Our attempt today would be to find evidence to dispel another popular myth.

Myth: HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II didn't have the authority to consecrate a Catholicos for Malankara in 1912.
Fact:After the Malankara Orthodox Church split into two factions in 1911, there has been a series of litigations between the two sides. The first of these was actually initiated by the government of India when in 1913 the Secretary of State for India filed the interpleader suit in the District Court of Trivandrum seeking a declaration from the court as to which of the two rival sets of trustees were entitled to draw the interest on the 3,000 Star Pagodas deposited with the British treasury by Mar Thoma VI. This is known as the 'Vattipanam Case'.

The point I would like to make is that in the 92 long years which have passed by since the Vattipanam Case was first initiated, and despite the fact that time out of number the legality of HH Patriarch Abdul Masih's consecration of a Catholicos in Malankara in 1912 was questioned, various courts in this country - from the lowest to the highest - have consistently held the view that the withdrawal of the firman by the Ottoman Sultan did not affect the patriarch's ability to exercise his spiritual functions.

At the time of the Vattipanam Case itself, our Jacobite brothers conceded that the withdrawal of the firman by itself didn't affect the exercise of purely spiritual functions by a Patriarch. I quote: "It was conceded on both sides (in vattipanam suit) namely that the firman issued to Abdul Messiah was withdrawn and that such withdrawal itself has no effect on the exercise by a Patriarch of purely spiritual functions." (Judgement of Chatfield C.J. in the Vattipanam Case quoted by Justice Jeevan Reddy in his majority judgement). Justice Jeevan Reddy also quoted from another judge's (Parameswaran Pillai) ruling in the same case: "The fact that temporal govt. withdrew his (Abdul Messiah's) recognition cannot affect the spiritual standing and position of Abdul Messiah. It is also pointed out in Para 42 of the judgment under appeal that no plea has been raised in any of the pleading alleging the invalidity of, or the grounds of invalidity of, Abdul Messiah continuing to perform his spiritual functions as the Patriarch. The judgement under appeal also refers to the canonical position when there are two Patriarchs." Thus we find the Travancore High Court judge pointing out that no plea had been raised on the invalidity of HH Abdul Masih continuing to perform his spiritual functions. If the Jacobites had material on the invalidity of HH Abdul Masih performing spiritual functions due to the insinuations now being made in internet forums, surely they would have presented it.

Was Patriarch Abdul Masih II excommunicated by the Syriac Synod?

My research on this topic was constrained by the absence of a first hand visit to the theatre of action - the Tur Abdin area of Turkey - to secure authentic information through interviews with local experts, and possibly the descendants of Patriarch Abdul Masih II's immediate family. A search in the Ottoman archives is also necessary. But based on the information I've got through library research, I am nevertheless ready to stick my neck out and reveal the most surprising conclusion I've reached. But I will leave that for the last. Let me first share with you my thoughts on as to why excommunications by church synods in Ottoman Turkey carried no value.

Synodal Excommunication Carried No Value In Ottoman Turkey.

The Turkish government at that time followed a most venal and corrupt system in confirming the legal status of various Christian religious heads through the issue of firmans. Very often, the Porte (the government) issued it to the highest bidder. Even after this process was over, it was not unusual to find a rival contender paying more money to have the incumbent deposed. The britannica encyclopaedia in its entry on the 'History of Greece', talks about how this system corrupted and spiritually degraded the Greek Orthodox Church. I quote: "...The Orthodox Church, however, fell victim to the institutionalized corruption of the Ottoman system of government. The combining of civil with religious power in the hands of the ecumenical patriarchate and the upper reaches of the hierarchy prompted furious competition for high office. This was encouraged by the Ottomans, for it was soon the norm for a huge peshkesh, or bribe, to be paid to the grand vizier, the sultan's chief minister, on each occasion that a new patriarch was installed. Thus, despite the fact that, in theory, a patriarch was elected for life, there was a high turnover in office. Some even held the office more than once. Grigorios was executed by the Ottomans in 1821 during his third patriarchate, while during the second half of the 17th century Dionysius IV Mouselimis was elected patriarch no fewer than five times. It was this kind of behaviour that prompted an 18th-century Armenian chronicler to taunt the Greeks that they changed their patriarch more frequently than they changed their shirt. Bribes had to be paid to secure office at all levels, and these could be recouped only through the imposts placed on the Orthodox faithful as a whole..."

The Ottomans didn't care two hoots for what any synod decided. As far as they were concerned, Patriarchs could be deposed either due to political reasons or after receiving bribes. Church synods soon learned to stay neutral because they stood to lose face, if for instance, they excommunicated a deposed Patriarch and that worthy then went ahead and successfully bribed the grand vizier handsomely to make a comeback! This time by deposing the incumbent who had got him deposed in the first place!!

Let's illustrate this using the example given in the encyclopaedia britannica of ecumenical patriarch Dionysius IV Mouselimis. According to the website of the Greek Orthodox Church, his terms of office ran somewhat like this:
First appointed 1671
Deposed 1673
Appointed patriarch again 1676
Deposed again: 1679
Appointed patriarch for the third time: 1682
Deposed for the third time: 1684
Appointed patriarch for the fourth time: 1686
Deposed for the fourth time: 1687
Appointed patriarch for the fifth and last time: 1693
Died or Retired: 1694

Imagine what would have happened if the Greek Orthodox Synod excommunicated him each time he was deposed? They would have ended up excommunicating him four times, and he would have still returned as Patriarch even after the fourth excommunication!! Church synods thus learned to play it safe. The message we should take from this is that synodal excommunication of deposed prelates by various Christian denominations in Ottoman Turkey carried no value.

Abdulhamid II the serial deposer

During the period in question when HH Abdul Masih II was deposed, Turkey was ruled by Sultan Abdulhamid II (reigned 1876-1909). In his time, Patriarch Joachim III of the Greek Orthodox Church was deposed in 1884. Seventeen years later, the Porte lifted him from obscurity and appointed him once again as the ecumenical patriarch. This time by deposing Patriarch Constantine V.

In this case, the motive seems to have been money, since if a Patriarch is removed for political reasons, it's unlikely that he would be reinstated during the reign of the same sultan. But Abdulhamid had also deposed Patriarchs due to political reasons. In 1896, he deposed Matteos III Izmirlian, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, for denouncing the massacre of Armenians that year, says this web page.

The serial deposer Abdulhamid received his comeuppance when he himself was deposed by the Young Turks! That's another story. But we know that Sultan Abdulhamid II has deposed at least four Patriarchs of various Christian churches. Given this context, isn't it reasonable to assume that HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II was just the victim of a pernicious system?

Rival Patriarchs: Some Curious Developments

a.) There are some other curious developments in the case of HH Abdul Masih. Throughout his tenure, the de jure Patriarch Abdullah II was either travelling or resident at the Dayro d-Mor Margos in Jerusalem, while the deposed Patriarch continued to stay in Turabdin, either at the Kurkmo Dayro, the then official seat of the Patriarch, or at Mor Gabriel in Midyat! On his death, the official patriarch was buried at Jerusalem, while the so-called excommunicated patriarch was buried at the Kurkmo Dayro, just as all patriarchs were honoured. We should not read too much into all this, and there could be other reasons for the same, but at the least it raises questions about the excommunication story.

b.) I could be wrong, but the available information I have indicates that Patriarch Abdul Masih II was a native of Qala'at-el-Mara, a small village located between Mardin and Kurkmo Dayro. In his book, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery, Oswald H Parry (Gorgias Press) has given a description of this village which he places a mile into the five-mile trek between Mardin and Kurkmo Dayro. In the book, he describes the great church of Mar Yakob at Kurkmo Dayro, and of a staircase leading to a terrace, on to which opens a number of rooms, including the Patriarch's winter retreat. Parry says it has the "most glorious view to south and west across the plain and up the Qala'at-el-Mara Valley". This means that HH Abdul Masih's supposed native village was only a stone's throw away from the Patriarchal seat. HH Abdullah, on the other hand, was a native of Saddad, a village near Homs. If this inference is true, it's reasonable to assume that Patriarch Abdul Masih could draw upon considerable strength in the area surrounding the patriarchate. Surely, he would have been the pride of his people. This perhaps explains his continued residence there as a rival patriarch. Readers of Mundukuzhy achen's Catholicate history would know that rival patriarchates were not an uncommon occurrence in the Syriac Church.

Shocking Revelations By Two Historians

Before I conclude, I thought it was apt to delve a bit on what two historians have to say on these two rival patriarchs. An allegation that keeps coming from the IOC side is that HH Patriarch Abdullah II was a defector to the Catholic faith in between. So far, I am yet to see any refutation of this allegation by the Jacobites, but I thought it merited a look only if I found some historian supporting the contention. The search finally led me to two books. One, The Lesser Eastern Churches by Adrian Fortescue (Gorgias Press) and two, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle-East by John Joseph (SUNY Press).

This is what Adrian Fortescue wrote about Patriarch Abdullah:
"The present Jacobite Patriarch is Lord Ignatius Abdullah Sattuf. His holiness was born at Sadad, a village about six hours south of Homs, where many Jacobites live. His original name is Abdullah Sattuf. Having entered a monastery, he became bishop of Homs and Hama, taking the name Gregory. Then he was Metropolitan of Diyarbakr. He came once to England (as Bishop of Homs and Hama), collected money and imbibed here some Protestantizing ideas. He also went to look after his co-religionists on the Malabar coast, and there fraternized with Protestant missionaries. Returning to Syria he had already begun to agitate against the use of holy pictures, and otherwise spread Protestant ideas when, as a result of some obscure quarrel, he surprised everyone by turning Uniate in 1896. He was a Syrian Uniate for nine years, and held the Uniate see of Homs. Then in 1905, he went back to the Jacobites, received again his see of Diyarbakr and a promise of the Patriarchal throne, when it should be vacant. Soon after, in 1906, the former Patriarch Ignatius Abdulmasih was deposed and went to Malabar. In spite of the promise it cost Sattuf much intrigue and £T350 (borrowed from the Jacobite bishop at Jerusalem) to secure his own election; eventually he had to spend altogether £T500. He was enthroned on August 15, 1906 (O.S.). As an exception, he has never been Mafrian. There are discontented Jacobites under him who say that His Holiness stains the Patriarchal throne by various faults, of which excessive avarice is the chief. Many hope for and expect his deposition." He adds in a footnote: "I should perhaps add that I have these details from first-hand sources in Syria. I regret that they are more curious than edifying."

But wait a minute, even Patriarch Abdul Masih doesn't come smelling of roses. Fortescue says that on May 3, 1913, i.e. just three months after he wrote to Malankara granting authority to Metropolitans to consecrate a Catholicos, HH Abdul Masih was "reconciled to the Catholic Church by Ignatius Ephrem Rahmani, the Uniate Syrian Patriarch of Antioch. Two other Jacobite bishops had already done so in January".

This is what John Joseph has to say about both:

"When the old patriarch died on October 7, 1894, there began a rivalry among the bishops in a race for his vacant chair. The government interfered and, according to the American missionaries, intimated which of the bishops were acceptable, while in the meantime it held the "office before the remaining eligible candidates subject to the highest bidder." Abd al-Massih II was elected in 1895; his chief rival, Abd Allah Sattuf, embraced Catholicism the year following the election. Sattuf, however, was enthroned as Jacobite Patriarch in 1906 when he renounced his Catholicism. This time, Abd al-Masih himself became a Catholic, in 1913."

Adrian Fortescue was a British Catholic historian. The Lesser Eastern Churches, first published in 1913, formed part of a trilogy* on eastern Christianity which was well received. Fortescue bases his information about HH Abdullah and HH Abdul Masih on personal sources.

John Joseph, a native of Iraq with degrees from Princeton University, was Audenried Professor of History and Archaeology at Franklin and Marshall College, US. He sources his information on HH Abdullah and HH Abdul Masih primarily from a Syrian Catholic author by name Ishaq Armalah, particularly his book Kitab al-Zahrat al-Dhakiyah fi al-batararkiyah al-suryaniyah al-antakiyah

According to the above authors, both the prelates had made forays into Catholicism. Like HH Abdullah, HH Abdul Masih too would have returned back to his mother church since he was after all buried at Deir-el-Za'aferan. I don't know how reliable the information is due to the Catholic connections of the authors. But nevertheless, it may reflect some kernel of truth.

Conclusion

The lowest to the highest courts in India have consistently upheld the right of HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II to exercise his spiritual functions despite the Sultan of Turkey withdrawing his firman. Therefore, he certainly posessed the authority to consecrate a Catholicos in Malankara. Ideally, we can consider him as a rival patriarch who was a contemporary of the official HH Patriarch Abdullah II.

At least two historians have written about both the prelates making forays into the Syrian Catholic church. But without more enquiries, we cannot be sure about the veracity of these charges. In the volatile tinderbox that was the Ottoman Empire for the ancient Christian churches in those days, people took decisions that they thought best assured the safety of their community. We should not judge too harshly.

The Conclusion I've Reached On Abdul Masih II's Excommunication

On this topic, there are plenty of rumours and urban legends, but little hard evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I reckon the best way to examine the topic would be through the intense rivalry which characterised the relationship between HH Patriarch Abdullah II and HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II. In his bull dated February 19, 1913, written to Malankara from Tur Abdin, Patriarch Abdul Masih II describes his rival as an "usurper". Historian John Joseph cited above, draws the picture of a deeply divided Syriac synod and uses words like squabbles, rivalry, coterie etc. to convey the idea. To complete the picture, John Joseph even says that HH Patriarch Abdullah II had "himself been excommunicated before his consecration".

Based on all this, I feel this is what could have happened. HH Patriarch Abdul Masih II had his rival Gregorios Abdullah excommunicated by the Syriac Synod when the latter left to join the Syrian Catholic Church in 1896. In return, HH Patriarch Abdullah II had his rival and former Patriarch Abdul Masih II excommunicated by the Syriac Synod when he became Patriarch in 1906. If true, what value can we give to such synodal excommunications?

The only lesson we can draw from our review of this sad chapter in the Malankara Church's history is that we didn't deserve to quarrel and separate, taking sides over the actions of these two prelates. It's saddening to realise that we as a people still do not possess the maturity to put things into proper perspective.

Notes:
* These are the books in the trilogy:
The Orthodox Eastern Church
The Lesser Eastern Churches
The Uniate Eastern Churches

Next: The salmoosa of HH Ougen I