Emergence of Divergent Factions (Metran Kakshy & Bava Kakshy) in the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (1909–1910)

The years 1909–1910 were a critical juncture in the history of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, marked by internal schisms and debates over authority. Two factions emerged during this period: the Metran Kakshy (Bishop’s Party), which championed local autonomy, and the Bava Kakshy (Patriarch’s Party), which adhered to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. While much of the division revolved around disagreements over the Patriarch’s temporal and spiritual authority, the question of who was the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch—Ignatius Abded Mshiho II or Ignatius Abdullah II—also played a pivotal role.

These disputes mirrored broader global struggles in Orthodox Christianity over centralized ecclesiastical authority and local self-governance. The tensions culminated in a formal schism within the Malankara Church, which set the stage for the re-establishment of the Catholicate of the East in 1912, though that milestone falls outside this period and warrants separate discussion.

The division between the Metran Kakshy and Bava Kakshy stemmed from decades of tension between the Malankara Church’s aspirations for self-governance and the claims of the Patriarch of Antioch to supreme authority over both spiritual and temporal matters. Two central issues defined the conflict: the legitimacy of the Patriarch and the extent of his temporal authority in Malankara.

After the death of Patriarch Ignatius Peter IV in 1894, a leadership dispute erupted in the Syrian Orthodox Church. Ignatius Abded Mshiho II was elected Patriarch in 1895 but was deposed in 1903 by a faction of bishops who installed Ignatius Abdullah II as his successor. The circumstances of Abded Mshiho’s deposition remain controversial, raising critical questions about canonical legitimacy:

The Basis of Deposition:
Abded Mshiho’s detractors claimed that he was excommunicated by the Holy Synod for alleged conversion to Catholicism, while his supporters argued that he was unlawfully deposed through bribery and Ottoman political interference.
According to Orthodox canon law, a sitting Patriarch can only be removed through formal ecclesiastical procedures, raising doubts about the legitimacy of Abdullah II’s claim to the Patriarchate.¹

Impact on Malankara:
The controversy over the rightful Patriarch exacerbated divisions within the Malankara Church. Supporters of Abded Mshiho II (including Mar Dionysius VI) questioned the authority of Abdullah II, arguing that Abded Mshiho II was still the legitimate Patriarch under canon law. Meanwhile, those loyal to Abdullah II viewed him as the rightful head of the Syrian Orthodox Church.² The uncertainty over who was the true Patriarch deepened the rift between factions in Malankara, as each side aligned itself with a different claimant.

In addition to the question of legitimacy, the role of the Patriarch in temporal governance became a contentious issue:

The Synod of Mulanthuruthy (1876):
The Synod had formally placed the Malankara Church under the spiritual and administrative authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. However, the extent of this authority—particularly in temporal matters such as the management of church properties and finances—was left ambiguous, fueling later disputes.³

Mar Dionysius VI’s Stance:
Appointed as Malankara Metropolitan in 1909, Mar Dionysius VI argued that the Patriarch’s authority should be limited to spiritual matters (e.g., consecration of bishops and holy Chrism) and that temporal governance should remain under the purview of the Malankara Metropolitan and the local clergy.⁴ He rejected the notion that the Patriarch could interfere in the administration of church assets in Malankara.

The Patriarch’s Claims:
Patriarch Ignatius Abdullah II, who visited Kerala in 1909, demanded control over both the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Malankara Church. His insistence on managing church properties and finances clashed directly with the autonomy claimed by the Malankara Metropolitan. This dispute became a flashpoint for the eventual schism.⁵

The tensions came to a head in 1911, when Patriarch Abdullah II formally excommunicated Mar Dionysius VI for refusing to cede temporal control to the Patriarchate. The excommunication led to the creation of two opposing factions within the Malankara Church:

• Leadership: Led by Mar Dionysius VI, this faction rejected the Patriarch’s excommunication and continued to recognize him as the legitimate head of the Malankara Church.⁶
• Beliefs:
  • Advocated for local autonomy, emphasizing that temporal matters should be managed independently by the Malankara Church.
  • Argued that the Patriarch’s authority should be restricted to spiritual oversight, as originally intended.
  • Recognized Ignatius Abded Mshiho II as the rightful Patriarch of Antioch.
• Support: The Metran Kakshy attracted clergy and laity who valued the Malankara Church’s independence and sought to resist foreign interference.

• Leadership: This faction aligned itself with Patriarch Abdullah II and was led by Mar Koorillos, the newly appointed Metropolitan of Malankara.⁷
• Beliefs:
  • Recognized the Patriarch of Antioch as the supreme authority over both spiritual and temporal matters.
  • Rejected the claims of Mar Dionysius VI and supported the excommunication as valid under canon law.
  • Accepted Ignatius Abdullah II as the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch.
• Support: The Bava Kakshy attracted those who prioritized strong ties to the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate and the broader Jacobite tradition.

The Malankara Church’s internal struggles reflected broader trends within Orthodox Christianity:

Canonical Debates on Patriarchal Authority:
The question of whether a sitting Patriarch could be deposed without ecclesiastical consensus was not unique to Malankara. Similar controversies arose in other Orthodox churches, such as the Russian Orthodox Church under Tsarist reforms and the autocephalous movements in the Balkans.⁸

Nationalist and Autocephalous Movements:
The desire for local autonomy within Orthodox churches paralleled movements such as the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate (1870) and the independence of the Greek Orthodox Church, where nationalist aspirations clashed with centralized ecclesiastical authority.⁹

Impact of Colonialism:
British colonial policies in Kerala provided the backdrop for the growing assertion of local autonomy in the Malankara Church. The tensions between indigenous governance and foreign control mirrored the struggles faced by other colonial-era churches.¹⁰

The emergence of the Metran Kakshy and Bava Kakshy factions during 1909–1910 marked a watershed moment in the history of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The intertwined issues of patriarchal legitimacy and temporal authority reflected deeper tensions over the balance between local autonomy and centralized control.

While both factions remained rooted in the Antiochene liturgical tradition, their opposing views on governance set them on diverging paths. These developments laid the foundation for later events, including the establishment of the Catholicate of the East in 1912 by the Metran Kakshy as a declaration of independence. However, the debates over authority and autonomy would continue to shape the identity and trajectory of the Malankara Church for decades to come.

1. C. V. Cheriyan, Orthodox Christianity in India, 302.
2. De Courtois, S., The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, the Last Arameans, Gorgias Press LLC, 2004, p. 107.
3. E. Tisserant, Eastern Christianity in India, 153–154.
4. De Fontibus Juris Ecclesiastici Syro-Malankarensium (Fonti, II–VIII), 75–76.
5. Cyril Malancharuvil, The Syro-Malankara Church, 68–70.
6. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin, 1997, pp. 114–118.
7. A. P. Urumpackal, The Juridical Status of the Catholicos of Malabar, 74.
8. Runciman, Steven, The Orthodox Churches and the Secular State, Cambridge, 1955, pp. 129–133.
9. V. Stoyanov, Bulgaria and the Autocephalous Church Movement, 94–95.
10. S. Kanjirakkatt, The Impact of Colonialism on Kerala Christianity, 2011, pp. 186–190.