Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Network

Dear Mr. Thomas Varghese,

Thank you for your response to my posting on the Catholicate. I agree with you that both factions have their own arguments on the issue of the Catholicate. I was just very plainly representing our views on the establishment of the Catholicate in India. When one V. Rev. Corepiscopos was exaggerating the uncanonical privileges of the Catholicate and when he went on all limits saying that H.H. Yacoob 111 merely "assisted" in the 1964 installation of the Catholicose I had no other choice other than to make clear the clogs. I was suggesting everyone to read more documents that are published on the theme. I did it in this Forum because I have many previous experiences that the Forum which published those arguments will not publish my views. So it is my duty to write these in this Forum to edify at least these members. I am thankful to the Moderators for publishing the dissenting note from Mr. Thomas Varghese in this Forum even though the these are against the stand of the Syrian Orthodox Church as well as against facts. I will try to explain in the following notes.

1 .Catholicose was established in the undivided Syrian Church as a provincial head simply on political pressures, but later canonised as the suffragan to the Patriarch of Antioch. Catholicate of the East has no history, ecclesial authority nor juridical status not in communion with the Syrian Orthodox Church.

2. The autocephalous Catholicate of the East was established in the Church of the East, which broke away from the Orthodox faith on the Christological controversy, later known as Nestorian Christology. This Catholicate is autocephalous in the Church of the East. But the SOC had the continuation of the Catholicate in another name called the Maphrianate of Tigrith as the Suffragan to the Patriarch of Antioch in the East.

3. The Catholicate/Maphrianate in its all history was an establishment in the Syrian Orthodox Church as the second in rank to the Patriarch. The famous historian and Catholicose Bar Ebraya himself states that he 'was content with the SECOND rank ' in the church.

4. The so called 'reinstating of the 1912 incident by the deposed Patriarch Mor Abdul Messiah himself says in his Kalpana that he is reinstating here the Maphrianate of Tigrith. (I am not here endorsing the ecclesial validity of the document or the right of a deposed Patriarch to reinstate a canonically established/ estopped post in the church.)

5. Your argument of the acceptance of the Catholicate by the Supreme Court is only a techinical issue. That does not validate the ecclesial status or sanctity of the post. The ecclesial validity comes only when the Church accepts canonically. The 1958 acceptance was the laying of foudation of the peace move in Malankara which was initiated by H.H.Yacoob 111. It was confirmed and was stamped when the Universal Synod of the Syrian Church accepted and installed the new Catholicose in 1964 by His Holiness assisted by Metropolitans of the
Universal Church.

6. The status and authority of the Catholicate of the united Malankara Church is very well explained in the oath of allegience pronounced by Mor Augen 1 in 1964. This was my main point of argument. You Mr. Thomas Varghese or Your learned historian is not at all referring to it. You all are evading at this point.

7. The establishment of Catholicate in India is now accomplished fact and the Universal Church accepts this without question. Even much before 1958 the Church was willing to accept the sanctioning of the post of the Catholicate in India. Please see the Kalpana from H.H. Moran Aphrem 1 in the year 1950 annexed as No.6 in the book, ' Pourasthya
Catholicastapanathinte Yadhartha Nila'. There is no point in going to the reference to 1995 or anyother judgement for this. The church accepts this and that is the reason why a canonical Catholicose is continuing here in Malankara after the deposing of the Catholicose Augen 1 in 1975. The Catholicos Mor Poulose 11 and Mor Thomas 1 is following the canonical tradition of the Catholicose / Maphrian in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Mor Augen 1 also followed this path until he was facinated by the autocephaly move initiated in the seventies. For details of these please read, Perumpilly Thirumeni- Malankara Sabhayude Kal Noottandu'.

8. Your argument on the acceptance of the Geevarghese 11 Bava by H.H. Yacoob 111 does not count for the validity of the installation by Mor Abdul Messiah. In the history of the Church there are such incidents where the schismatics are received into the church with or even with our reconsecration for the sake of peace in the church. I wish to refer to M.T.Itteera Malpan's book, 'Parisudhatmavum Patthuavum'Pages131-133. He quotes canon and bible and says,"..likewise the Church Fathers also had came down to receive schismatics and transgressors. Milithose who was installed by the Arians was received without reconsecration and evenagreed to install as the Patriarch of Antioch. Also Gregoriose Thevologos writes about the rival bishops installed against his father gregoriose were " not disregarded as enemies but were loved as brothers". He cites the examples of Mor Coorelose who received the John of Antiochand his assiciate 38 bishops. Even the chrismation of the Arian Evudaksios were received for the sake of peace in the church. When the schismatics are received into the church it can be done by sacramental reception or simply through Kalapana." (This document is also fully quoted in my book, VIDHI NADATHAL HARJI VIDHIYUM VISAKALANAVUM. Unfortunately all the copies are sold out. I will be happy if someone who has that book scan the pages and post in some of the websites for better access.)

These are the incidents that the church practiced much earlier to the schism in Malankara. H.H. Yacoob 111 was a great scholar and canon expert. He knew what to do for the sake of peace in church. His actions are well provan in the church traditions. Nevertheless he didn't hesitate to declare at the 1964 installation function that "we" (Royal I, not the plural) consecrated Mor Themothose as Catholicose of the East. You have to receive him. The Church whole heartedly received him and was loyal in his post for his half of the tenure. Then the evil spirit of dissention provoked him to betray the god given peace in the church. This is also another example of the lack of reciprocation to well intented peace initiatives. Moreover innocent people like Mr. Thomas Varghese quoting such incidents to validate the invalid and uncanonical actions of a deposed Patriarch. To know the details of Mor Abdul Messiah read the book referred before, The True position of the Catholicate of the East.

Thank you very much Mr. Thomas Varghese for inducing me to write the above statement. Sorry if I offended you. These are my convictions based on the documents I have read including arguments and books from both sides which were available to me.

Lovingly,Moolelachen
Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolayil
Director, Mor Adai Study Centre

Back To :Catholicate vs.Mafrianate

Top