Context

Patriarch Abded Mshiho II of the Syriac Orthodox Church, who ascended to the Throne in 1895, was deposed in the early 1900s. The nature of this deposition — whether the Primate was deposed by the Church's Synod officially, or merely by the Ottoman Sultan's firman — has been a matter of dispute in the century-old "Orthodox-Jacobite" division in Malankara. Therefore, the approach adopted towards the matter must be sensitive, evidence-based, and objective.

Before we move on, there is an issue with the dating. Syriac Orthodox sources from the second and third quarters of the twentieth century state that a synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church in 1903 deposed Pat. Abded Mshiho, while slightly earlier Syriac Orthodox sources attest 1905, and Malankara sources attest only to the Sultan's firman, and not to a synod. To keep things simple, a specific date won't be presumed for the deposition.

Let's begin with the primary sources.

Sources I: Malankara Edavaka Pathrika

Malankara Edavaka Pathrika (hereafter MEP) was a monthly magazine, officially published by the Church under the ownership of the then Malankara Metropolitan, Mar Dionysius V Pulikkottil. The journal covered contemporary ecclesiastical matters, offered rebuttals to Reformed critiques, and published formal news related to the Church. For our purposes here, the editions of MEP published between 1905-1906 present details concerning the deposition of Pat. Abded Mshiho.

MEP Edavom (May-June) 1905 edition has an essay titled "The Displacement of Patriarch", in which it is noted that a couple of English sources report Pat. Abded Mshiho has been "deposed by the Turkish Government". The essay continues that this is possible, since "previous letters received from Syria inform us that quarrels exist between the Patriarch and Turkish Government". It links this matter to the existing Ottoman persecution of Christians (especially Armenians), and concludes with a report that the Sultan has ordered the Church to consecrate a new Patriarch to the Throne. The editor of the magazine further adds new information received from recent letters from Syria: Met. Dionysius Behnam of Mosul has been elected to execute the "temporal authority" of the Patriarch, and Met. Gregorius (later Pat. Abded Aloho II) who previously "wore the dress of a Roman Catholic" fearing the Government has now returned since he gained the Government's favor.

MEP Chingam (August-September) 1905 edition states the same — that Pat. Abded Mshiho has been deposed by the Ottoman Sultan — and further adds that a yogam (meeting) will be held soon to elect another to the Throne.

MEP Karkidakom (July-August) 1906 edition publishes the recent letter from Deacon T. A. Matthai (later Catholicose Augen I) in Syria: Met. Gregorius has been unanimously elected as the Patriarch, and the Government of Turkey has issued an order stabilizing his position. The editorial notes of this edition are pretty interesting, especially concerning our matter. Firstly, it is repeated that since the Turkish Government ordered Pat. Abded Mshiho to relinquish his position, Met. Dionysius Behnam of Mosul carried out the temporal functions of the Patriarch, and "it has been around two years since there is no one to execute the spiritual functions of the Patriarch, such as the consecration of bishops and blessing of chrism". Secondly, the editor expresses an agnostic view towards the cause for the deposition: he notes that sources are divergent concerning whether the Patriarch was deposed due to the Government's disfavor or of the Church's as well, and doesn't make a particular conclusion. Thirdly, the former outlook on Pat. Abded Aloho (formerly Met. Gregorius) has changed, most probably due to his ascension. He is now described quite positively / neutrally, as one who had to switch his Church due to the political circumstances.

The information conveyed by MEP between 1905-1906 can be summarized: Pat. Abded Mshiho II was deposed by the Ottoman Government for political or religio-political reasons, and Met. Gregorius who was formerly a Syrian Uniate has been elected as Pat. Abded Aloho II.

Sources II: The Letters of the Deacons and Sir N. O'Conor

In 1906, two deacons were sent from Kerala to Syria, to inquire concerning whether a Catholicate can be established in Malankara. Their letters were later quoted by the magazines Suriyani Sabha (1926: p. 326) and Sabha Chandrika (1950: pp. 113-114), both officially published by the Jacobite Syrians in Kerala.

In the first letter, the deacons note that "coming to know that His Holiness Old Patriarch had proceeded [Mal. ezhunalli] and is resting here [at the monastery], we arrived and stayed in his presence for three days". The Malayalam terms used to signify reverence — thirumanassu, ezhunalli, aviduthe adukkal — are significant, given the context. Quite interestingly, the same terms are not applied while referring to Pat. Abded Aloho: we can only speculate the cause. The second letter is noteworthy enough to be quoted:

We discussed with the Old Groom [Pat. Abded Mshiho]. There are no difficulties in getting the office of Chor-Episcopos and the office of Maphrian. .. New Groom [Pat. Abded Aloho] is not willing, and we don't see a way around it.

The point is simple: Pat. Abded Mshiho II is still seen as a Patriarch, and matters such as the establishment of the Catholicate are or have to be discussed with him. Why would this be, if the Patriarch was formally deposed from the Throne by the Church, and the only reigning Primate was Pat. Abded Aloho?

The answer to this can be found in another contemporaneous letter: from the aforementioned Deacon Mathai, addressed to Fr. Geevarghese Malpan (later St. Dionysius the Illuminator, i.e. Mar Dionysius VI Vattasseril).

There was not much error in the old Patriarch: simply that he didn't have the favor of some foremen. The people of Tur Abdin only accept him. .. Some metropolitans have not been received by their dioceses after consecrating the new Patriarch, and they have to now stay at the monastery. .. The new Bava has an interest in collecting money from Malayalathu [i.e. Malankara]. (Cit. “B. M.” akkapramanam in the Fixed Deposit Suit; Z. M. Paret, Malankara Nazranikal, Vol. 4, pp. 63-64).

This is further supported by Sir N. O'Conor's, then British Ambassador to Turkey, letter to Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary:

The Jacobite community throughout the country is being at the present moment greatly agitated by the struggle between the partisans of the ex Patriarch and the partisans of the Bishop of Mosul. The former was dismissed by Iradé at the request of a great majority of the priests and people some months ago, but has refused to relinquish his position. A majority of the Bishops agreed on the Bishop of Mosul as his successor, but the time required to allow them to meet at Mardin for the consecration has enabled the ex-Patriarch to set the usual machinery in motion and sow dissensions among them, the priests and the people. Money has been lavishly spent, with the result that there are now three camps – that wishing the ex-Patriarch reinstated, that insisting on the election of the Bishop of Mosul, and a third desirous of compromising by conferring the temporal power on a new Delegate while leaving the spiritual supremacy to the old Patriarch. (19th December, 1905; Khalid S. Dinno, The Syrian Orthodox Christians in the Late Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Periods: Crisis and Revival, p. 178)

It must be briefly noted what "a majority of the bishops" are: even according to the standard Syriac Orthodox narrative popular since the second quarter of the twentieth century, the synod deposing Pat. Abded Mshiho was at best supported by nine metropolitans, five of whom are said to have attended personally, and the rest four to have signed it (importantly, these signatures have no dates). There were, at minimum, eight other metropolitans and bishops who did not attend this synod (if it happened), sign its decrees, or support it.

That being said, O'Conor's attestation is crucial. For unknown reasons, by early 1906, a compromise seems to have occurred: a new Patriarch would be elected, but the former would continue, at least spiritually, in some manner. This would explain the accounts in the letters of the deacons, as well as a couple of other sources.

Sources III: Konat Malpan

Konat Mathen Malpan's letter to Pat. Abded Mshiho II dat. Dhanu 30, 1908 is published by the aforementioned Sabha Chandrika 3 (1950), as well as in other sources. The relevant parts are quoted here.

To our Father His Holiness Moran Mar Ignatius Patriarch Abded Mshiho the Second, who reigns over the Syrian community spread over the world. .. Patriarch Abdallah is avaricious.. and is the cause of all current shame. If a woman's husband desires to hurt or kill her, how will she live peacefully with physical pleasures, without inexpressible deep breathing and tears? Your Holiness is the rightful Patriarch. .. If Your Holiness is our Father and we are your children, go forth divinely with haste, and stop Patriarch Abdallah's visit towards us.. (Cit. “F. J” [Syriac] & "F. K." [Malayalam] akkapramanam in the Fixed Deposit Suit; Z. M. Paret, Malankara Nazranikal, Vol. 4, pp. 72-73).

Konat Mathen Malpan, nevertheless, would soon switch sides, probably due to personal quarrels with St. Dionysius. But his opinion on Pat. Abded Mshiho didn't change, until the Second Community Suit was filed: in a leaflet published by himself on Kumbham 5, 1910 from his press, titled Sookshmagrahi, he writes that Pat. Abded Mshiho is not "a deposed or a false Patriarch as certain malpans say", but a canonical Patriarch — albeit one under house arrest.

The "Synod of Deposition": Incoherent Accounts

Now that we have consulted the major contemporary sources, it would now be well to move on to the "Synod of Deposition" that supposedly deposed Pat. Abded Mshiho II, and the sources and accounts concerning it.

Firstly, Syriac Orthodox sources including Met. Philoxenos Yuhanon Dolabani's Phatriyarche d’Antiochiya (1990) states that the Synod took place at Dayr Zaʻfarān (Kurkmo Dayro). However, Pat. Aphrem I Barsoum's History of the Za’faran Monastery (1917) records twenty-one councils that took place at the monastery: there is one in 1895, and another in 1906, to elect Pat. Abded Aloho: but interestingly enough, nothing is mentioned about a synod in 1903. Is it because it was convened not to elect a Patriarch but to depose one? That is unlikely, since the fourteenth council (in 1817) Pat. Barsoum records did not per se elect anyone, as Pat. Matta surrendered his office to Maph. Basil Yaunan at the synod. It may be presumed that, if the Synod took place, it is omitted from the list because of its dubious nature.

Secondly, the earliest Syriac Orthodox sources that mention a deposing-synod date to after 1911. For instance, in a pro-Patriarch leaflet named Pathreebhavippan published in 1910, Pat. Abded Mshiho is referred to as a masquerader who is “deposed according to the Turkish constitution”. Notice the absence of any mention of a synod that deposed the Patriarch. Keep in mind Konat Mathen Malpan's letter cited above: he critiques fellow "Jacobites" who consider Pat. Abded Mshiho to be a masquerader. The leaflet is expressing the latter opinion.

Thirdly, the earliest Syriac Orthodox sources that mention a deposing-synod claim that it took place in 1905 (and not 1903). C. J. Kurian, the Trustee of the pro-Patriarch faction, attested before the Fixed Deposit Suit hearing on Makaram 26 1917, that Pat. Abded Mshiho was deposed sometime around 1905. Konat Mathen Malpan evades the question of date before the court hearings, by stating that he doesn't remember the date, but "it was a decade above or so". Malankara Sabha Mithram, a magazine published by the Knanaya-Jacobite diocese, gives the date of Medam 1905 (1925: 3:112). While Pat. Barsoum (then Monk Aphrem) writes in 1917 that Pat. Abded Mshiho reigned from 1895-1905, his patriarchal encyclical dat. Medam 3, 1942 states that the latter was deposed by the Synod in 1903. After the 1930s, the sources become consistent in the date: 1903.

Fourthly, remaining details such as the president of the synod, reason for deposition, number of attendees, and so on are inconsistent throughout the early sources. Since going through them all would take much more space, one example would suffice. Sleeba Mor Osthatheos attests before the Fixed Deposit Suit hearing on Vruschikam 27, 1918 that Met. Dionysius Behnam of Mosul presided over the Synod. However, in the Acts of the Synod (which will be discussed below) presented by Met. Yulios Elias Qoro as well as the latter's attestation, Met. Dionysius Behnam of Mosul is not one among the five metropolitans who attended the Synod! Abdal Ahad Ramban, the Malpan at Manjinikkara Dayro, claims that "Mor Koorilose Geevarghese" presided over the Synod (Pratyakshasatyam II:44; 1942): however, again, in the Acts, the signature of Met. Koorilose is numbered as fourth, which would be unlikely if he were the president.

The Acts of the Synod: A Forgery?

As mentioned above, Met. Yulios Elias Qoro, the Patriarchal Delegate to India, presented a document claiming to be the Acts of the 1903 Synod, before the Court. This was dismissed by the Jury: for good reason. Unlike other synodical acts, it doesn't present key information such as who presided over it, or how it was gathered. Signatures of attendees are provided but without dates. The overall terminology used (such as the absence of the traditional title Ignatius) is suspicious. Met. Yulios presented the copy as "attested by a magistrate", but the officer appears to have seen only the translation: he has not used his official government-issued seal, but an informal one, with only his name. Most interestingly, there exist two variant versions of the Acts — one published by Met. Yulios, and the other by Suriyani Sabha 6:227-29 (1932), under Met. Athanasius.

There is something much more significant, besides this. Fr. V. C. Samuel, the world-renowned scholar on christology, was brought up in a pro-Patriarch family. He studied at Manjinikkara Dayro, under Met. Yulios Elias. In his autobiography, Swanubhavavediyil, Fr. Samuel notes how he witnessed Met. Yulios forging the Acts. This event would greatly influence him, leading him to later become Malankara Orthodox.

Conclusion: Nature of The Deposition

From consulting the primary sources in the period 1905-1910, we see that Pat. Abded Mshiho II was clearly deposed by the Ottoman Sultan. Could there have been a synod of metropolitans and priests, who gathered to depose Pat. Abded Mshiho? Maybe, maybe not. Evidence is largely incoherent and inconclusive for the existence of such a synod, but it could have happened — if so, it was practically nothing more than a meeting, rather than the Holy Synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church.

The Malankara Church, as well as many if not all Syriac Orthodox communities, continued to perceive Pat. Abded Mshiho as a Patriarch. While sources for the latter are fragmentary, we have more than enough evidence from the former to conclude that Pat. Abded Mshiho was seen as valid: albeit, undergoing religio-political persecution. It is in this context that St. Dionysius would communicate with the Patriarch, and the latter would arrive in Malankara to establish the Catholicate, following Pat. Abded Aloho's excommunication of St. Dionysius.