Letter of Mar Ivanios to Father John Ribeiro concerning the Response of the Congregation for the Eastern Church

Tiruvalla, 17 March 1928:

As directed by the Congregation for the Eastern Church, the Apostolic Delegate sent the translation of the unsigned preliminary response of the Apostolic See to the memorandum of Mar Ivanios through Fr. John Ribeiro (document 9B). The text does not contain any response to the last point of the memorandum, namely the jurisdiction of the reunited bishops and the position of Catholicos. So Mar Ivanios, in his reply to Fr. John Ribeiro mainly points out this shortcoming (Vatican City, Vatican Apostolic Archives, Arch. Nunz. Ind., Ser. I, Fasc. 87 A, 56-59).

Dear Father Ribeiro,

Thank you for the message, or rather the messages, written and oral, which you gave me last Friday. I deeply appreciate the spirit of the message, and I would be grateful if you should be so good as to convey to His Excellency the delegate apostolic and to His Lordship the bishop of Quilon, my most hearty thanks.

You will remember that my memorandum stated three propositions that are to serve as the basis of reunion, namely:-

(1) The acceptance on our part of the supremacy of the pope. (2) The retention of our present rite. (3) The recognition by the Holy See of the patriarchal jurisdiction of the catholicate, subject to the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope.

I desire to record my most cordial appreciation of and perfect agreement with the principles mentioned in the written statement you gave me regarding the Holy See and the approving or permitting the retention of the rites of Eastern Christians uniting with the Holy See. Our rite is the ancient Syro-Antiochene rite. I have with me printed copies of the Missal now in use in the Syrian Catholic patriarchate of Antioch (Beirut), and I find it is the same as ours, except for a few minor differences, namely:-

(a) The Beirut Missal mentions the pope while ours doesn't. As soon as the reunion is affected, our missal will be brought into line with it. (b) The Nicene Creed which we use today does not contain the filioque. Even before the separation between the eastern and western churches, the easterners were using the Nicene Creed without the filioque, and this was no hindrance to unity in those days. We ask to be allowed to continue the use of the creed in its eastern form. We know that there are no dogmatic differences between the east and west in the doctrines of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation.

The written statement that you gave me does not say anything about the third proposition stated in my memorandum. I note that your verbal message to me stated that this question of jurisdiction will be treated by the Holy See “in a Spirit of benevolent consideration.” I am grateful for this assurance. I want to be able to lay before His Beatitude the catholicos and the synod a definite statement from the Holy See on this matter also. I should be grateful if His Excellency the apostolic delegate will help again in this matter.

In this connection it may be pointed out that the catholicate that exists today in Malabar is not a new institution. For several centuries successive generations of patriarchs and catholici (sic) lived in communion with each other and each had his own synod of bishops, and ruled respectively the western and eastern halves of the Syrian Church, the patriarch ruling over that Eastern province of the Roman Empire, whose head-quarters were at Antioch, while the catholici exercised patriarchal jurisdiction over Mesopotamia and the Asiatic churches outside the Roman Empire. The catholicos had his headquarters at Tigris (Tegrit) and was known as, “the catholicos of the east” “the catholicos of the Tigris,” and “the Mafrain of the east.”

Cut-off from the rest of the Christian Church, the Syrian Church, did not during those centuries work on the monarchical principle of one head for the whole Syrian Church; and the patriarch and catholicos recognized each other's jurisdiction. My chief authority for these historical statements is the ecclesiastical history of Bar-Hebraeus, which I am sorry to say has not been translated into English. In matters of jurisdiction the catholicos was independent of the patriarch, while in ceremonial matters, the patriarch had precedence. The present catholicos of our church in Malabar is the successor of the ancient catholici, and is consecrated to their See, and is called by the same titles as they were. There is no other dignitary in the Syrian Church anywhere today who claims to be the successor of the ancient catholici of the east.

We know that the Syrian catholic patriarch of Antioch (Beirut) exercises patriarchal jurisdiction in his archdiocese and is subject to the pope. We ask to be allowed to enter into union with the Holy See on terms similar to those subsisting between that patriarch and the Holy See. I should be thankful if you could procure for me a statement of the exact conditions that govern the relationship between the patriarch and the Holy See, and also a copy of the canon law in use today in that patriarchate, in English or in Syriac. Perhaps you will be interested to learn that I am studying the new code of canon law published by the Holy See.

I trust that the entire correspondence on this subject will be treated as strictly confidential. May I suggest that in future correspondence with us, an official translation of Latin quotations will be given.

Let us all continue to pray that the Holy Spirit may so guide all those servants of His that consider this question of reunion as to attain the eternal glory of God and the perfect fulfilment of His Holy will in all of us.

I remain,
Yours sincerely,
Mar Ivanios, Bishop of Bethany.