Today we take up another popular myth. My explanations should not be seen as a final answer on any subject. Neither do I expect everyone to agree with me. I am just sharing a few of my thoughts on the questions under review:

1.)Myth: Even if the concept of autocephaly exists within the Oriental Orthodox tradition, it would serve no purpose in Malankara, and on the contrary, would only help to divide the church.
Fact:Had the founding fathers of the Catholicate in Malankara like Vattasseril Thirumeni and Geevarghese Bava wanted it, we could have broken off all ties with our Jacobite brothers, and gone off on our separate ways like the Marthoma Church did. What they attempted was, however, something totally different. Their attempt was to create a structure which would allow us to retain both the spiritual association with the Antiochian Church founded by St Peter, even as we safeguarded our legacy as St Thomas Christians by exercising spiritual and complete temporal authority over our own affairs. In doing so, they probably thought that our cherished St Thomas legacy was not safe under a situation where the Antiochian Church exercised temporal rights in Malankara.

The infamous Kalpana (Bull) of HH Yakub III in 1970, denying priesthood to St Thomas, proved that the founding fathers of Malankara were right in their thinking. Of course, Malankara Sabha has denounced the Kalpana, but to this day our Jacobite brothers - who enjoy a more umbilical relationship with the Syriac Church - have not been able to offer even a word of contrition despite the in-your-face insult against our common heritage. Instead, all that we get is spin, spin, and more spin. One of it actually goes like this: "It was not a Kalpana, but a private communication between HH Yakub III and HH Ougen." To my unenlightened mind, this makes it worse since the implication is that the patriarch privately believed that St Thomas was not a priest, but publicly professed something else!

But even this spin is quite unnecessary, since as a result of the 1970 Kalpana, many of our Jacobite brothers have been prepared to denounce their St Thomas legacy, and now harbour the view that St Thomas was not bestowed sacramental authority by Our Lord Jesus. Recently, for instance, I was shocked out of my wits to discover that an extremely knowledgeable person in the Jacobite Church, who can even be described as the last word on doctrinal matters in that church, harbours the same view. The time has now come for us to formulate our first finding:

a.) Autocephalous status is necessary for Malankara since the self-respect it bestows will allow the church to shore up its defences when our cherished beliefs come under attack. The weak response of our Jacobite brothers in the face of the 1970 Kalpana is an example of what can happen in the absence of autocephaly.

I will wrap up this posting after bringing up one more point.

b.) Autocephaly is necessary for Malankara because it will provide us with conceptual clarity.

To explain this point better, let us take the instance of our beloved Parumala Thirumeni - the saint of Malankara -, whose memory is dear to both the factions.

The Salmoosa Of Parumala Thirumeni: A Contextual Analysis

There's now a school of thought having much currency in the Jacobite Church that the Metran faction's connection to Parumala Thirumeni is restricted to the real estate it holds in Parumala.

These are some of the reasons that they cite:

i. Parumala Thirumeni was originally from the north and set up base in Parumala only because the church wanted it so.

ii. Parumala Thirumeni's salmoosa (agreement given at the time of ordination) clearly mentions his commitment to the Antiochian Church.

iii. The salmoosa also says that "my weak selves will never, at any day, violate the decisions, rules, and canon law.. and customs of the Jacobite Syrians, any commandments of Your Holiness... If indeed I do, as were Satan and Cain cursed by God, I will be accursed and execrated from the mouths of God.."

iv. The Indian Orthodox Church is a group that rebelled against the Syriac Church Of Antioch.

v. Therefore, the Indian Orthodox Church cannot be considered the legatees of Parumala Thirumeni.

So many unedifying translations of parts of the salmoosa are doing the rounds in internet forums. But a translation in chaste English is available here, probably done by the learned Dr Thomas Joseph.

After reading the salmoosa, the following thoughts occurred to me.

i. Since it clearly mentions that the declaration was written "in trust, fully according to my own will, gladness and contentment", one cannot hold the view that Parumala Thirumeni was coerced or tricked into writing it.

ii. The commitment of Parumala Thirumeni towards the Antiochian Church is also evident from its contents.

iii. The salmoosa adopts a harsh and unforgiving tone towards dissenters from the church and this gives us the impression that the context in which Malankara Sabha operated at that point has to be examined. We have Biblical precedents for this. The letters of St Paul, for instance, refer to numerous instances when the apostle adopted a very harsh tone towards the churches he established so as to put troublemakers in their place. In 1 Corinthians 4:21 he asks, "What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?"2 Corinthians 10-13 is considered extremely severe in its admonishments. See 13: 2. "I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare."

The year was 1876. Patriarch Peter IV* had recently arrived in Malankara at a time when the church was undergoing great churn as a result of the 'reform movement' initiated by Palakkunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasius. The Patriarch had earlier excommunicated him. After the arrival of the patriarch, the Travancore government too withdrew the royal proclamation in favour of Mar Athanasius. But the dissensions caused within the church as a result of Mar Athanasius' reign as the de jure Malankara Metropolitan for 24 long years since 1852 by exploiting the influence of the British was considerable. The convening of the Mulanthuruthy Synod was one way by which the Patriarch tried to stabilise the situation. The reaffirmation of faith in very strong language in the salmoosas of the newly ordained bishops could have been another.

iv. Internal evidence from the text of the salmoosa seems to bear this out. For example when Parumala Thirumeni says: "I will, never, at no time...ordain anyone who has not come forward justly without deceit and guile, ordain anyone without inquiry and testing...", it appears as though it's a direct reference to Mathews Mar Athanasius, who, legend has it, was ordained as a bishop by Patriarch Elias II on the basis of forged letters of support from believers in Malankara. In truth, the patriarch ordained him "without inquiry and testing".

Again when Parumala Thirumeni says that "I will, never, at no time...accept in any way, permit or agree to accept anyone who has been accursed or excommunicated by the Holy Fathers of Antioch, commune or dialogue in any way with any of them...", the reference seems unmistakably to the recently excommunicated Mathews Mar Athanasius.

Also, Parumala Thirumeni says, "I will, never, at no time...disobey any commandment from the Holy Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatios of Antioch to go or arrive at any place at any time even if weakened by illness or by age or anything else, or do anything that my ordination I have accepted or will accept permits, such as a chastised metropolitan consecrating another metropolitan, or other deeds..." It may be noted that in 1869 or thereabouts**, Mathews Mar Athanasius, who had lost the trust of the reigning Patriarch, had consecrated his own nephew Thomas Mar Athanasius as his successor. Here too, the reference "chastised metropolitan consecrating another metropolitan" seems to be pointed straight at Mathews Mar Athanasius.

Therefore, when we place the salmoosa in its context, we will realise that it was written at a time when the Malankara Sabha was passing through a difficult period, and that it was expressly intended to stamp out Protestant-influenced dissensions, shore up the traditional faith, and prevent the newly-ordained bishops from having any association with the 'reformists'. Separating the salmoosa from its context, and using its wordings to run down Vattasseril Mar Dionysius Thirumeni and his legacy, as our Jacobite brothers are doing, is highly unfair. This is especially so since Parumala Thirumeni was not alive when the split occurred in 1911. Also, Vattasseril Thirumeni himself was a disciple of Parumala Thirumeni, and the conduct of his adversary Patriarch Abdulla II in Malankara was very highhanded according to many traditions.

Coming Back To Conceptual Clarity

But the larger point that I was arriving at was something else. According to anecdotal evidence, even while he was alive, Parumala Thirumeni was considered a holy person. In the years following his untimely death in 1902, the fame of the great father spread throughout Malankara. Until then, although Malankara boasted of a Christian tradition since 52 CE, the St Thomas Christians only venerated foreign saints. These Christians had lost their independence since the beginning of the 16th century, and, therefore, had surrendered their ability to think independently as well. Accepting Parumala Thirumeni as a saint and placing him along the ranks of the saints of antiquity would have required a radical departure from conventional thinking. 'Can there be a saint in Malankara from among us lowly Indians?' was the question, and it went unanswered. Finally, the followers of Vattasseril Thirumeni broke the mould, because only we possessed the conceptual clarity to realise that the sweep of sainthood is universal and not restricted to the Middle-East or the West. Among all the St Thomas Christians of Malabar, split between the Syro-Malabar, Malankara Orthodox (both factions), Knanaya Sabha (both Catholic and Syriac Orthodox), Syro-Malankara, and the Chaldeans (I am not counting those which had Protestant leanings at that point), it was we who could arrive first at the conceptual breakthrough that a saint could have actually lived among us. Though Chavara Kuriakose died much before Parumala Thirumeni (in 1871), it was only in 1953 that a petition was sent to Rome requesting his canonisation. He was finally canonised in 1986.

Thus, on November 2, 1947, the Malankara Sabha synod met at Parumala and declared "Yaldo Catholicos entombed at Kothamangalam Cheriya Pally and Parumala Mar Gregorios Metropolitan as saints". It was noteworthy that at that time the church was led by Baselios Geevarghese II, who was himself a disciple of Parumala Thirumeni. Though the Jacobite faction was at that time led by Malankara Metropolitan Mor Athanasious Paulose, who too was a disciple of Parumala Thirumeni, it took them 40 more years to gain the confidence to request Damascus for inclusion of Parumala Thirumeni's name along with the saints mentioned in the fifth diptych (toobden). And even though the Syriac Church claims to be a universal church, it seems to have two tiers of saints. One, the universal saints of the Suriyani church whose names are read everywhere including Malankara. Two, the saint of Malankara whose name is read only in the Indian wing. The Patriarchal encyclical in this regard clearly mentions that "this practice should be observed in our Churches in India as well as in the Churches of our faithful from India. wherever they celebrate Holy Qurbono". Since the church claims to be universal, one fails to understand why our Jacobite brothers cannot bring themselves to demand that Thirumeni's name be read everywhere. Perhaps, only an independent-minded church can claim the confidence to make such demands.

So the next time any of our Jacobite brothers taunt you claiming exclusive rights over Parumala Thirumeni's legacy citing his ancestry and his salmoosa, hold your head up high and remind them of 1947. It was no ordinary year. On August 15 of that year this country had won its precious independence. After a long and arduous freedom struggle, we had just sent the British packing, and the air was thick with the warm glow of hope and emancipation. That was the context in which our church gathered the courage to declare one among us as a saint. Flush with the nationalist spirit, we arrived at a universal truth that saints could come from anywhere. Therefore, it's we and not our Jacobite brothers who are the true legatees of Parumala Thirumeni, because it's we who first showed the courage to PROCLAIM HIS SAINTHOOD. That decision was an eye-opener for our Jacobite brothers, who had surrendered their rights to think on their own. And we could do it only because of the spirit of independence we possessed. Of course, the memory of Parumala Thirumeni belongs to all of Malankara, and the reverence for the saint is one of the few things on which the two factions dare not quarrel.

Conclusion:
1.) Autocephalous status is necessary for Malankara since it helps us to defend our cherished beliefs.
2.) Autocephalous status is necessary for Malankara because it will provide us with conceptual clarity.

Note: *Once we place the salmoosa in its context, we would be able to gain a proper appreciation of all that Patriarch Peter IV had done to shore up the faith in Malankara. There's now a tendency in the Indian Orthodox Church to ignore his contributions towards refounding the Orthodox Church in India, and to focus on his 'excesses'. An objective view of Patriarch Peter IV would not be possible without understanding the extraordinary crisis in which the Malankara Sabha was placed at that time. The patriarch took strong measures to revive the faith. If people had misgivings, one shouldn't forget that no alternative model was presented to him. In contrast to someone like Patriarch Abdullah II who alienated a majority of the faithful by his highhanded actions, Malankara Sabha held HH Peter IV in awe during the time he was here. Here are links to two of his portraits that will give a flavour of the sheer force of his personality. a and b
** The website of the Marthoma church gives both the years 1868 and 1869. Hence the confusion.

Next: Is the Indian Orthodox Church legally autocephalous?