Continuation and "Re-Establishment": Background

Pat. Peter IV’s letter to Konat Mathen Malpan on Jan. 2, 1891, clarifies that the former has been requested to “send an able Catholicose or Maphrian”. The Malankara Edavaka Pathrika, the official mouthpiece of the Church at the time, reports in its Medam edition of 1901 that the Malankara Association has considered and discussed the matter of "appointing a Maphrian for the Eparchy of Malankara", concluding that the body will wait for Pat. Abded Mshiho II to arrive. Similarly, in Konat Malpan's long letter to Pat. Abded Mshiho, pleading with him to prevent Pat. Abded Aloho II's visit to Malankara, he writes:

As your Holiness knows, formerly Malankara was administered by the Maphrian of the East, ruling on the Throne of Tagrit under the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. .. If the Patriarchal See of Antioch was transferred to Mardin, how can it be not right that the See of Tagrit shall be transferred to India? Therefore, we request to establish the See of Tagrit in India, and to appoint one among us as Maphrian, and he shall be called, 'Baselius, Maphrian of the East'. (Fr. Baby Varghese, Establishment of Catholicate in India [2021], pp. 47-54)

Given this context of considering the offices of Catholicate and Maphrianate to be synonymous, it is unsurprising that Pat. Abded Mshiho's kalpana dat. Sep. 17, 1912 (as well as his second kalpana dat. Feb 13, 1913; Ext. "A-14" in the legal suits) states that a "Catholicose, that is Maphrian, is consecrated" to serve the spiritual requirements of the Malankara Church. His sermon at the consecration ceremony, as recorded by the Malayala Manorama edition on Sep. 18, 1912, explicitly identifies Cath. Paulose I to be enthroned upon the "Throne of St. Thomas as Catholicose of the East, succeeding the Catholicoi who previously administered in Seleucia".

Continuing in this tradition, the Constitution of the Malankara Church (1934) defines the Catholicate's origin and nature:

The Throne of the Catholicose was re-established [Mal. പുനസ്ഥാപനം] in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East which includes Malankara in AD 1912, and this institution has been functioning since in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East. (Clause 99)

Nevertheless, certain recent sources within the Malankara Church - particularly, Fr. M. O. John's article in Malankara Sabha Deepam (March 1995), as well as Fr. T. I. Varghese's and Vipin K. Varghese's articles in Catholica Ennucholly Vazhthy Nyayam (2012; hereafter Varghese 2012a and Varghese 2012b) - have argued that the Catholicate of Malankara cannot and should not be considered as a "reestablishment", i.e. a continuation of the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and the Maphrianate of Tagrit. Though their (erroneous!) arguments have been answered in detail by Fr. Joseph Cheeran, Fr. Johns Abraham Konat, and others, since similar notions are still alive, this article intends to deconstruct them through an analysis of their arguments, and a subsequent study.

Major Objection: Maphrianate and Catholicate

Both Varghese 2012a and Varghese 2012b raise this argument, and it is quite simple: the Maphrianate is an institution ontologically subordinate to the Patriarchate of Antioch and part of it, and it has nothing to do with the Catholicate, or the Throne of St. Thomas. The Maphrian of Tagrit was only a "Maphrian", and never a Catholicose. Therefore, the Catholicate of Malankara cannot be said to be a continuation of the Maphrianate.

Firstly, let us briefly look at the origins of the Maphrianate, and its relation to the Catholicate. By the fourth and fifth centuries, the Grand Metropolitan of the East at Seleucia-Ctesiphon was acknowledged to be the Primate of the Christian communities and dioceses in the East, functioning as the head of all Eastern bishops. Contrary to relatively recent Syriac Orthodox notions, the Church of the East was practically independent and autocephalous throughout the early times (except a possible period under Antioch in the early-third-century until the "Synod of Jerusalem" in 231, where the Metropolitan of East was consecrated as an independent Primate contrary to the wishes of the Bishop / Patriarch of Antioch, according to the eminent Bar Hebraeus). The Synods of 410 and 424 within the Church of the East formalized their autocephaly, proclaiming their "Catholicose-Patriarch" as equal to the rest of the Patriarchs.

The letter from the Western fathers [to the Synod of Isaac in 410] was signed by the bishop of Antioch and his suffragans, but he signed in the name of the Church of the Roman Empire. In their letter the Antiochene bishops made no claim of jurisdiction over the Persian church. There is no indication in the synodical acts of a historical dependence upon the patriarchate of Antioch. The Persian church made decisions autonomously following their own synodical procedures. It understood itself as an autonomous and autocephalous church standing in communion with the Church of the Roman Empire. (Wilhelm Baur and Dietmar W. Wrinkler, The Church of the East: A Concise History, p. 17)

Matters didn't last well for long. Soon after, the Nestorian controversy affected the universal Church in the East and the West, and by the late-fifth-century, the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon was formally Dyophysite, which is to say, "Nestorian" for the Miaphysite Orthodox in the East. As the Catholicate had fallen into heresy, the Miaphysites of the East came under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Antioch, but were largely administered by the Catholicose of Armenia. Soon after, in 559 CE, St. Jacob Baradeus ordained a certain bishop named Ahudemmeh as the Metropolitan of the East. This Orthodox Metropolitanate existed (partly vacant), until 628 CE, when Pat. Athanasius I Gammolo of Antioch consecrated Marutha of Tagrit as the Grand Metropolitan of the East: or, in the narrative of Bar Hebraeus, as the "first Maphrian of the Throne of Tagrit" (Ecclesiastical Chronicle II:118).

Now, contrary to the underlying assumptions of Varghese 2012b, as Philip Wood notes in his The Imam of the Christians: The World of Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, c. 750–850, the title "Maphrian" is a later invention, retrojected by Bar Hebraeus onto the earlier period. However, what is clearer from the historical sources is that the title Catholicose was used by the Orthodox Metropolitans of the East, long before they started using the title Maphrian. John of Ephesus, a sixth-century Syriac Orthodox bishop and writer, describes Met. Ahudemmeh as "Catholicose of the Orthodox [i.e. Miaphysites]" (Ecclesiastical History 6:20), and Pat. Michael the Syrian styles Maph. Denha II as "Catholicose" (Chronicle 4:503 / 2:462). Post-medieval Syriac manuscripts consistently describe the Maphrian as "Maphrian-Catholicose" or "Maphrian-Patriarch": for instance, the liturgical service-book brought by Maph. Yeldo Mor Baselios and his companions, dat. 1664, describes him as “Maphrian and Catholicos Mar Baselios Yeldo” (Fr. Joseph Cheeran, St. Yeldo Mar Baselios [2014]). As for the Maphrian-Catholicoi's claim to the Throne of St. Thomas, see: Throne of St. Thomas in the East: An Analysis of Medieval and Post-Medieval Sources

In other words, the Eastern Miaphysites considered their new Metropolitanate of East / "Maphrianate" in Tagrit as nothing other than the continuation of the previous Orthodox Catholicate of the East, which fell into heresy. Hence, the West Syriac tradition of listing the Maphrians of Tagrit as the successors to the Catholicoi of Seleucia-Ctesiphon prior to its so-termed "Nestorianization".

Now, moving onto whether the Maphrianate - as an office - was intrinsically subordinated under the Patriarch of Antioch. Wolfgang Hage, in his majestic Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche in Fruehislamischer zeit (1966), has commented on this detailedly, and it would be fitting to quote him.

Die Zeit der Unabhängigkeit des Ostens vom antiochenischen Stuhl fand auch nach der Union noch darin ihren Ausdruck, daß die Wahl eines neuen Maphrians das alleinige Recht der Orientalen war. So hatte es der Patriarch Athanasios I. Gamālā unter Berufung auf das Kirchenrecht dann auch peinlich vermieden, selber aus den drei Mönchen Mär Mattais den neuen Metropoliten zu bestimmen, und die Wahl Marūtās den Orientalen überlassen. An diesem Brauch hielt man für die folgenden Jahrhunderte fest. Dabei erfahren wir aus unserm Zeitraum, daß die Wahlsynode Johannes'I. Sabā nur aus sechs Bischöfen bestand und Denḥā I. von den Tagritensern gewählt wurde. Erst in späterer Zeit nahmen die Patriarchen auch dieses Recht für sich in Anspruch. ... Die Begegnung zwischen Westsyrern und Orientalen hatte zu einer Union zweier gleichberechtigter Kirchen geführt. Auch als Stellvertreter des Patriarchen, als die sie offiziell galten, übten Marūtā und seine Nachfolger im Osten die uneinge- schränkte Jurisdiktion geistlicher Oberhäupter aus. Doch bahnte sich bereits in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten des Maphrianats die Entwicklung an, die schließlich zum Primat des Patriarchen über beide Kirchenhälften führte und dem Maphrian den zweiten Platz in der Hierarchie zuwies. Schon die Neuordnung der Ordination unter dem Patriarchen Theodoros stärkte den Einfluß Antiochias, wenn sie auch äußerlich vom Geist der Gleichberechtigung getragen war. ... Der Einfluß der Antiochener im Osten mußte schließlich immer stärker werden, je mehr man sie als Schlichter der inneren Streitigkeiten herbeirief.

The period of independence of the East from the Antiochene throne continued to find expression even after the union in the fact that the election of a new Maphrian was the exclusive right of the Orientals. Thus, Patriarch Athanasios I. Gamālā had carefully avoided, with reference to church law, determining the new Metropolitan himself from the three monks of Mār Mattai, and left the choice of Marūtā to the Orientals. This custom was maintained for the following centuries. From our time period, we learn that the electoral synod of Johannes I Sabā consisted of only six bishops and that Denḥā I was elected by the people of Tagrit. Only in later times did the Patriarchs also claim this right for themselves. ... The encounter between West Syrians and Orientals had led to a union of two equal churches. Even as official representatives of the Patriarch, as they were officially considered, Marūtā and his successors in the East exercised unrestricted jurisdiction as spiritual leaders. Yet, already in the first two centuries of the Maphrian era, a development was emerging that would ultimately lead to the primacy of the Patriarch over both halves of the church and assign the Maphrian a second place in the hierarchy. Even the reorganization of ordination under Patriarch Theodoros strengthened the influence of Antioch, even though it was outwardly carried by a spirit of equality. ... The influence of the Antiochenes in the East had to become increasingly stronger, the more they were called upon as mediators of internal disputes. (Translation: Claude AI)

Similarly, Phil Booth briefly comments in his contribution to Armenia through the Lens of Time꞉ Multidisciplinary Studies in Honour of Theo Maarten van Lint (2022):

Whether the sees of Mar Mattai and of Tikrit were creations of the Armenian catholicos, as per Bar Hebraeus’s remarkable claim, must remain uncertain. But that claim nevertheless corroborates the impression of an initial independence of those sees from Antioch. In the Persian heartlands, therefore, we appear to find the two sees, Mar Mattai and Tikrit, exploiting the conquests of Khusrau II to expand their influence, independent of the Antiochene patriarch.

That should be enough to clarify matters. The Orthodox Metropolitan of the East - the Catholicose - was practically an independent Primate (keep in mind Maph. Denha I's designation of the office as "the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne / Seat") - consecrating myron, ordaining bishops, administering to the dioceses of the East, and so on - who was nevertheless part of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Gradually, the influence of the Patriarchate of Antioch increased, and Patriarch-Maphrian relations were formalized by the Council of Capharthoota in 869. Simply put, it was not until the late first millennium that it gradually became an institution truly subordinate to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Even so, the innumerous events recorded by Bar Hebraeus in his Chronicle attests to the fact that Patriarch-Maphrian relations were often shaky: for instance, at a time when there were three Syriac Orthodox Patriarchates, a division arose ca. 1320 CE between the Patriarchate of Mardin (later coming to be considered as the official line of Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate) and the Maphrianate, when Maph. Gregory IV forbade Pat. Ignatius Ismail to be remembered in the East, and instead proclaimed the Patriarch of Cilicia / Antioch. According to the anonymous scribe who appended to Bar Hebraeus’s Chronicle, this division lasted for four years.

To summarize, then, not only was the Maphrian a Catholicose, the office of the Maphrianate was - in essence - an independent institution, which gradually became subordinate to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Therefore, the autocephalous Catholicate of Malankara can be said to succeed the Maphrianate of Tagrit, just as the Maphrianate of Tagrit can be said to succeed the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Once one realizes this, the argumentative question raised by Varghese 2012a whether the Catholicate of Malankara is the "Persian Catholicate" or the "Maphrianate under Antioch" begins to make little sense.

Minor Objection: Nature of "Reestablishment"

Varghese 2012b, depending on the major objection, makes the following objection: Neither "reestablishment" nor "relocation" can apply to the Catholicate of Malankara, for there was no Catholicate in Malankara before 1912 for it to be re-established, nor was the Maphrianate of Tagrit a "Catholicate" to be relocated to Malankara.

Though the underlying assumptions of this objection have been dealt with above, the question of what "reestablishment" precisely means remains. Now, what happened in 1912 was not merely a relocation of the discontinued Maphrianate of Tagrit, though Konat Mathen Malpan appears to be advocating for such a relocation (at least in terminology). Our Catholicoi, though they succeed the Catholicoi of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and the Maphrians of Tagrit by virtue of possession of the Throne of St. Thomas, succeed neither in their precise offices, nor instantiations of office. In other words, the Catholicoi of Malankara are not the Catholicoi of Seleucia-Ctesiphon nor the Maphrians of Tagrit, nor would the former be counted in the direct succession of either.

For a base to work with, then, we can look at how the Metropolitanate of the East, i.e. the Catholicate, was "reestablished" in Tagrit. It was not merely a relocation, for the nature of office was distinct: at the same time, however, it was - in some manner - a (spiritual) continuation of the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Therefore, more precisely, what was reestablished in Tagrit was a fresh revival of the underlying office, of the Throne of St. Thomas in the East.

This can be applied in a stronger sense to the Catholicate of Malankara, then. As H. G. Yuhanon Mar Milithose comments, in one of his blog posts:

The term used in the constitution is re-establishment of the catholicate. Here we have room for an interpretation of the term re-establishment. It can be revival of the office or re-location of the office. To us, it is the revival of the office. We are not relocating the office of the catholicate established in Selucia Ctesiphon. .. In any case it was not a continuation of the one existed in Selucia Ctesphon and also the one existed in Tigris, rather it was the fresh establishment of the office in Malankara, but the title was already in use for the one in Selucia Ctesiphon. Question and Answer - 24 Jul. 2012

Just as the Maphrianate of Tagrit was reestablished by reviving the office of the Catholicate and as a spiritual continuation of the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, so is the Catholicate of Malankara reestablished by reviving the office of the Catholicose, now centered in Malankara, as a spiritual continuation of the Maphrianate of Tagrit (and the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon).

Conclusion

Therefore, contrary to certain recent arguments, we may conclude along with the Fathers who labored for the Catholicate in Malankara, that it is indeed the spiritual and official (i.e. relating to the office) successor of both the Catholicate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and the Maphrianate of Tagrit. The office of the See of St. Thomas was re-established, yet freshly revived in 1912, in Malankara, by the consecration of Cath. Paulose I.