First Report of Apostolic Delegate Mooney to the Secretary of the Congregation for the Eastern Church

Bangalore, 17 October 1927:

Fr. John Ribeiro forwarded the memorandum which he had received from Mar Ivanios to Apostolic Delegate Edward Aloysius Mooney, who personally studied the matter, also seeking information from Aloysius Maria Benziger, bishop of Quilon, as well as from archbishops of Verapoly and Ernakulam. Then he formulated this report (No. 223\27) containing a brief history of the schism, his own evaluation of the memorandum and proposals for eventual action, and sent it to Cardinal Luigi Sincero, secretary of the Congregation for the Eastern Church, together with the opinions of the aforementioned three bishops.

Most Reverend Eminence,

As Your Most Reverend Eminence knows, from time to time there is some movement among the schismatics of Malabar towards their reunion with the Catholic Church. More than once this movement seemed to lead to a mass return of these schismatics, but unfortunately the good hopes did not come true and there were only few individual conversions or conversion of small groups. Today again we find one of these movements, perhaps this time triggered by the schism that divides more than half of the Jacobites from their Patriarch of Antioch and that brought quarrels for the possession of churches and ecclesiastical assets that the two sides took to the civil courts.

In order to clarify the matter a bit, let Your Eminence permit me to summarize the history of this schism in the schism. Since 1665 the Surianis (Syriac Christians) of Malabar who had rebelled against the Catholic Church had a metropolitan and Jacobite hierarchy from the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, who lived in Babylon (sic), and with that they had the Syrian rite and the Monophysite heresy. The series of Jacobite bishops in Malabar uninterruptedly continued up to our days and their Church did not suffer significant divisions except in 1843, when due to the influence and help of the Protestants, Bishop Mar Mathew Athanasius rebelled against the Patriarch and managed to establish an independent Protestantized Church, reforming the Syrian liturgy by translating it into Malabar language (Malayalam), removing all prayers to the Virgin Mary and saints and also prayers for the dead.

In 1906 the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch Abdul Masih was deposed by the Turkish government and Abdullah Sattuf (former uniate Bishop of Homs, who returned to the heresy the year before) was named in his place. He came to Malabar in 1909 and was welcomed as the Patriarch. However, since he tried to obtain legal documents that assured him control over the Church's assets, the Metropolitan of Malabar Mar Dionysius Geevarghese opposed him claiming that the Malabar Church, though recognizing the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch, was nevertheless an autocephalous Church. The final result (of the dispute) was that the Patriarch excommunicated the metropolitan.

It seems that the excommunicated and his followers remembered that the deposed Patriarch Abdul Masih had not accepted his deposition and continued to protest that he was the only legitimate and canonical Patriarch and consider Abdullah Sattuf as an usurper; but it is certain that the deposed Patriarch first proclaimed from Turkey that Abdullah Sattuf had no jurisdiction in Malabar and therefore the excommunication of Mar Dionysius was against the canons and thus invalid. Then in 1912 he came to India, recognized Mar Dionysius and by virtue of his supreme authority made autocephalous the Jacobite Church in Malabar, raising the Bishop of Kandanad Mar Ivanios to the rank and dignity of “catholicos” and consecrating three new bishops as suffragans of the “catholicos”.

This “catholicos” would be a restoration of the ancient catholicate of the East which had its see (headquarters) in Tigris in Mesopotamia; it is independent of the Patriarch of Antioch, and the patriarchal powers are exercised by the synod which is composed of the “catholicos” and the bishops of the catholicate according to the canon law of Bar Hebraeus. At the demise of the “catholicos”, the synod elects the successor.

The ex-Patriarch Abdul Masih, when he left India, repented of all he had done, but the result of his work is that today the Jacobites of Malabar, excluding the aforementioned Reformers, are divided into two irreconcilable parties. The first, known as the Metran (Bishop's) party, with around 150,000 members, refuses obedience to the Patriarch of Antioch and instead obeys the “Catholicos” and the synod. To this party belongs the old Metropolitan Mar Dionysius, excommunicated by the Patriarch in 1909. Presently there are four bishops who belong to this party; four others were nominated, but their consecration was postponed to better times.

The other party with about 140,000 adherents remained loyal to the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, who has here a delegate, a native Turkish bishop and he has created four Malabar bishops. Between the two parties, a civil court case has been conducted since 16 years for the possession of about 200 churches and considerable property, a case which, having been judged in the first instance in favor of the Metran and on appeal, in favor of the Patriarch, is still pending, expecting the final judgment in a few months.

This being the circumstances, a meeting was held in Parumala at Tiruvalla on 1 November (1926) in which were present:

• Unordered List ItemMaran Mar Baselius Geevarghese, “Catholicos” of the East (Bishop of the dioceses of Kottayam, Kandanad, and Angamaly);
• Unordered List ItemMar Gregorios, titular Metropolitan (Bishop of the dioceses of Niaranam, Quilon, Thumpamon, and Cochin);
• Unordered List ItemMar Ivanios Geevarghese (Bishop of the diocese of Bethany).

In the meeting, it was decided to authorize Mar Ivanios, as he himself writes, to gather information from the authorities of the Catholic Church in view of a possible reunion. In this same synod, it was also decided to keep strictly secret this decision and all the correspondences and procedures connected with it, and that Mar Dionysius (the excommunicated Metropolitan) was not informed of this at this time, waiting to make him known of everything when the move achieves a certain development.

Before the end of November itself, in fact, I received letters from Rev. Fr. Ribeiro, a Catholic priest of the diocese of Quilon, who informed me how the Jacobite Bishops (of the Metran party) wished to be reunited with the Catholic Church and, on behalf of Mar Ivanios, communicated me their wishes and their proposals for the reunion. A few days later, I received a memorandum also written by the aforementioned Mar Ivanios through Rev. Fr. Ribeiro, of which I add the translation. After having directed Rev. Fr. Ribeiro to put the affair back in the hands of his Ordinary, the Bishop of Quilon, I myself, both to make sure that it was a serious matter and not one of the usual fruitless moves of some discontent persons, and to hear the opinion of a practical and experienced person, likewise approached Mgr. Benziger, the Bishop of Quilon. He, in his 27 years as a bishop in the midst of these schismatics, whose conversion he carried out fruitfully, had the opportunity to know their character and dispositions very well. Msgr. Benziger replied me by sending a comment on the memorandum of Mar Ivanios in which he also expressed his opinion on how to carry it out successfully.

Then I also wrote to all the Ordinaries of Malabar, submitting to them the main requests of the Jacobites and the proposals of the Bishop of Quilon, asking them of their opinion. Although all of them seem to consider these approaches of the Jacobites as a serious and important matter, and all vote for the reunion of the separated brethren and believe it is opportune to respond to the request of Mar Ivanios, nevertheless they do not agree in their proposals on how to deal with the Jacobites returning to union. I will have the opportunity to refer to the opinions expressed by them, but I think it is good to extensively refer some extracts from the letters of the Archbishops of Verapoly and Ernakulam which illuminate those particular points.

All the same, it took a few months of time, especially since I wanted to study the issue, not forgetting to look in the Delegation's archives for the decisions given by the Holy See in similar cases, especially the acts and decrees of the plenary meeting of the Congregation of Propaganda Fide for the Affairs of the Eastern Rite, held on 25 January 1888 to decide on a very similar case, that is the conversion of another Mar Dionysius, also Metropolitan of the Jacobites of Malabar.

Since then Your Eminence would perhaps like to know my submissive point of view on the subject, I am going to state the opinion I have now formed, based on my direct knowledge of the Syrians of Malabar, on the views of the bishops interrogated and on the study of the questions. For the sake of better clarity, I think it appropriate to present my opinion in the form of observations to the main points of the question raised by Mar Ivanios:

1. Regarding the full acceptance of all Catholic doctrines and the submission to the Holy Father as the divinely constituted head of the Church, I observe that the Jacobites of Malabar are not really Monophysites, and their faith is more affected by the modernist infiltrations caused by Protestant influences than by historical errors and heresies. They will need instruction, yes, but it does not seem that there is any doubt about their good disposition on this point.

2. As for the rite, it would be desirable for the Jacobites returning to the union to readopt the Syro-Malabar rite which they abandoned in 1665 in search of protection from the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch. This is what the Archbishop of Ernakulam and Bishop of Quilon would like; but it does not seem that mass conversions can be hoped for if a change of rite is required, and for this reason also all the other Bishops of Malabar are of the opinion that it is convenient to permit them to maintain the pure Syrian rite.

3. Also with regard to the episcopal jurisdiction of the present bishops, it seems to me that without running the most probable danger of obtaining nothing, we cannot deny that, if one of these bishops converts with a considerable part of his clergy and people, he will have to keep jurisdiction over his flock; and that, in the case of several bishops who convert, a hierarchy, independent of the Syro-Malabar and Latin Archbishops, will have to be established. The Ordinaries of Verapoly, Trichur, and Changanacherry are also of this opinion, and this has been the practice followed in the past by the Holy See in similar cases.

4. Mar Ivanios and his people want their hierarchy be immediately subjected to the Holy See and has nothing to do with the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, and the Catholic Bishops of Malabar also agree to it, because it is a fact that whenever the Patriarchs of the East, both Catholics and schismatics, wanted to interfere in the affairs of Malabar, they brought nothing but swindling, turmoil and schisms.

In this regard, I believe it is right to report to Your Eminence the transgression of the current Catholic Patriarch of Antioch in this affair of the Jacobites as it is notified to me in a recent letter by the bishop of Quilon, of which I add a faithful translation. And I need not add here that I share the fears expressed by Msgr. Benziger, and in submitting the matter to the wise consideration of Your Eminence, I cannot help but deprecate an intervention of Msgr. Rahmani which would only add new divisions and complications to the many of which Malabar is already full.

If it is good for the uniates of the pure Syrian rite that, if ever they can be had in Malabar, they will be rendered completely free from any influence and dependence of the Patriarch of Antioch, but it seems to me hardly convenient that the request to give them a local Patriarch or “catholicos” is granted; at most they could have a metropolitan, and this is also to avoid arousing jealousies of the Syro-Malabars. Moreover, it seems to me absolutely necessary to find a way to put bishops and converted parish priests under the direction and control of someone who can direct them and advise them effectively towards the attainment of a discipline that is less easy, democratic, and secular and a little more Catholic than that they do not have at present. The Archbishop of Ernakulam wisely refers to this need also to avoid the disastrous consequences that their example would have on the Syro-Malabars who are just reduced to some sort of regularity. It should be added that today, while the lay Jacobites are generally better educated and are in better civil conditions than the Syro-Malabar people, most of their married clergy are very ignorant and many among the few emerging priests had their education in Protestant schools. It should also be ensured that the customs and privileges granted to them are not only contrary to faith and morals, as they propose, but that they are at least in conformity with the discipline of the Eastern Catholic Church; all the more so because it can be foreseen with certainty that all the concessions that are granted to the converted Jacobites will have a repercussion on the Syro-Malabars, who will be agitated and will try every means to obtain at least similar concessions.

5. And finally I come to deal with the celibacy of the clergy. Mar Ivanios makes no reference to this, but all the Latin and Syro-Malabar bishops invoke that, while allowing Jacobite priests to retain their legitimate spouses even after conversion without prejudice to the exercise of priesthood and jurisdiction, in the future the law of celibacy should be rendered mandatory for all priests. They claim that a married Catholic clergy would exert a very bad influence on the celibate clergy. Since the conditions of Malabar are very different from those of the Near East, given the novelty of the thing in India, given the fact that the married clergy here is synonymous with schismatic clergy, also given the serious obstacle that this concession would be for a better discipline of the converting clergy, and finally given the reality of the referred (bad) influence, I fully share the opinion of the bishops of Malabar. Many of them also affirm that the introduction of celibacy for the clergy, today Jacobite, would probably not be opposed by their Bishops, while it would certainly be well accepted by their flock.

Having exposed how the things are today in Malabar regarding the Jacobites, if I am allowed to express a suggestion, I opine, Most Reverend Eminence, that it is convenient to give Mar Ivanios a prompt reply at least in principle, also to prevent these poor Jacobites end up giving in to the suggestions and flattery of the Protestants, believing that they are neglected by Rome, as it already happened to those who broke away from the Jacobite Patriarch in 1843 and who today constitute the Reformed Syrian Church, in fact far more Reformed than Syrian.

Since for the practical implementation of the reunion of these separated brethren direct contacts and conversations with their bishops will be needed. I do not see a better solution for this affair than to entrust (after the Sacred Congregation has decided, if it deems it appropriate, the fundamental principles and the main points of the question and having given instructions in this regard), to a commission of Malabar bishops who well know the persons and things, the task of directly dealing with the Jacobite bishops about the practical details that can better lead to the desired reunion. Under the present circumstances, the archbishops of Verapoly and Emakulam would be, in my opinion, the most suitable to be part of this commission. For them, who live in the environment (territory) it would not be difficult to make sure of the sincerity and extent of the movement towards union, to maintain contact with the Jacobites and to keep an eye on the subsequent developments of this movement, as well as to devise the best way for the necessary direction of bishops and parish priests after the conversion. Due to long distance, lack of direct knowledge of the persons and less familiarity with the cunning scrimmage and with the sophisticated fantasies of the Jacobites, the Delegate is not able to deal directly with the case; he could be asked the decisive vote in those resolutions to which the two aforementioned prelates would not agree. It is well understood however that the conclusions to which the proposed commission is to arrive, although its task is restricted to the details, would neither be effective nor be made public without the prior approval of the Sacred Congregation.

Having expressed my submissive opinion on the questions raised by Mar Ivanios' request, I refer the matter to the enlightened judgment of Your Eminence who will know to weigh circumstances and facts and, if he deems it appropriate, will have the kindness to send me his venerated orders and wise instructions on the matter.

Edward Aloysius Mooney,
Apostolic Delegate.