Supplementary Statement (or Memorandum II) of Mar Ivanios to Apostolic Delegate Mooney
Tiruvalla, 22 January 1927:
The supplementary statement (second memorandum) was written as answers to six questions and doubts raised by Apostolic Delegate Edward Aloysius Mooney, after having read the first memorandum. It provides information concerning the origin of Jacobite Church in Malankara, its division into two factions, the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, as well as the probable number of bishops, priests, and churches wishing to be reunited with the Catholic Church. Despite diligent research, the original text containing the aforementioned six questions has not been found out. However, they have been reproduced by the authors who have already published the second memorandum (original manuscript of the memorandum alone in Trivandrum, Archives of the Major Archeparchy, AMEAT-HAN-COR-8, Box no. 1; the printed text of the memorandum preceded by the six questions, in T. Inchakkalodi, Archbishop Mar Ivanios, vol. 1, 266-274; L. Moolaveetil, The Malankara Catholic Church, 28-41).
Six Questions
When did the Jacobite Church and the Antiochian rite gain entry in Malankara? What are the troubles faced by the Jacobite Church now? How many churches and people are there in the faction that wishes to be reunited with the Catholic Church? From that faction, how many churches and people will reunite with the Catholic Church immediately? How many bishops were ordained by Patriarch Abdulla and Patriarch Abded M' siha? Who are they? How many of them and where did they decide to reunite with the Catholic Church? Who is the canonical patriarch among Patriarch Abdulla and Patriarch Abded M'siha? Supplementary Statement (Memorandum II)
1) It is an undisputed fact that from AD 1599 to 1665 all the Syrian Christians on the Malabar Coast were subject to the Pope. In 1665, a section of them broke off from the Roman Communion and placed themselves under the supremacy of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch. And since then the Antiochian rite has been in use in Malabar. In 1875, the Jacobite Patriarch for the first time visited Malabar and consecrated six bishops as suffragans to Mar Dionysius Joseph, the then Metropolitan of Malabar.
2) Doctor Adrian Fortescue in his history of the Lesser Eastern Churches (pages 339-340) says the following about Patriarch Abdullah' s succession to the patriarchal throne and adds that he “had these details from first-hand sources in Syria” (see footnote).
3) Patriarch Abdul Messiah II never accepted his deposition and always claimed to be the rightful and canonical patriarch, and considered Abdullah Suttuf as a usurper.
4) According to the canon of the Jacobite Church, Abdul Messiah II is the canonical and rightful patriarch, while Abdullah Suttuf is an anti-patriarch.
5) Patriarch Abdul Massih II sent several letters to Malabar declaring that he still continued as the rightful and canonical patriarch, and that Abdullah Suttuf was a usurper. In 1909, Abdullah Suttuf came to Malabar and tried to secure registered documents securing for him control over the temporalities of the Church of Malabar. Mar Dionysius Givergis, the Metropolitan of the Malabar Jacobite Church, objected to this procedure on the ground that the Church of Malabar, although recognizing the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch, was an autocephalous church. And Patriarch Abdullah Suttuf excommunicated Mar Dionysius. Patriarch Abdul Messiah II declared from Turkey that Abdullah Suttuf had no jurisdiction in Malabar and that the excommunication of Mar Dionysius was uncanonical and invalid. And in 1912, Patriarch Abdul Messiah II came to Malabar and “Abdul Massih, still lawful patriarch, acknowledged Dionysius and by his supreme authority made the Malabar Jacobites autocephalous” (see footnote to page 373, The Lesser Eastern Churches-Adrian Fortescue). This patriarch raised to the degree of Catholicos Bishop Mar Ivanios Paulose (titular metropolitan), bishop of the diocese of Kandanad who was consecrated bishop in 1876 by Patriarch Peter III when the latter visited Malabar.
6) The bishops thus consecrated are 1) Mar Ivanios Y oakim 2) Mar Philexinos Givergis 3) Mar Gregorius Givergis. Of these, Mar Philexinos was on the death of the first Catholicos, consecrated his successor with the title of Moran Mar Baselius. And subsequently these three bishops together consecrated Mar Ivanios Givergis, bishop of the diocese of Bethany. Since then Mar Ivanios Y oakim died. Mar Dionysius did not take part in the consecration of the Catholicos and the Bishop of Bathany. But his grace is a great supporter of the Catholicos and belongs to this party.
7) At a meeting of the Bishops' Synod held at Perumalai, Tiruvalla, on 1 November 1926, at which His Holiness Moran Mar Baselius, Catholicos; The Most Rev. Mar Gregorius (titular) Metropolitan, Kundara; and The Right Rev. Mar Ivanios, Bishop of Bethany, were present, it was decided that the Bishop of Bethany be authorized to make inquiries with the authorities of the Roman Church with a view to reunion. It was further decided that this resolution as well as the correspondences and proceedings connected with it be kept strictly secret, and that the Most Rev. Mar Dionysius be not informed of this at present, but that at a later stage, the whole matter be made known to His Grace. Mar Dionysius has not formed any new party but is connected with litigation.
8) Patriarch Abdullah Sattuf consecrated two bishops in Malabar. They are:
Most Rev. Mar Athanasius (residing at Alwaye); The Most Rev. Mar Severius (bishop of the Southist section, residing at Kottayam). And lately, a few weeks ago, the present patriarch consecrated at Jerusalem two more bishops for the Patriarch's Party of Jacobites in Malabar. These new bishops have not yet arrived in India. They are named as follows:
Mar Dionysius Michael: Mar Dioscorus Thomas. This latter is to be the suffragan of Mar Severius. This list does not include Mar Osthathios, the patriarch's delegate in Malabar, who is a native of Turkey. Four new candidates have been nominated for consecration in that section of the Jacobite that adhere to the Catholicos; but the consecration of these has been postponed for the present.
9) The strength of the party that adheres to the Catholicos is about 150,000. The statement in Adrian Fortescue that this party, called the Metran's party, numbers about 200,000 is an exaggeration (The Lesser Eastern Churches, page 374). This party has about 300 churches. Of these, over 100 are new churches erected after separation from the patriarch. The patriarch's party has no right to these churches. The remaining churches in the possession of this party are older ones, and it is a question of law whether adverse possession of these churches for the last 16 years establishes their permanent right. In Travancore, the high court has decided that it does.
10) One cannot at this stage say with any certainty how many churches and people will come into reunion at the very beginning. As soon as assurance is given that the request made in memorandum I is granted by the Holy See, definite steps will, it is hoped, be taken to bring into reunion as many churches and people as possible. This may take some time. For, we shall have to fight against inherited prejudice, ignorance, and intense conservatism, as well as in some cases vested interests. But there is no need to doubt that the faith shown in doing the needful to facilitate reunion will be amply justified by the results. It seems that the best plan for successfully bringing all these separated Christians into reunion is utterly to disregard the number of Christians or churches that would come in at the outset. The cause of the reunion of Christendom is God's own cause, and is bound to succeed. Once the Antiochane rites, which are already in use in the Roman Communion under the Syrian Catholic Patriarch, Ignatius Aprem II Rahmane, is accepted for the use of the uniting Jacobites, and the bishops that would come into reunion be recognized to continue the same status and jurisdiction as they now enjoy, a strong current will, it is hoped, set in towards reunion both within the Jacobite Church and the Mar Thomas Church. This current will, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, get stronger every day until all the Jacobites and the Mar Thomites (who, in spite of their protestant teaching, follow the same rite as the Jacobites) will all come into reunion, and in this way our Lord's last prayer, “That they all be one,” will be fulfilled in the near future as far as this part of the country is concerned.
11) A word may be added here as to why this memorandum has been thought of. Three considerations have weighed with the writer of this memorandum.
i) The conviction that it is the will of our Blessed Lord that all Christians should be united, and the sooner the reunion is effected, the better for the glory of our Blessed Savior. The present condition of the Christian world cannot but break the heart of any person who desires to love our Blessed Lord.
ii) The Catholic Church ought not to be, and never has been identified with the Western Patriarchate. Eastern Christians, like the Jacobites in Malabar, can and ought to have all facilities to end the schism in Christendom as far as it lies in their power.
iii) The attitude of the Holy See towards Eastern Churches has been sympathetic. The following passages in the Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as similar announcements, have greatly encouraged the writer of this memorandum.
“The Council of Florence has not been forgotten in the East. It showed Eastern Christians what the conditions of reunion are and it has left them always conscious that reunion is possible and is greatly desired by Rome. And, on the other hand, it remains always as an invaluable precedent for the Roman court. The attitude of the Holy See at Florence was the only right one; to be quite unswerving in the question of faith and to concede everything else that possibly can be conceded. There is no need of uniformity in rites or in canon law; as long as practices are not absolutely bad or immoral, each Church may work out its own development along its own lines. Customs that would not suit the West may suit the East very well; and we have no right to quarrel with such customs as long as they are not forced upon us. So at Florence, in all these matters there was no attempt at changing the old order. Each church was to keep its own liturgy and its own Canon law as far as that was not incompatible with the Roman prima which is de .ide. The very decree that proclaimed, “the pope guides and rules the whole church of God,” without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the other patriarchs.” And the East was to keep its married clergy and its leavened bread and was not to say the Filioque in the Creed, nor use solid statues, nor do any of the things that they resent as being Latin. This has been the attitude of Rome ever since. Many popes have published Decrees, Encyclicals, Bulls that show that they have never forgotten the venerable and ancient Churches cut off from us by these schisms. In all these documents consistently the tone and the attitude are the same.
“Pope Pius IXth in his Encyclical, 'In Supreme Petri' (Epiphany, 1848) again assures non-uniates that “we will keep unchanged your liturgies, which indeed we greatly honor; schismatic clergy who joined the Catholic Church are to keep the same rank and position as they had before.”
“In the encyclical “Praeclara Gratulationis” of June 20, 1894, that has been often described (as Leo's) testament, he again turned to the Eastern Churches and invited them in the most courteous and gentle (manner) to come back to communion with us. He assures [ … ] that no great difference exists between their faith and ours [ … ]. (Vol. V, pp. 238-239).
[Not signed, written by Mar Ivanios].