Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Network

1995 judgment of the Supreme Court of India is another point of contention in between the two factions of the Church in India. The Catholicose group at first tried to give publicity to the Minority judgment by even advertising in newspapers the findings by J.Sahai who wrote it. Then after a few weeks they came forward with a modification that the judgment had two parts, the majority judgement and the minority judgement.They advertised from both these to give impression to readers that they won the case. I am grateful to Georgie who has very clearly stated the fact about the validity of the majority judgement. The minority judgement has no relevance other than academic. Even now there are very IO simpletons who quotes with authority from J.Sahai's minority judgment. It is a very clear legal fact that the Majority judgement by J.Jeevan Reddy and Suhas Sen has only legal validity and binding nature. The SC of India also formulated a decree based on the Majority judgment. This decree is fully quoted in the judgment of the HC of Kerala on April 6, 2001 by Justice P.K.Balasubramanyam and Justice T.M.Hassan Pillai.

I am happy that Georgy has here referred to the Majority judgment unlike many IO propagandists. But the wordings in his 'myth' below is his own and the 'facts' described below is apparently speaking against his own contentions. Let us see Georgy's 'myth'.

" The Supreme Court of India in its 1995 majority judgment said that the title `Throne of St Thomas' should be understood merely as an honorific."

Let me invite the readers attention to the real and core fact of the issue. It was contented by the lawyers of the Patriarchal faction that the Catholicose by his claim 'seated on the throne of St.Thomas' and by the use of the titular honor prefixed to his name as 'His Holiness' was claiming autocephaly and an independent church claiming equal status with the Patriarch of Antioch. Then the SC came with the clarification that the Malankara church is not autocephalous and independent and the Catholicose is not equal in status to the Patriarch of Antioch. Let us read the relevant part from the judgment.

" The Patriarch raised objections to the honorifics (eg.use of 'Holiness' with the name of the Catholicose and his assertion that he was seated "on the throne of St.Thomas in the East")...., the Patriarch must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India, .... and installed and consecrated the new Catholicose on May 22, 1964."

This finding of the court is preceded by another finding which is directly connected to this part. I quote,

"It may be that by virtue of the revival of Catholicate and the issuing of Kalpana Ex.A.14 and also by accepting the 1934 constitution... - the power of the Patriarch may have been reduced to a vanishing point, but all the same he remains the Supreme head of the Syrian Church of which Malankara Church is a division. He is spiritually superior to the Catholicose though he... never did enjoy any temporal powers over the temporal powers over the Malankara church and its properties."

On the basis of the above findings the SC was trying to clarify that the Malankara church was

1.Not autocephalous

2.Not independent and the Catholicose is

3.Not of equal status with the Patriarch.

4.The power or operating authority of the Patriarch MAY HAVE BEEN reduced to a vanishing point but he remains supreme the head of the Church and spiritually superior to the Catholicose

5.Patriarch's authority over Patriarchal institutions, Knanaya diocese, EAE, etc. are very clearly upheld by all courts that decreed the Church cases.

And so the honorifics cannot be contented to be the basis of autocephaly and equal statues. The court also refers to the situation of the united church as a model for the ideal of the envisaged unity of the factions on the basis of the majority judgment. So I will say these honorifics are honorifics nothing beyond.

Another point in this finding is about the reference that the Patriarch has no temporal powers over the Malankara Church and its properties. The court's usage 'did not enjoy' means that this lack of temporal power is not anything new but it was the tradition of the church. Similarly it should be read along with another finding of the court. I quote,

"We are ,however, of the opinion that in this suit no declaration can be granted affecting the rights of the Parish Churches in their absence nor it be declared that the properties held by the Malankara Parish Churches vest in the Catholicose or the Malankara Metropolitan or the Metropolitan of the concerned diocese..."

So it is decreed that the temporal powers of parishes and its properties are vested in the parishes only. Moreover the decree continues to affirm that,

"when a particular people say that they believe in the spiritual superiority of the patriarch and that it is an article of faith with them, the court cannot say, no; your spiritual superior is the Catholicose. The guarantee of Article 25 of the Constitution has also got to be kept in view."

Disregarding all these profound findings of the court the delicacies of the church issues cannot be understood. This is the reason why the High Court of Kerala gave the parish churches freedom to choose the dissociation from the Malankara Association based on the 1934 constitution and to form an Association based on the 2002 constitution. This judgment was pronounced in the Police Protection case filed by the late Mathews11 Bava. The appeal to this judgment in the SC is still pending and all requests for the stay of the HC judgment was denied. So this is the present status quo. I am wondering why learned bishops like Mor Pheloxenose Job of New Delhi and others say distorted quotes about the authority of Patriarch to say that it reached a 'vanishing point'. His parody of an 'Indian Church of the Indians and for the Indians' are simply attractive to hear but nothing related to the truth in the purview of the facts and the SC judgment.

I often wonder when people of better understanding cry aloud that the Government is not implementing the court orders. They seldom clarify which order of which court ! The methodology of all execution is very legally defined. Any litigation decreed has to be implemented through the trial court, the District court at Ernakulam for the Church cases. ( see the page 42 of the HC judgment dated April 5, 2001.) For execution the concerned parties has to file an execution petition there. Then the court will make necessary directives to the concerned authorities for execution. The Patriarch side made an effort in this line after 1995 judgment. But the Catholicose side opposed and they are yelling through the media that the government is not implementing the judgements of the courts. This is merely to evade from the facts and to keep the flock from knowing the truth and facts. The government too has a machinary to look into the facts and the legal implications. I remember from the time of E.K.Nayanar to Oomman Chandy referring to Advocate General about the church issues but nothing concrete came. But now the appeal pending at SC on Police protection Case has to finalised first. To go into it the request from Didimose Bava to add him to the place of Mathews 11 Bava has to be settled. It is challenged by IO members themselves. See the legal complications that makes simple things complex and uneasy to solve.

[Let any sane leaders of the IOC come forward to settle these complex legalities to be sorted out by mutual negotiations. I hope many of my readers watched the Asianet programme titled ' Kerala Scan'. Our church is made a butt end of ridicule there. Unless we sit together with an intention to settle the issues and open the closed churches we cannot stand upright with bold faces in the public. The legal formalities will entangle us to knots and knots, but mutual respect and acceptance will open new avenues of chances and channels to amicable settlements. I was personally very curiously waiting for the leadership of Didimos Bava for a move like this. He was the master mind behind all the peaceful settlements reached in the Malabar Diocese. I am still expecting a positive gesture from him in this regard. I know many parishes in other places too where this amicable settlement was implemented. One such example is the Puthenchantha St.Mary's Church in Kottayam Diocese. There they with the consent of both Metropolitans made a compromise deed and got its approval from the court and are now living peacefully. They opened their old church after a long closured period of over a decade. I can't understand why our church leaders can't implement this model elsewhere. We see reports about the sharing of churches and common cemeteries with the Marthomites in Chengannor/Mallappally area. The IO/MT leaders jointly praise these examples as models and they conduct even joint services at times. If this can be done with the protestant Marthomites why can't we have a peaceful co existance of mutual accord.

I am resquesting enlightened people like Georgy to use your very positive skills for such harmony and mutuality. I am engaged in this rebuttal series only in my academic interest in the field of Syriac History. Let us jointly work together for settlements in the above models. Let us pray for it.]

Coming to Georgy's facts on the details of the honorifics I am happy that he himself pointed to some documents which say that the honorifics are mere honors, not the symbols of autocephaly and equal status. The SC relied on this document quoted by Georgy below to find the reason for the Patriarch to abandon his objection to the use of these honorifics and also the court relied on this to affirm that these usages were mere honors, not at all intented for superiority or independence. Please read his thesis.

" 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 honours have been connected with them in latter times….'' Here Geevarghese Bava describes the
title `Throne of St Thomas' as an honour or honorific."

So much is the truth. But when he says that "Therefore, we didn't want the Supreme Court to confirm that the titles are mere honorifics. We ourselves told the court it is so." is not factual. No court will accept the details in any exhibit as a pleading. I was a very close auditor of the procedings in the court. I am sorry I never heard such a pleading from the Catholicose side instead they were very keen to get a declaration to effect that the Catholicose and Malankara Metropolitan to be the 'spiritual, ecclesial and temporal supreme of the Malankara Church'. The honorifics were tactfully used in the affidavits and pleadings to get it ratified under the carpet of the much expected favourable prouncements from the court. This intention is very factually, but seemingly innocent, is presented by Georgy in the following sentense. " Instead, what we expected the honourable 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 favour." Georgy's happiness is because he researched this topic on the basis of the available sources. But in reality the agenda was not so superficial. How simple is this argument that the issue was taken to the apex court spending millions to check the propriety of the usage. Please read Georgy's contentions and quotes from the SC judgment.

"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."

I have made it very clear earlier that the court inferred that the Patriarch abandoned his objections to the use of the honorifics on the ground that Geevarghese 11 Bava himself clarified that he uses them as simply honorific and he and later Augen Bava judiciously withdrew from the usages. The court also clarified that these honorifics are by no means symbols of autocephaly. Now comes the comment on the demarcation of jurisdiction. Let us see Georgy first.

"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?"

Yes, Georgy your imagination is running wild. Please see the facts.

1. Hierarchical Positions and its jurisdictions are very much interconnected and interwoven. You have to admit that the position of the Catholicose in India was undisputably well accepted in the Syrian Church everywhere only after the canonical installation of Augen Bava in 1964. All the disputes till then were resolved in that canonical joining together of the legal Patriarch of Antioch and the synod in India. Till that moment the jurisdiction of the Abdul Messiah's transfer of Mafrianate was not a canonical issue for the church. It was totally considered as uncanonical. The act of Abdul Messiah can also be seen as uncanonical because he had no right to do so nor he had done the fixing of the juridical status of the post. Your argument points to this flaw of the act in 1912.

2. You have here admitted again that the Catholicose installed in 1912 was nothing other than the 'moth eaten' Catholicate of Tigris. All your arguments against this is toppled down by yourself.

3. Your fanciful thought that the Patriarch was compelled to demarcate the jurisdiction because of his interst to avoid any future claims by the Catholicose over the former Mafrian territories. Some seek blood even when milk is available!

4. By this decision it was beyond all doubts declared that the Catholicate in India is the canonical post in the Syrian Church with specific jurisdictions and rights over the Malayalee congregations all over. By this argument you are testifying that the 1964 establishment was also nothing beyond the Mafriante under the Patriarch.

Another fanciful thinking of Georgy is also noteworthy. He thinks that

" 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."

No. Georgy, your are going very wild in your fancies. The SC clarifies that these honorifics are nothing connected with separatism and autocephaly. It is found on the basis of the oneness of the church. It is very evident that the Patriarch need not seek any further clarifications because the objections were clarified and the oath of allegience by Augen Bava has very clearly stated the oneness, unity and the Patriarchal affiliation of the Catholicose and the Church in Malankara. Please read this pledge read by Augen Bava heard by hundreds of thousands of devotees assembled there.

"I the feeble and meek Ougen Mor Themothiose, chosen for ecclesiastical office of the Catholicose, confess my belief before this synod and before the head of this synod, H.H. Moran Mor Ignatius Yacoob 111, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, that the Patriarch is is my Head, that I accept from St.Peter the head of the holy apostles upto your Holiness all the canonical Patriarchs who have reigned on Your Holiness's throne and all those who come after Your Holiness. Once again I repeat my canonical connection with the holy throne of Antioch. I swear that I shall not depart from this solemn oath."

Therefore Patriarch `` must be deemed to have given up and abandoned all those objections when he came to India''.

I hope Georgy will review his position.

Next : Salmoosa of Augen Bava

Original Posting of Mr. Georgy S Thomas in IOCN Malankara's Mythical Minefields-IX

Top