church, is to address their primate as "Prince Patriarch of Antioch," and their Church as the "Universal Syriac Orthodox Church." Articles that contain teachings incredibly similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Petrine supremacy such as this one and this one have also begun to surface and are being passed off as "Orthodox" teachings. 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.