Syrian Patriarchate
Patriarchate of Antioch
Of Antioch and All the East
and All the East
Damasus, Syria [Emblem]
No.203/70
To His Excellency our brother Baselius Augen I, Catholicos
of the East. My respectful (greetings).
After the respectful and brotherly kisses and the enquiry
about your well-being we say:
1. In your letter that we have received a few days ago, I
was very much surprised to read the words: “The Throne of Saint Thomas, the
Apostle.
Firstly, since the establishment of the Catholicate in the
fourth century, none of the Catholicoi or the Maphrians ever used this title.
Secondly, Saint Thomas the Apostle had never founded any
throne to be called ‘Throne of Saint Thomas the Apostle’, for he was not a
priest as it is evident from the Gospel of Saint John 20:21-24. As he was not a
priest, how did he become a high priest? As he was not a high priest, how could
he found a throne? Therefore none of the early writers mention that he had
founded the Catholicate throne. As Your Excellency have acknowledged in the
confession of faith that you had made in 1932, the Synod of Nicea had confirmed
the Catholicate of the East (page 4).
Thirdly, even the Nestorians who had usurped the Catholicate
of the East in the fifth century do not relate it to Saint Thomas the Apostle,
or to the ‘Throne of Saint Thomas’. But they had related it to Mar Mari,
disciple of the Evangelist Addai and they spoke of the ‘Throne of Mar Mari’.
Bar Hebraeus writes: “ Until the time of this Timothy
(Nestorian Catholicos of the 9th century), bishops of the Country of
Persia (that is Rewardshir) used to be dressed in white as the secular priests
and to eat meat and to take wives, and not to be submitted to the Catholicos of
Seleucia. They used to say: ‘ We are the disciples of the Apostle Thomas; we
have nothing to do with the throne of Mari”.
Fourthly, in the beginning of the second part of the
Ecclesiastical History, Bar Hebraeus speaks of Saint Thomas the Apostle; not as
the one who had founded the Catholicate of the East, but only as the first one
who evangelized the region of the East. Similarly, the names that follow him do
not belong to his ordination, but from the “ fabric” of the Nestorians,
as all the historians of our day witness.
Fifthly, we have ordained you not for the Throne of Saint
Thomas the Apostle, but for the Catholicate of the East. Therefore you have no
authority to change this title, lest you will fall into heresy.
2. It has been informed that at the time of the ordination
of priests and deacons, our beloved Metropolitans do not instruct them in the
promise of the ordination to be obedient also to the Patriarchate of Antioch,
the general head of the Church, as it is written in the true amalogia that was
used in the days of Bar Hebraeus.
Therefore our good will persuades us to ask your brotherhood
to warn the Eminent Metropolitans about this great error that they were
following during the division in the Church. In order to see this truth, read
the amalogia written by Mar Ivanios, who was in Malabar with the Catholicos
Eldo, which will be found in the Library of the Marthomites in Thiruvalla.
Therefore the Catholicos of the East is not outside the
jurisdiction of the Apostolic See of Antioch, but rather he is its Tahlupa
in the regions of the East, as the Patriarch Mar Athanasius Gamollo has
demonstrated when he ordained Mar Marutha of Tagrit.
He says in his letter to the monks of Mar Mathai: “ There
shall be a head for the bishops of Assyria, Arabia and the various regions of
Persia for the ordering of the Church. (Therefore) we ordain Mar Marutha of
Tagrit, Metropolitan from the Arabs, as the head and the general ruler of all
the bishops who have been named and of their regions and eparchies, in order to
represent our person and office, according to our tupartito , that is
instruction”. (Read the Chronicle of Michel the Great, which will be found in
the house of late Mr K.K.Lukose, page 413).
That is why you have said in the first ‘canon’ of your
(constitution): ‘The Church of Malabar is a part of the Syrian Orthodox Church,
submitted to the authority of the See of Antioch’. By all means you remember
what you have written in your confession of faith in 1932. Regarding this
subject you have written: ‘ I think that those who have created and follow the
Catholicos, do not seek to be separated from the communion of the Patriarch.
But they have simply created a Catholicos. By all means this is under the
Patriarch’ (page 4).
Again you have said: ‘ The Antiochian See is truly ancient
and glorious that all others, and it is the head of this people. Even if the
Church of Malabar receives a Catholicos, it will never be separated from the
See, but it will accept for ever the Patriarch as the supreme head of this
people (page 10).
3. Sometimes we have read in the News Papers and the
publications about the name of the Church. But they speak simply of ‘the
Orthodox Church’, without (the word) ‘Syrian’, which is the true name of the
Church.
4. Your brotherhood knows very well the decision that you
have made in the Synod (met) before your consecration as Catholicos, regarding
the churches in Kuwait and in other places. We are sorry to say that the
priests are appointed to these (churches) and the Metropolitans visit them
without our knowledge. This is against that decision.
Therefore we inform your beloved brotherhood that these
issues disturb the functioning of the Church as before. With your knowledge these should be
corrected. Henceforth we cannot tolerate such things. If these perversities are
not corrected, the Church will be again divided. Therefore it will not be
because of the Semites – as it was formerly said- but because of the
Malabarians who perverted peace and by the unpleasant contention in the Church.
We greet our apostolic blessings to our beloved and esteemed
Metropolitans and clergy and the people who are with you. The inhabitants of
the Patriarchal house kiss your hands and ask for your prayers. We remain.
The grace of the Lord be with you.
Our Father who art in heaven etc.
Ignatius Yakub III
Damascus
Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
27-6-70.
So considering the recent events regarding the possible meeting between the Patriarchate and the Catholicose, would it be a conciliatory move on our part as Malnkara Orthodox to relinquish the term "Throne of St. Thomas" as this term is loaded with so much bad history and misunderstanding? As a Malankra Orthodox, I don't see why we need to continue using such a term. It's not like the Catholicate depends upon that term. Does the integrity of our Catholicose depend on the continued usage of such a term? If so it is a rather frail claim! I am inclined to side with the Antiochians on this one that such a term was never used in history and that once new terms are introduced, we need to carefully analyze how said terminology will affect those around us. If it leads us into the path of schism, then the old saying of schism being worse than heresy comes to mind. May the upcoming visit between our two shepherds usher an era of peace and an imminent return of unity within the Orthodox church in India.
ReplyDeleteStop trolling. It's obvious your're not Orthodox.
DeleteHi Tim,
ReplyDeletePlease check out the West Syriac Synodicon by Arthur Voobus specifically the Teaching of Addai.
This is a "private" letter from one individual (Patriarch Yakub III) to another individual (Catholicose Augen I) that is it. This is not an Apostolic Encyclical that is send out to the entire church for public reading in churches. Nothing good comes out of taking a private correspondence and publishing it and blowing it out of proportion.
ReplyDeletehttp://malankaraorthodox.tv/?p=68248
ReplyDeleteThis kalapana does not claim the 'Supreme Head of Universal Syrian Orthodox Church'. When did the 'Universal....' began?
ReplyDeleteBellow brothers in Christ, Even though it's a private communication between two authorities, it's clear that the establishment of Catholicate and subsequent origin of "Throne of St.Thomas" has gone wrong somewhere. Hence this bull. Also it's clear that the Patriarch is admonishing the Catholicose as he is claiming the throne of St.Thomas for the causes known to him only. The validity of such a throne is also questioned. It's vivid from the bull that the Catholicose had gone astray. This should be the starting point for Church unity in Malankara Church Case. Go back to the Source and get connected in order to receive blessings instead of false arguments.
ReplyDeleteAs followers of Syrian Orthodox tradition, why should schisms? Accept the reality and truth. Accept the Holy throne of Antioch and the Patriarch who is the traditional and Apostolic Successor of divine virtues. What else more?
ReplyDeletethe above your blindness and foolishness , as can you show the basis throne Antioch anywhere either by early Apostolic teachings or by the Disciples Christ by Simon Peter , St .Paul or by st John etc ?
DeleteI think this theology is only taught at Udaigiri and Manjnikkara, and by their alumni, conveniently. Patriarch Yacub III could have said Christ is not God and there will be Jacobite people to defend that. I would suggest you read sources other than Jacobite Sunday School textbooks. I would love to see these students actually use these arguments in other Orthodox circles. You want to remain under the Patriarch. I get that. Nothing but respect for you. However, to suggest other people do the same for the argument you made is preposterous.
ReplyDelete