Today for a change we take up a myth prevalent in the Indian Orthodox Church. I strongly believe that knowing the truth is very important for any reconciliation to take place.

1.)Myth: The Indian Orthodox Church is legally an autocephalous entity.
Fact:The Indian Orthodox Church is de facto (in reality) autocephalous for the following reasons:

1.) We have been Christians since antiquity, and our church is undoubtedly one of the oldest in the world.

2.) Our St Thomas tradition lends us the rare status of an apostolic church.

3.) The independent status of our church is unquestionable, but as a result of the vicissitudes of history, we've had to surrender our independence to foreign churches several times. We've managed to assert our independence each time, but we've also lost something in the bargain every time.

4.) Since the time we liberated ourselves from the Roman Catholic Church in 1653, we were in close association with the Syriac Orthodox Church. On our request, HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II of the above church consecrated a Catholicos for us in 1912. He also granted to our church all the rights and privileges of an autocephalous church through two bulls issued on September 17, 1912, and February 19, 1913. Various courts of the land, including the highest court, have unambiguously affirmed the legality of the same.

5.) We've asserted our autocephalous status many times, and the rest of the Christian world views us as such. We are in communion with other Oriental Orthodox Churches, although our relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church has become strained.

6.) Like other autocephalous churches, the head of our church is answerable to no other foreign prelate, but only to our own Holy Synod, and his actions are subject only to our own constitution.

This is the de facto position, but the myth I've listed above concerns the legal status of the Indian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous entity. In other words, what is the de jure status?

One of the primary objectives in writing this series was to make a convincing case for the autocephalous status of the Malankara Church, which I, rather immodestly, believe to have done. But careful readers would have noticed that while I spoke about the desirability and quest for autocephaly, I did not say that the Indian Orthodox Church is legally autocephalous. There's a reason for this.

The Supreme Court in its 1995 majority judgement (Most Revn P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma {AIR 1995 SC 2001}) saw merit in most contentions of the Indian Orthodox Church. But on two crucial aspects, its verdict gave reasons for us to pause. One was about the episcopal nature of our church. Since it deserves a fuller treatment, I am not elaborating.

The second aspect was the court's view on the autocephalous status of our church. Let us now turn to what the judgement had to say about the autocephalous status of the Malankara Church. I quote:

"It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to record a finding on the question whether the Malankara Church is an autocephalous church as claimed by the plaintiffs. If it is found necessary to do so, we may indicate that we agree with the finding of the Division Bench recorded in Para 99 of the judgment under appeal." (source: Justice Jeevan Reddy's majority judgement)

In plain words, the Supreme Court bench says that while it's not giving a ruling on the matter, if found necessary to do so, it may indicate agreement with the ruling of the Kerala High Court division bench which had previously studied the issue. The High Court division bench's ruling on the matter is not found in Justice Jeevan Reddy's judgement. But fortunately for us, it's recorded in the minority view of Justice R M Sahai. This is what the high court said:

"We, therefore, hold that the Malankara Church is not an autocephalous church but is a part or division of the world Orthodox Syrian Church and set aside the finding of learned single judge that the Catholicos group has now established an autocephalous Church. We hold that while Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the World Orthodox Syrian church. Catholics of the East who is subject to the Constitution is head of the Malankara Church and the relationship between Patriarchate and the Malankara Church is governed by the provisions of the Constitution."

From this, we can understand that the Supreme Court of India is inclined to the view that our church is not legally autocephalous.

The Supreme Court in its majority ruling has hinted at why it was inclined to take this view: "It is significant to notice that even after the 1967 amendments to the 1934 Constitution, clause (1) still declares that '(T)he Malankara Church is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch'. It is not brought to our notice that this clause has been amended later so as to repudiate the affirmations contained in it."

From this what I understand is that the High Court ruled and the Supreme Court indicated that we are not autocephalous because we ourselves in our 1934 constitution (amended in 1967) declared that "we are a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church". The matter is not so simple that just by amending the constitution and removing all references to the Syriac Church our legal status as an autocephalous church will be confirmed.

Thus, while we are in reality an autocephalous church, as a result of the conflict within our church, we've been constrained to accept the courts of the land as the final arbiter. The Supreme Court of India is inclined not to support our autocephalous status because of the assertions made in our own constitution. Therefore, we can state that we are a de facto autocephalous church, but not one de jure.

Instead of being in denial, the challenge before our church leadership would be to peacefully resolve this issue, even as we maintain our warm relationship with the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches. In my view, autocephaly through consensual route could be one way out of the present conflict in our church. Instead of assuming that the Syriac Church wouldn't grant us the same, we should first test the assumption either on our own or through the offices of other Oriental Orthodox Church prelates.

The two Indian churches can then learn to co-exist peacefully, the Indian Orthodox Church as an autocephalous church, and the Jacobite Church as an autonomous one having a more umbilical relationship with the Syriac Church.