Malankara Jacobite Syrian

Peter's denial is prominent theme for Good Friday meditation. It appears in many prayers, especially during Holy Week. Some people are heavily biased against Peter because bishop of Rome, Pope, claims authority over all bishops in the name of Peter, which is an apple of discord from second century. Patriarch of Antioch with whom Malankara is associated evolved similar strategy as Pope of Rome. All the apostles worked in unison accepting Peter as their Head, (Semavoon Reeso d’sleehe). Rome and Antioch elevate Apostle Peter to justify claim of monarchial authority over other bishops, which other Churches disagree. In India, without a ray of hope, to get out of the century-old muddle, to the utter dismay of all genuine faithful on both sides, one faction elevates Apostle Thomas to claim independence and the other elevates Peter to claim superiority of Antioch as though the former bartered St Thomas and the latter bartered St Peter. But the fact is; apostles hate these squabbles, as these are handiworks of egocentrics. Church oneness is contingent on the unity of its doctrines, not on territorial jurisdiction or who is under whom. Parish is not a branch of the whole church but whole in itself. Every church with a bishop as its head is independent and when they come together in unity of doctrine and mind the wholeness is perfected. Again, administrative arrangements are not doctrinal matters. Therefore one bishop exercising monarchial authority over another bishop is basically unchristian. Equally unchristian is the attitude to drag the apostles’ prerogatives to substantiate ones position. Primacy of honor when bishops come together was never been a problem but what they envisage is monarchial authority, which Peter never exercised over other apostles.

Most Orthodox theologians fail to do justice when interpreting Peter's denial. Peter is, it appears, “more sinned against than sinning!” Everyone rushes to substantiate self-position rather than to fairly analyze the subject. “No man has ever been so unjustly treated as Peter by preachers and commentators. Always what is stressed is his failure and his shame. His failure could have happened only to a man of superlative courage. We must remember how Peter loved Jesus. The others had abandoned Jesus; Peter alone stood by him. He loved Jesus so much that he could not leave him… Peter redeemed himself. It was not the real Peter who cracked beneath the tension and denied his Lord. And that is just what Jesus could see,” William Barclay, page 231-232. “For a moment his will was too weak but his heart was always right,” page 151

All four Gospels record this incident. Some people consider denial of Peter is no less severe than Judas’ betrayal. Abandonment when help is most needed tantamount to betrayal, which guilt all apostles equally share. But Jesus did not view the abandonment by apostles, denial by Peter and betrayal by Judas in the same vein. About disciples he said, ‘all would desert.’ Of Peter, ‘strengthen your brethren when you return’ and of Judas, ‘son of perdition, better if he were not born.’ So Jesus made clear difference. Peter and Judas, both were prominent disciples. Peter was in the inner circle and head of the apostles. Judas was treasurer. Peter’s denial was not preconceived but betrayal of Judas was. Peter fell for a moment but Judas calculated and planned the treachery. Peter’s denial was not for personal gains but Judas had inner motive. Jesus permitted Satan to sift Peter for a purpose but Judas willfully turned surreptitious. Peter felt severe remorse, bitterly wept and returned. Jesus reinstated Peter without punishing for his failure because Jesus knew better the strength and weakness of Peter. Judas felt remorse but had no courage to face Jesus because his motive was defiled. He drowned in his sense of guilt, lost hope and in utter imbroglio punished himself ending his life. His tragic fate should be an eye-opener to all who despise God and live in deceit.

How we know Peter denied? Mark’s Gospel is first written Gospel. Mathew and Luke borrowed material from Mark. Mark was the trusted disciple of Peter. Gospel of Mark is the preaching material of Peter, says Papias, the first century father. It may be reckoned that some Protestant theologians think that Mathew’s Gospel was first written in AD 37 (Scofield Bible). But the Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians disagree. They place it after AD 70. Peter himself advised Mark to write about his shameful failure in a freaky moment and how the Lord in His unfathomable mercy forgave him. Had Peter not asked Mark to write his failure, probably world would never have known it, says Barclay. This stands out as an edifice of Peter’s trustworthiness and humility. Impartial reader is taken by surprise about his frankness and courage rather than his failure for even in the midst of utter failure his deep love for the Lord is immeasurably manifest.

Jesus knew beforehand what would happen and said in advance about Peter’s denial, Mat 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38. Circumstances vary. In Mathew and Mark, Jesus told how, he would suffer and die alone, all disciples would stumble, then the resurrection and his walk to Galilee, etc. Peter proclaimed his unflinching love. Then, Jesus said that he would deny him three times before rooster crows. In his human frailty, he did not know what he was talking about and yet he meant well. There was no guile in him. Mark says, rooster crowed twice, not thrice. In Luke, immediately after showing a great example of humility and service by washing the disciples’ feet Jesus bestowed the kingdom of God upon the disciples just as God the Father bestowed it upon Himself, assured eating and drinking at His table in the kingdom and promised twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, 22:28-29. Sitting on thrones and judging are to not matters that take place in the present life but points to eschatology. Then Jesus told that Satan asked permission to sift Simon like wheat. Wheat is sifted with a winnowing fan, wheat collected and the tare discarded. Sifter employs violent force against which wheat is utterly vulnerable. That is, Peter was completely helpless momentarily. Like Job, he was temporarily given under spell of Satan. Jesus knew Peter could not do it alone. Jesus did not want to loose Peter; so prayed for Simon that he would not fail. Jesus asked Simon to strengthen the brethren when he returns. Without comprehending the full implication of what Jesus said, it was rather hid from him for a purpose, Simon made known his confidence and readiness to go with Jesus even to the point of death. It is then Jesus said that Peter would deny the same night. In John, immediately after the institution of Eucharist, Jesus asked Judas to quicken what he was doing (betrayal), told that His stay with them is short, He is glorified by the Father and commanded them to love one another. Peter asked where He was going in order to follow Him. Jesus answered he cannot follow Him right away but shall follow later. Here also without understanding the full picture Simon Peter commits to follow Jesus even at the cost of his life. That is when Jesus predicted Simon’s fall. Here, ‘follow’ indicates death that Simon will not die with Jesus but he would die a martyr later.

There are variations in details but contents are identical, (Mathew 26:57-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-71, John 18:12-27.) Jesus is led to Caiaphas’ courtyard. Peter followed and sat with servants outside the courtyard. He sat near fire for warming since it was cold. Servant girl identified Peter as Galilean, an associate of Jesus. First he said, “I do not know what you are saying” and walked away. To another girl he said, “I do not know the man.” Then those who stood nearby identified him. He said, “I do not know the man and began to curse and swear.” Truly, Peter did not rebuke the Lord. Immediately rooster crowed. Peter recollected the words of Jesus, went out and bitterly wept. In Luke, rooster crowed while he spoke and Jesus looked at Peter. “It was a convincing look. It was a chiding look. It was an expostulating look. It was a compassionate look. It was a directing look. It signified conveying of grace to Peter’s heart to enable him to repent. It was a look with divine grace that restored Peter,” Mathew Henry, Page 973. In John, another disciple, who was known to the High Priest, accompanied Peter. He talked to doorkeeper-girl to let Peter in. Denial took place at the residence of Annas. The servant is related to Malchus, whose ear Peter cut off. She reminisced having seen Peter in the garden. Peter denied. Immediately rooster crowed. There is no mention that Jesus looked or Peter wept.

What led Peter to deny Jesus? Cyril Remban of Malankara says; Peter had many flaws that led him to deny. (1) He boasted due to self-righteousness, (2) slept while Jesus prayed, (3) revenged by smiting the soldier, (4) did not go with Jesus instead, followed at a distance, (5) sat among enemies, (6) sought self-comfort while master was in trouble. These assumptions are extraneous and outrageous, rendering no justice either to the occasion or to Peter.

(1) Boasting involves a statement to self-exalt made knowingly about ones ability. Peter had high confidence about his loyalty to Jesus but that was in good faith. He thought no adverse situation was strong enough to shake his deep affection. That prompted declaring his unwavering support at all times and at all costs. At the most one could say he was over-confident. But Peter honestly believed what he said. He was never vindictive. There is no reason to doubt Peter’s integrity. Thus it was not boasting.

(2) regarding sleeping, again, it is highly extraneous to interpret as a deliberate failure when Jesus himself said; ‘flesh is weak.’ Other apostles also slept due to hectic activities, details of which we know little. They might have been over burdened without sleep for many emotionally charged nights.

(3) Peter smote the servant with his sword. His heroic character and urge to defend his beloved master as if it were his duty is beyond reproach. An ordinary man when surrounded by enemies would not only breakdown but also would flee. Only an extraordinarily valorous could resist that too violently. Peter thought that he could do it all alone. Even when all others fled, he did not. Jesus said, “He who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.” Disciples replied that they had two swords. Jesus answered, “It is enough,” Luke 22:36-38. Was he inciting violence or was it an expression of self-defense in danger? Probably Peter might have misread that his master would approve such a course. Jesus immediately corrected him and he never again repeated it. ‘Sword’ is usual usage familiar to easterners for self-defense.

(4) considering the height of hatred and concerted planning of priests and Pharisees to obliterate Jesus and his followers, following at a distance itself were immense risk. The risk was still higher because there were chances of identifying him as the one who smote the soldier. High Priest’s residence was closed and guarded. To enter into it itself was as good as entering into a lion’s den, says Barclay.

(5) He was not a wavering but courageous and adventurous man. Jesus named him “Kepa-rock” not without sound reason.

(6) Peter chose the best available alternative to witness the ordeal Lord endured. Superfluous assumptions would render great injustice to the whole text. Jesus knew Peter better than Peter knew himself

Garden of Gethsemane was a private property where Jesus and the disciples had access. Jesus often relaxed and prayed in the night in this garden, which was known only to disciples. It is no way comparable with gardens of our times. Arrest took place in the night. Only source of light other than dim moonlight were lantern the soldiers carried, John 18:3.

Mark mentions a peculiar incident. This escalates the gruesomeness of situation. Certain young man (Mark, it is believed) followed him covered in linen cloth. Soldiers laid hold on him and he fled naked in the dark leaving the linen, v50-51. Thus the soldiers attempted to arrest the disciples also but they could not since the disciples fled away under cover of darkness. According to John, Jesus went ahead and offered himself saying, “Let these go their way,” v18: 8, to fulfill his saying, “Of those whom you have given me I have lost none,” v9. All disciples forsook and fled when Jesus was arrested, Mk 14:50. Peter did not because of his deep love for Jesus.

Denial of Peter was inevitable and preordained. It has a divine dimension. Christ was to suffer and die alone to fulfill the prophecy, Is 63:3, Zech 13:7. Jesus did not want apostles, especially Peter to boldly admit at that time that he knew Jesus or declare his discipleship. That would have got him arrested and tried because the soldiers were looking for him too. Pertinently, the first phase of Jesus’ trial was a query regarding his disciples, John 18:19. Jesus did not tell anything about the disciples. It was necessary to keep Peter out of the trial for him to lead future Church. “Jesus desired apostles to escape, lest, if they were arrested, they might be tempted to apostasy,” JR Dummelow, page 804. Why Jesus allowed Satan to sift Peter that led to denial? From the very first time Jesus met him Jesus groomed him to be the next leader. Some people say that all apostles were equals and nothing special about Peter. Jesus did not establish twelve churches on the twelve but one Church in which the twelve is identified with Peter. Jesus permitted Satan test him to teach humility, decisiveness and loyalty for leadership. Satan desired Peter to falter so that Jesus’ plan to establish the Church upon Peter-the rock would fail. Satan tests those who are devout, strong and honest. Satan tested Job because he was blameless and righteous. Satan tests those who are fervent in faith. Unbelievers are already with him! One who stands only could fall. So the very aspect that Satan asked permission from Jesus to test Peter is proof of his undisputable leadership, courage and honesty.

John after concluding his Gospel with 20 chapters, wrote 21^st chapter exclusively to declare, 1, resurrected Jesus was real, not mere vision, with body he ate and drank as normal as before, which was to falsify the Gnostic heresies, 2, there arose confusion among people about leadership. Paul traveled far and wide, wrote many epistles and converted many Gentiles. So did John. Some thought Paul; the others thought John and James as leaders. Jerusalem being the cradle of Christendom where birth, public ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, the first spreading of Gospel and emerging of the first Church took place and its bishop always enjoyed special honor. James presided the first apostolic synod in Jerusalem as bishop of the area. But he was never replacement to Peter. St Paul says that at the time of his conversion Peter, John and James were considered the pillars of the Church. Gospel of Thomas claims James was the first leader of the early Church. Nicene synod did not approve ‘Acts of Thomas’ or ‘Gospel of Thomas’ since they were of spurious origin, heretical and more fictional than historical. They are not acceptable to genuine readers. John chapter 21 set at rest the whole leadership issue, that Jesus appointed none else but Peter to shepherd the whole Church.

Regardless of arguments, Peter's heroism is of unmatched excellence. Peter's denial, repentance and reinstatement stand out the best example of human frailty, failure, true repentance, absolution and reinstatement.

(2) "Episcope holen dakhrezv haimonutho babnos kolo d'Semavoon alphooh dlo heriyono." As Semavoon said, bishops taught the faith without disputing (change), page 182 Thurs Kauma IV.

(3) The Fathers of the Church conferred equal status to Moses and Peter. “Moose reeso d’athikatho o’semavoon dah’datho / thrihun domen lah’dode valoho bhun sre / Moose ahes loohe dno Moose o’semavoon kabel / kleede d’malkooso / Moosebno maskan sabno o’semavoon eethobno / o’men aathiktho vah’dado lok subaho moreo / haaleluuya slooshun th’aderlan.” (Kukoyo, Monday midnight II). Meaning, “Moses was the head of the Old Testament Church. Peter is the head of the New Testament Church. Both have semblance. (Lord God confirmed this. Moses received tablets of laws. Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Moses built tabernacle in the Church. Peter built New Testament Church. O Lord, glory be to your name from the Old and the New. May their prayers help us, Halleluiah."

(4) But "S'heema Namaskaram," MOC Publication 1989, p 97 reads differently conveying the same essence; "Darshaka padavikkuravidamam Mosaye naamorpu / Sleeha ganathin thalayalam Seemone yumathupol." Undoubtedly Semavoon is equated to Moses in both versions.

(5) "Panthiru thuunukalee dharaye thankgunnu / Panthiru maasangal aandin makudangal / Panthranduravulavai aa Seemon dese / Panthiru sleehanmar vachanam ghoshichu / Vanilumoozhiyilum nana dishakalilum / thal prardhana njangal-kabhayam sanketham," (Tune- Pardaizo). Page 179, Thursday night Kaumo 2.

(6) "Sabhaye nin vathil kavalkarennum / Sathanil ninnum kakkunnu ninne / Seemonadharam Pouloso silpi / Yohannanistan susrushakkaran / Hale Rooha than veena nadam Daveedam." Page 219, Friday Morning.

(7) "Acharyathvam mun nirthi sleehar thalavan/ (Reeso d'sleehe means thalavan, not mumpan) Seemonodu nadhan chonnoree nadam hrudyam / Ninne gruha nayakanakki thanneedunnen / Ambara dharanee bandhana mukti thakkolukal nee / Bandhichal njanum bandhikkum / Mochichal mochikkum njanum / Paapikale prathi ardhichennal ketteedum." Page 248.

(8) L'Semavoon abdeh raabbaitho, val Yoohanon koruzo." "Veedin bharanam Seemone, suvisesham Yohannane," Marriage liturgy.

None of the above diminishes the importance of other apostles. All Apostles accepted Peter’s leadership without question. Peter, John and James were regarded as three pillars of the Church, Gal 2:9. The mention of ‘Three pillars’ does not allege that John and James took upon themselves the special commissions, which Jesus gave to Peter alone, nor does it diminish the pre-eminence of Peter; rather, it reveals how closely and united they preached the same gospel. Paul himself submitted to the authority of Peter, “I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and remained with him fifteen days,” Gal 1:18. The fathers of the early Church held and conveyed the same idea. Priesthood ceremony also very clearly asserts that the incumbent is given the blessing and authority of priesthood as it was given to and by Peter.

The following is clipped from my old article for clarity, not for arguments please.

St. Peter is entrusted with additional privileges, missions and responsibilities. At the first meeting itself Jesus treated him in a special way. Jesus promised him a surname, ‘Cephas.’ “You are Simon, the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas,” John 1:42. Cephas in Aramaic means rock. In the Old Testament ‘rock’ is synonym of Yahweh. Yahweh is the rock of Israel, 2 Sam 23:3, Is 30:29. He is their rock of refuge, Dt 32:37, Ps 18:3. He is their rock of deliverance, Dt 32:15, Ps 62:3. He is their everlasting rock, Is 26:4. Yahweh is the blessed rock, Ps 18:47. He is righteous, faithful rock in whom there is no wrong, Dt 32:4, Ps 92:16. Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron when they had no water in the wilderness of Zin. Moses and Aaron went into the presence of the Lord. The Lord instructed them to strike the rock with their rod. They did so and water gushed out of the rock (Meribah) abundantly, Ex 17:6, Num 20:11. St Paul interpreted, “that rock was Christ,” 1Cor 10:4. The title, ‘rock’ thus rightly belongs to Jesus Christ. By calling Peter ‘Cepah,’ Jesus imputed His personality in him rather; He conferred His own title to Simon. Adoption was common practice among Jews on those days. Family title was conferred on those who were adopted, Gen 15:2. It can be assumed without error that Peter was more like adopted kin to Jesus Christ. Heavenly father validated what Jesus conferred on Peter by revealing to him that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living God. It was then that Jesus confirmed him the title, ‘Cepah.’ Jesus promised to build the Church on the leadership of Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Some theologians interpret that, ‘Cephas’ is not a citation to Peter himself but to the faith he confessed. Such opinions are absurd as, “You are Cephas-Peter,” purely implies a personal reference. “Church is built upon him.” “He conferred this personally upon Peter,” says Tertullian. “Peter upon whom is built the Church of Christ,” says Origen. “It is on one man that He builds the Church,” says Cyprian.

Keys: Peter's personal commission is further fortified by assuring him the keys of kingdom of heaven. Given that all the apostles had the power to bind and loose it was more particularly bestowed on Peter in a special way. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” Mat 16:17-19. The key of the kingdom of heaven is not given to Church in a general sense but to Peter himself in a particular sense. In Isaiah 22:22 we read, “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder so he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open.” Rev 3:7 says, “He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens." and that is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, the door Himself, is legitimately holding the Keys of the Kingdom of God. “I am He who lives, and was dead and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen. I have the keys of hell and of death,” Rev 1:18. Jesus has authority over all things, created, uncreated, visible, invisible, earthly, celestial, living, dead, temporal and eternal. By promising the keys Jesus endowed all His authority to Peter.

Temple tax collectors’ inquiry to Peter if their teacher pays tax is an ample proof that Peter was by then well known in the society as representative of Jesus. Jesus affirmed it by asking Peter to pay tax for both Himself and Peter, Mat 17:24-27. His eminent position among the Apostles prompted Satan to sift him as wheat. Jesus prayed for him so that his faith would not fail, Luke 22:31-32. Jesus’ special care and keen interest to retain Peter in leadership position is self-evident in these statements. Peter in his frailty denied Jesus three times. Peter’s denial and its aftermath, that he will not forfeit but retain his leadership by strengthening other Apostles, were predicted well in advance, hence not by chance. On the first day after Sabbath when Mary Magdalene and other women entered the tomb to anoint the spices and the angel spoke to them that Jesus was risen from the dead asked them, “Go, tell His disciples and Peter” Mark 16:7. Special mention of Peter’s name is yet another piece of evidence of his éclat position among the disciples that the angel was very much aware of. It also testifies Jesus’ loving concern and special favor to Peter. The disciples disbelieved the account of resurrection as narrated by Mary Magdalene, Mark 16:1. Their words seemed to them like “idle tales.” Peter arose and ran to the tomb and thus he was the first among the disciples to believe the resurrection, Luke 24:11-12. Jesus commissioned Peter to feed His flock. Peter denied Him three times, as predicted, Mat, 26:69-75. Although he wept bitterly after denial, it was necessary to affirm his conviction. Jesus asked him three times if he loved Him more than other Apostles. Peter affirmed he loved more than others and surrendered by saying, “You know that.” Jesus then appointed him to feed His lambs (children), His sheep (women) and Goats (men). Unlike in English, Syriac version has distinct words. This fulfills all the previous promises. Our practice of declaring candidate’s unwavering faith and obedience to the Church and to the bishop who ordains (Salmoosa or Amologia) has its origin from this tradition.

Peter as the most obedient and loving disciple fulfilled the assignment soon after Jesus’ ascension. He took up the leadership of the disciples and disciples accepted it, as in Acts 1:15-17. Peter was the first Apostle to speak. He filled in the void in the gospels as to the end of Judas and initiated the process of selection of twelfth Apostle. Peter instead of claiming or exercising absolute authority for himself, submitted to the ultimate will of God. That is why our Church as always rightly teaches that no human being but Jesus Christ Himself is the real Head of the Church. No human being, no matter whatever title he holds, can be infallible. Peter is the first Apostle to preach at the Pentecost, Acts 2:1-41. He was first to perform miracles, Acts 3:1-11. He was the first to preach to gentiles and convert them, Acts 10:1-11:8

Primacy of honor to Rome, but all bishops are equal in spiritual powers: Fathers of the Church conferred a ‘primacy of honor’ to the bishop of Rome, as is evident from the Hudoyo canon 7:1 which reads, “There shall be four patriarchs in accordance with the four corners of the earth, that is, the bishop of Rome, with him the bishop of Alexandria, the bishop of Constantinople that is also called New Rome, and the bishop of Antioch who has jurisdiction over all the East. Bishop of Jerusalem shall be honored as the fifth patriarch without jurisdiction...” It may be noted that (1) the primacy was then conferred based on the political importance of Rome and has no bearing on faith. It was not mandatory too. Bishop of Rome never presided over any ecumenical synod. (2) "And all the east" is not found in the original council decisions. Relevant Nicene Canon 6 "Let the ancient custom which is followed in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis remain in force, by which the bishop of Alexandria has the supervision of all those places, since this is also the custom of bishop of Rome. Similarly, in regard to Antioch and the other provinces, let the inherited rights of the Churches be preserved." It neither suggests any primacy for the Bishop of Rome, nor includes India in the list of territory under the supervision of Antioch. Hudaya Canon has the words, "All the east" because it was codified by a prelate under the supervision of Antioch. Moreover when Syrian prelates came they taught whatever area beneficial to their continuance. Our fathers innocently believed, still continue to believe, what they taught were infallible. That is why despite that fact that at all times there existed rift, at times very serious, between foreign bishops and Indian bishops they did not seek independence. Here, "east" does not include India at all. (a) Hudoyo canon (Udayagiri, page 67-68) Chapter.

7:1, Nicea, reads, “Great bishop of the east shall be called catholicos from today. He is authorized, as the patriarch, to consecrate bishop. … Indians under the jurisdiction of Antioch are not authorized to consecrate patriarch for them. Patriarch or catholicos under him should consecrate bishop for them. … If head-bishop (Rees-episcopa) of Cyprus Island dies during monsoon and sea becomes unfriendly for journey, all bishops in that island shall meet due to exigency and consecrate metropolitan with consent of the patriarch of Antioch. Indians also similarly shall conduct with patriarch’s consent. In order to prevent widowing of diocese the patriarch should not prevent consecration by them. Points clear from this reading are: 1, India is separately identified from the east. 2, ‘Catholicos of the East’ had nothing to do with Malankara. Malankara was not included in the definition of ‘the east’ though geographically it would cover wide area. 3, Malankara (part of India) had authority to consecrate bishop in exigent situations. 4, It was Patriarch’s duty to permit Malankarese to consecrate bishops for them. 5, Patriarch willfully denied our minimum canonical right to have bishops. 6, Cyprus was independent from AD 431, not considered heretics. This status was denied to Indians.

(b) The list of diocese under St Moroosa, Catholicos of Thegris reads 1, Barbaya 2, Barman 3, Malthaya 4, Arsoon 5, Gemal and Marga 6, Segor 7, Karma 8, Kardweep 9, Banuharda 10, Firsabur 11, Sarsol 12, Taglib tribe of Arabia 13, Sajistan 14, Harat 15, Ardubijan (Vellinakshakthrangal by Aphrem Poulose Mor Athanasius, page 227). Obviously, Malankara was not under St Moroosa, Mapriana (Catholicos) of Tegris during 7^th century. (c) There is no mention of Indian Church in the writings of St Michael Rabo who wrote in the 12th century. Chances are; it was never before until 17th century. Certain historians struggle hard to relate bishop John of Persia who attended Nicene synod to Malankara saying that he was successor to St Thomas. “Greater India” is not limited to a particular area. Its boundaries varied under different empires. “ Greater India” here mentioned was probably the eastern portion of land near Arabian Gulf but did not constitute Malankara.

What Bar Ebraya logically concludes is; jurisdiction is assigned to four patriarchs according to four quarters of the earth. This arrangement was made to avoid confusion to the future synods. The basis was nothing but the political prominence of the cities. They had to, no doubt, please the emperor of Rome who convened the synod of Nicea, for it was the question of their survival. Jerusalem was honored, for, this place was blessed by the redemptive activities of our Savior. All bishops were equals. One patriarch had no superiority over other Patriarchs. No bishop was ever subject of another bishop. All Apostles bishops are equal partakers of the throne of St Peter. This also shows the oneness of the Church. “Every bishop has his own free will to the unrestrained exercise of his liberty and power, so that neither can he be judged by another, nor is he himself able to judge another,” Acts of the seventh council of Carthage, AD 256. Cyprian also held that, “Episcopate itself is one and undivided,” in his treatise on the unity of the Catholic Church. Though he was the bishop of Carthage, the clergy of Rome addressed him, “The blessed Pope Cyprian,” However Pope Stephen continued to stake his claim of superiority over other bishops and Cyprian continued to oppose him. There was struggle between Polycrates of Ephesus and Victor of Rome (AD 190) regarding the date of Easter. The decision of Polycrates to continue Easter on fourteenth of Nisan prevailed over the dictum of Victor. Eusebius and Jerome endorsed the decision of Polycrates. In the early Centuries all bishops treated themselves part of the same episcopate. Clement of Rome wrote letter to Corinthians. Some of his successors interpreted this as Clement acting as the ‘General to bishops.’ This is utterly untrue. Other bishops also acted the same way. Ignatius of Antioch wrote letters to at least seven Churches namely; Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarpus and Antiochians. Polycarpus of Smyrna wrote to Philippians. Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Sotter of Rome. Tatian the Syrian wrote to the Greeks. Irenaeus wrote to Victor of Rome. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianz, John Chrysostom and all early bishops wrote pastoral letters to other bishops. There was no question of one controlling the other. Later, Popes of Rome departed from the noble tradition, connived with the emperors, twisted the doctrines and gained control over other bishops. He became a formidable force to reckon with during the Middle Ages. He even dictated terms with rulers in Europe and had direct confrontations with some monarchs.

(5) Panthranduravulavai aa Seemon dese / In Syriac we read as "Thresar ainoso nba hvai baseemoon" means "twelve springs sprout out from Asee mon"Aseemoon is a place from where thelve springs gave water to Israel and not from "aa Seemon" and not for St. Petros The head of the Apostles.

Deevannasios Methrachan

Explanation and acceptance from Ref. Fr. K.K. John:

First of all, I thank Thirumeni for kindly correcting the error.

In a sense I had my own apprehension about this passage, as Thirumeni rightly quoted, I read it same way, in page 264 of sheema namaskaram, 4th edition Mar Julius Press 1977.

But in the MOC 1989 Malayalam version, translated it as "aseemon". I took that version, and that was wrong.

Still I fail to get a reference to the place "Aseemoon". Exodus 17 gives the former place name, "Repheedim", and new name as "Massah" and "Meriba". I could not relate "Aseemoon" to any of the above. Please be kind to give me a clarification.

Again, thanks for bringing the error to my attention, I stand corrected,

K.K Johnachen