Our journey continues.

1.)Myth: The Catholicos of the Jacobite faction in India is the no.2 in the universal Syriac Church.
Fact:There's no Catholicos in the real sense of the term in the Syriac Church. The Indian wing of the church is actually headed by a Maphryan/Maphryono. This is because although the head of the Indian wing of the Syriac Church takes the title Catholicos, Damascus envisages the arrangement as one of a Maphryan presiding over a Maphryanite. In the Syriac Church, the terms 'Maphryan/Maphryono' and 'Catholicos' are used interchangeably, but the two are conceptually different. The Catholicos was a title used by the independent Persian Church right from the time it was undivided. After a majority in the church accepted the Nestorian heresy, it should be assumed that both the Nestorian and monophysite Persian churches continued to use the title for their prelates. The weakened monophysite Persian Church increasingly gravitated towards the Syriac Church for spiritual support. It was a relationship that blew hot and cold, with the Persians occasionally reasserting their will to signal their independent traditions in the face of provocations from the Syriacs. Somewhere in between, the Syriacs started using the term Maphryan for the Catholicos. In the Maphryan, they saw only a regional prelate obedient to the diktats of the Antiochian Church. The relationship continued to be a troubled one (please refer to the Catholicate History which was serialised in this forum by Rev. Fr. Thomas P Mundukuzhy), and finally in 1860 the Syriac Synod abolished the Maphryanite. And thus was forcefully ended a tradition in the Syriac Church which was constantly perceived as a thorn in the flesh because these Christians used to assert their independent heritage occasionally and considered themselves St Thomas Christians. It should be mentioned here that all Persian Churches, be they Catholic or Nestorian, consider St Thomas as their founder. Here's a link.

Why The Jacobites Use The Title Catholicos For Their Prelate

When the Catholicate was relocated from Tikrit (actually Mosul) to India in 1912 under the authorisation of Patriarch Abdul Masih II, Malankara was embarking on a well thought out path to self-actualisation. What was envisaged was not the transfer of the moth-eaten Maphryanite obeying the diktats of the Syriacs, but the independent Persian Catholicate with all its rights and privileges. Its tradition of being a church founded by St Thomas was also identical to our own. There was logic and beauty in this scheme of arrangement. The Persian Church of Tikrit accepted the monophysite doctrine of the Syriacs, but they had their own independent traditions of being St Thomas Christians as well. Malankara too was similarly placed. The Constitution that the Church formulated in 1934 clearly demarcated the boundaries between Malankara and the Syriac Church - no temporal authority for the Patriarch in Malankara, but he continues to be spiritually superior.

Even though they had their own supporters in India, the Syriacs who considered the Indian Church as their colony were alarmed and didn't want this notion to be left unchallenged. They realised that in course of time, all of Malankara would gravitate towards the Church, drawn by the sense of self-respect and pride it would instill in its members. Therefore, they forced the hand of their supporters to initiate litigation against the Catholicate.

The series of litigations initiated by the Patriarchal faction which began with suit No.111 of 1113 filed on March 10, 1938*, at the District Court of Kottayam and which finally ended with the Supreme Court judgement of September 12, 1958, had one goal as its main objective - declare the Catholicos and his supporters as heretics. The honourable Supreme Court saw the injustice in this and delivered a comprehensive verdict denying their contentions. This verdict had the salutary effect of ushering peace once again in Malankara. But it was not a peace that would last. When the Church split once again, the Patriarch consecrated a rival prelate for his wing and conferred the title Catholicos on him forgetting the fact that Damascus had continuously opposed the concept of Catholicate all along.

Our Jacobite brothers, who too had consistently opposed the concept of a Catholicate in Malankara from 1912 onwards, and had just ended an uneasy unity under a Catholicos in a bitter manner, suddenly jettisoned their rancorous, often violent opposition to the idea, and accepted Damascus' gift of the title of Catholicos for their own prelate. Surely, we laboured and they too profited?

They then went one step further and named the prelate so consecrated as Baselios Paulose II. Any idea who was Baselios Paulose I? No prizes for guessing.

Further Value Erosion For The Maphryanite

But it would seem that the Syriacs are not satisfied with even this weakened Maphryanite. While technically, the Maphryono is the No.2 in hierarchy within the Syriac Orthodox Church, his name is mentioned in the diptych (toob-den) during the Holy Qurbana only in India, while the name of the Patriarch is mentioned in all the Syriac churches of the world (See article 'The Concept of Jurisdiction and Authority in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch' by His Grace Mor Gregorios Johanna Ibrahim, archbishop of Aleppo), available at this link.

In other words, most Suryoyo laity of the Syriac Orthodox Church has no conception of the existence of a Maphryono in his/her church. If the church claims to be universal, why this discrimination?

Matters don't seem to end there. It seems that even the No.2 position granted to the Maphryono in the Syriac Church cannot be taken for granted. The archbishop of Istanbul in the Syriac Church, Mor Filiksinos Yusuf Cetyn, for instance, thinks he is the Deputy Patriarch.

Does the Deputy Patriarch outrank the Maphryono? Damascus needs to clarify instead of insulting our people any further.

Catholicoi Head Independent Churches

Here is a list of the prelates of various Christian churches who take the title Catholicos. The listing is in no particular order:

1.) Catholicos Dinkha IV (born 1935, elected 1976)
Full Title: Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church Of The East
Place of Residence: Morton Grove, Illinois, US
Name of Church: Assyrian Church of the East

2) Catholicos Mar Addai II (born 1948, elected 1973)
Full Title: Catholicos-Patriarch of the East
Place of Residence: Baghdad, Iraq
Name of Church: Ancient Church of the East

3) Catholicos Karekin II (born 1951, elected 1999)
Full Title: Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians
Place of Residence: Ejmiadzin, Armenia
Name of Church: Armenian Apostolic Church

4.) Catholicos Aram I Keshishian (born 1947, elected 1995).
Full Title: Catholicos of Cilicia
Place of Residence: Antilyas, Lebanon
Name of Church: Armenian Apostolic Church

5.) Catholicos Ilia II (born 1932, elected 1977)
Full Title: Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia
Place of Residence: Tbilsi, Georgia
Name of Church: Georgian Orthodox Church

6.) Catholicos Baselios Marthoma Didymos I (born 1920, elected 2005)
Full Title: Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan
Place of Residence: Kottayam, India
Name of Church: Indian Orthodox Church

As you can see from the above list**, the Catholicoi head churches of different traditions ranging from Nestorian to Greek Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox. But if there's one factor connecting all of them, it's the fact that all of them head independent churches and are answerable to only their respective synods. The only exception to this model is the Jacobite faction in India, which is envisaged as a regional prelate position within the Syriac Orthodox Church. I consider this as compelling evidence to the fact that the Jacobite faction in the Malankara Sabha is headed not by a Catholicos, but by a Maphryan.

Conclusion:
An overview of the history of the Catholicate in Persia and India, and the consistent hostility which the Jacobite faction displayed against the Catholicate concept right through its inception in India, leads us to conclude that their present adoption of the title for their prelate in India is based on a different point of view. World over, the Catholicoi of Christian Churches enjoy independence in decision-making and are answerable only to their synods. Here too, the weight of evidence leads us to conclude that the head of the Jacobite Church in India is not a Catholicos in the real sense of the term, and is actually a Maphryan.

Note:
*Known as the Samudayam suit. The original suit was first initiated by the Patriarchal faction on August 21, 1928 (O.S.2 of 1104) in the District Court of Kottayam against Vattasseril Thirumeni and the then Catholicos Baselios Geevarghese I. After they lost and appealed to the High Court, they "allowed it to be dismissed for non-prosecution". Subsequently, they instituted the Samudayam suit in 1938. Therefore, in 1928 and 1938, it was our Jacobite brothers who slapped suits on us asking the courts to declare us as heretics. This gives the lie to the Jacobite internet urban legend that we are vexatious litigants.
** The Roman Catholics have counter-churches (uniates) for entry nos. 1, 3, and 6 in the above list. They are the Chaldean Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, and the Syro-Malankara Church respectively. The heads of the first two churches take the title Patriarch and not Catholicos. In the case of the third, its prelate Archbishop Cyril Mar Baselios recently made an attempt to assume the Catholicos title. But thanks to the intervention of the Indian Orthodox Church through HG Eusebios, Vatican itself has disowned the move. Hence the church doesn't find an entry in the listing.

Next: Does The Patriarch Enjoy Temporal Authority In The Indian Jacobite Church?