- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Research and reflections on the ancient Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church of Malankara, Kerala
The article that appeared in Malayalam on the Facebook page for Orthodoxia-kadeesh on 31 July 2020 includes many inaccurate or misleading claims and statements about the Syrian Orthodox Church, both in Syria and in Kerala. The author appears to make numerous erroneous statements regarding the history of this ancient and Holy Church, either out of ignorance or more probably willfully, that entirely distorts the history of Christianity itself. Moreover, he appears endeavour to misrepresent and corrupt the historical identity and exertions of the Holy Fathers of the Syrian Orthodox Church in successive historical periods in such a way that it is especially injurious to the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (SOCA), and by association, to its daughter-Church in Kerala, the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church (MJSOC).
It has to be mentioned here for the sake of contextualising these authoritative but fundamentally false accounts, that at present there is an ongoing intense conflict between the MJSOC and its break-away faction that calls itself the Indian Orthodox Church, for establishing who the rightful owners are of the churches, institutions and other assets of individual parishes. In an India that has from time immemorial been renowned for the tolerance, respect and safety accorded to people of all religions, the IOC, spurred on by their own ambitions and avarice, and in the early 20th century the divisive policies of the British colonial authorities, chose to appeal to the religiously destructive forces of ‘Nationalism’ in invoking nationalistic sentiments in the formation of a new Church. In what appears to be the culmination and calculated end-game of a hundred-year-long war of attrition that the IOC has been carrying on against the MJSOC, they are now forcibly and violently taking over the assets of the MJSOC, in a most unjust, un-Christian and inhuman manner.
In this context, this paper will attempt to address, clarify and correct some the false histories, distortions and misrepresentations made in the Facebook pages on the history and evolution of the SOCA, by supporters of the Indian Orthodox Church in recent times.[1]
One of the foremost arguments put forward by this writer in his attempt to denigrate the MJSOC is to attribute all manner of flaws and deficiencies to the present city of Antioch, hoping that by association, this would show the Kerala Jacobite Syr. Orth Ch in a poor light. Unfortunately, when the writer denigrates Antioch as a ruined and insignificant city, he reveals his insufficient grasp history and the historical process which attest that although material cities and civilisations evolve and change over long periods of time, concepts, philosophies and religions continue to energise humanity.
The author sets off his narrative with an attempt to assert that Antioch was a ‘pagan city’ in ancient times and that this historic feature has tainted the Church that goes by tis name. This is a false allegation as all cities were ‘pagan’ before they became Christian, in the sense that the people worshipped various gods represented in stone or bronze statues, often those of their kings and emperors, as well as various animistic religions. Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus were all great pagan cities, and paganism was not a feature that set Antioch apart from them, and what is more, even after Christianisation, they continued to have pagan elements in them.
Similarly, it appears to be a facile argument that because the city is now in ruins, the Patriarchal See that was centred, or indeed the Christian Church that flourished there in ancient times lacks credibility or honour. Many anciently famous Christian cities are in ruins now, either through war, conquest, earth-quakes etc., and its Christian populations diminished at present, such as Ephesus, Nineveh, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Alexandria, Dara, Edessa, and many more. The honour and fame of Antioch are not diminished due to these historical transitions. It remains revered and held in honour by all Christians as the first city were the followers of Christ were called Christians, the city blessed by the simultaneous presence of Sts. Peter, Paul and Barnabas in the early period, and from where the Church of Christ grew in strength and numbers.
In the same way, the writer attempts to label Antioch as a home of heretics because a certain heretic called Nicolas was born there. While it is true that this Nicolas propagated the heresy of Nicolaitism,[2] there is no evidence that Nicolaitism itself originated in Antioch or that it was prevent in Antioch, as places of origin cannot be held responsible for men’s later evils. If that were the case, most of the ancient centres of Christianity – Jerusalem, Rome, Seleucia-Ctesiphon, etc – could be denigrated as these cities too produced their fair share of heretics. Just as Jerusalem is not tainted by having produced Judas Iscariot, Antioch is not tainted by having produced Nicolas or any other heresiarchs. In countless instances in the past and continuing even now, the Church identified these deviant teachings as heresies, rejected them outright, and kept to the straight and narrow path.
Similarly, the writer says that Antiochian Christianity was syncretistic, that it is a product of the assimilation of elements from different religious, implying that the Church of Antioch was not orthodox. This is a spurious allegation because all early Christian communities adopted to a greater or lesser extent elements of pre-Christian pagan traditions in the first few centuries, whether in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Europe, or India, assimilating Jewish, Greek/Hellenic, Roman, Persian-Magian, and Indian-Hindu elements in their Christianity. This was remedied only when the doctrine, theology and practices of the Church were codified and streamlined at the Great Councils. So, it is inaccurate to attempt to vilify Antioch by this argument, as it only shows the writer’s inadequate understanding of the history of the early Church.
This writer’s theory that Apostolic primacy, and the honour of establishing the Universal Church of Christ in Antioch should be denied to St. Peter but rather attributed to St. Paul or St. Barnabas instead, is contradictory to all authentic Church histories of the past 2000 years. To substantiate this, he puts forward the argument that it was St. Paul and St. Barnabas who led the Church of Antioch in Apostolic times. This is an astonishing statement, which no Biblical scholar has put forward in the past 2000 years of Christianity. It is unequivocally agreed by all Christians that before His Ascension, Jesus commanded St. Peter to look after His Flock of believers, and declared that He will build His Church on the Rock that was Simon Peter. It is believed that that Rock was the first Church established in Antioch, and which was presided over by St. Peter for 7 years. It is also a generally accepted historical narrative that St. Peter travelled to Rome to assist St. Paul with the troubles stirred up in Rome by Simon Magus, the sorcerer, and where they both were later martyred.
At one point the writer says: ‘nowhere does it say that it was St Peter who sent Barnabas to Antioch’. It is hoped that the writer is aware that this non-statement, and others that are indeed stated in the Scriptures but taken completely out of context and thus distorting their message implying that St. Peter was a dishonourable person, are bordering on the blasphemous. It is also to be remembered that if any Apostle wanted to claim prime position, he would have remained in Jerusalem. But we see all the Apostles had left Jerusalem, leaving only St. James the Just, the Lord’s brother, in charge.
It is true that Apostles Paul and Barnabas arrived in Antioch before Peter. But neither of them was the first evangelist of Antioch, as we read (Acts 8:11; 4; 11:19-22) that this honour goes to the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who fled the city when St. Stephen was martyred. The gentile Christians arriving from Cyprus and Cyrene in North Africa also spread the Gospel in Antioch. So, there was already a large community of Christians in Antioch, and that is why the leaders (that means firstly St. James, then St. Peter, then others) in Jerusalem sent them St. Barnabas, who along with St. Paul spent a year there. Besides, when St. Paul advocated for the pagan converts to Christianity freedom from the necessity to follow Jewish practices, he still had to argue and win this concession from St. Peter, indicating that St. Peter was the ultimate authority. Further, in every instance of being faced with vexing problem of how to accommodate the old Mosaic Laws in unifying the pagan and Jewish Christians, this Chief of the Apostles is seen to be a gentle and conciliatory figure.
However much the writer attempts to disparage the name and honour of St. Peter in the Universal Church, it cannot be altered that it is the accepted faith and belief of Christians, at least of the Episcopal Churches, that it was to St. Peter that Christ entrusted the protection and governance of the Holy Church he had established on this earth, whether in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus or anywhere else.
The writer seems to forget that the Jacobite Syrian Christians of Kerala reiterate the primacy of St. Peter not because it accords them any particular salvific advantage, or because it is convenient for them, but merely by the historical fact that St. Peter was their first Patriarch in Antioch. It was Christ himself who established the one Church, and under the primacy of one person, St. Peter. This primacy is not diluted by the fact, for example, that the Egyptians were evangelised by St. Mark, or the South Indians by St. Thomas, as everywhere the Universal Church acknowledges St. Peter to be the Head.
As is well known, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was the culmination of 20 years of debate in the Church on the Christological controversies, beginning with the rejection of Nestorius’ teachings at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The events of these twenty years, as well as the subsequent 100 years, are long phases in the history of the Church, and this writer appears to have given free rein to his imagination in mis-narrating, distorting and even leaping over inconvenient parts of what really happened, to suit his purpose. His purpose appears to be to legitimate the IOC’s claims that it developed as an independent Church, purely and entirely Indian in its religious identity, and by way of evidence, creating an imaginary ‘ecclesiastic history’.
In this context, the writer appears to make some seriously erroneous statements. Firstly, Chalcedon did not produce the East Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church as stated, but rather the whole Church was divided into two groups: those that accepted the Dyophysite teachings at the Council of Chalcedon, and those that rejected them and adhered to the Miaphysite teachings. So, in 451 there were only these two groups Christendom (omitting the (Nestorian) Church of the East of Seleucia which had already seceded on the basis of their ‘extreme Dyophysite’ Christological doctrine) – and these were, the supporters of the Chalcedonian Christological formula, and those who opposed it. In the former group were the Sees of Rome and Constantinople, while in the latter were the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Armenia (and through Alexandria, Ethiopia). Supported by Emperor Marcian of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome, the Chalcedonians were the more powerful group, which at the time were called “the Great Church”. This group later suffered what came to be known as the ‘Great Schism’ of 1054, when Constantinople and Rome after bitter recriminations anathematised each other, thus creating the Eastern Orthodox Church (of Constantinople) and the Catholic Church of Rome.
The Churches of Alexandria (along with its daughter-Church in Ethiopia), Antioch and Armenia however, rejected the teachings of Chalcedon, arguing that this doctrine was a half-way-house in the Christological controversy, and which attempted to change what had already been formulated and ratified by the earlier Councils to which all the Churches were signatories. The Chalcedonians rejected these arguments and there followed intense persecution of the opponents whom they called ‘Monophysites’ (a term later acknowledged to be wrong and changed to ‘Miaphysites’).
The writer appears to be economical with the truth about what exactly had happened at Chalcedon, and in the period of 100 years after it. Despite Imperial disfavour and threats, the Syrians and the Copts in almost their entirety vehemently adhered to their Miaphysite faith, while at the instigation of Constantinople, Greek citizens of both these cities withdrew and allied with the pro-Chalcedon party, though they were a very small minority. The signatories of Chalcedon were unable to exert any influence within the jurisdictions of the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Armenia. Supported by Constantinople, the Chalcedonians deposed several Miaphysite Patriarchs of Antioch, but the patriarchs they imposed instead were unable to govern Antioch for long. We see in history that the See of Constantinople itself wavered between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian doctrines from time to time in the succeeding 70 odd years.
Writers who have fallen into this error of historical narrative, especially when they set out to discredit the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, appear to move quickly from Chalcedon (451) to the time of the Miaphysite Patriarch Severus of Antioch (512-538), in recognition of his spotless orthodoxy being beyond reproach.
It is true that the Miaphysite Church of Antioch suffered great persecutions at this time. With the Imperial power of Constantinople and the power of the Church of Rome to support them, the Chalcedonians at times forcibly deposed their Patriarchs, and replaced them with their own counter-Patriarchs, who were supported by a small section of ethnically Greek citizens living in Antioch and Alexandria. They came to be known as the ‘Melkites’, meaning ‘the King’s party’, and giving rise to two parallel Patriarchs, especially in Antioch.
This being the case, the present writer also appears to be moving quickly to 538AD, and committing the same falsification of history, the different strands of which are clarified as follows:
These constitute grave distortions of the events of the intervening 88-year period from Chalcedon to the death of the Miaphysite Patriarch Severus of Antioch in 538. It is a misrepresentation to argue that the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch became Dyophysite Chalcedonian supporters, and that as a result the it ceased to exist. It is in order to promote these distortions this writer evades engaging with this period and jump to Severus’ period.
But the intrigues between the two sides, aided and abetted by Emperor Justin I and ecclesiastical interference from Constantinople and Rome continued for the next 20 odd years, which were brought to an end when Emperor Justinian (without the concurrence of Rome) convened the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and revoked some of the controversial articles.
In the immediate Post-Chalcedon era, Antioch continued to have Miaphysite Patriarchs governing this Holy See and rejecting the Chalcedonian dyophysite doctrine even in the face of severe persecutions. This was possible because by far the majority of the people of the region adhered to this faith.
There are several important factors that need to be remembered in this period. The first is that politically, the Western Roman Empire fell in 476AD, never to rise again as an Empire.[3] In the ensuing confusion and tumult in Rome, the Miaphysite Emperor Basiliscus (475-6) sent an encyclical calling all bishops to reject the Council of Chalcedon and its teachings. 500 bishops of the Eastern province attended and ratified it, but this was reversed by his successor, Emp. Leo I. At this time Zeno, Emperor Leo I’s son-in-law, who was a Miaphysite supporter, helped the miaphysite Patriarch Peter the Fuller[4] regain the Patriarchal See of Antioch in 469. Though Emperors like Leo I tried to suppress the Miaphysite faith, he was unsuccessful as this faith was widespread in Syria-Palestine region, and the people’s minds could not be changed.
The second is that three of Emp. Leo’s successors – Emp. Basiliscus (475-6), Emp. Zeno (476-491) and Emp. Anastasius I (491 to 518)[5] – were convinced miaphysites. In the critical years between Chalcedon in 451 to the exile of Patr. Severus in 518, there were 12 Patriarchs of Antioch, of which only 6 were supporters of the Chalcedonian theology.[6] Even these six were forcibly imposed on the people from time to time, and often as a result of force or intrigue by Rome. Even then, in this 67 year-period, Antioch was ruled by miaphysite Oriental patriarchs for fully 43 years, indicating how strong the people of the See of Antioch stood by their miaphysite faith and would not accept another. For example, Patriarch Palladius of Antioch (488-498) was a convinced Miaphysite, following the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch who preached the “One Incarnate Nature of Christ” in an undivided union of the Divine and human natures. The same was the case with Patr. Flavian II of Antioch (498-512), although admittedly towards the end of his life he joined the Chalcedonians. For this he was removed from office by Emp. Anastasius I. But this did not succeed in unifying the Church, and the miaphysite Churches have continued to exist as a separate stream of Christianity ever since. Again, and his successor was removed from office because of his dyophysite leanings.
Historically it is unsustainable that after Chalcedon, the Orthodox faith of the miaphysites just vanished. As we have seen, however much Emperors and Popes intrigued on this Church after Chalcedon, the people of this Holy See remained steadfast in their faith, and refused to turn. Severus becoming the Patriarch of Antioch (512-518) was the culmination of the above-narrated line, marking the beginning of the resurgence and ascendency of the miaphysites in the early 6th century.
This resurgence provoked the Chalcedonians into taking extreme measures to silence Severus with an order passed by the Emperor to cut off his tongue, which prompted his immediate self-exile to Alexandria. Again, this writer seems to assume that Severus’ exile marked the end of the miaphysite Church of Antioch, but in reality, Severus continued to be recognised and celebrated as the Patr. by the people of the See of Antioch until his death in 538. Evidently, even in the face of severe threats, Severus, like the others before him, did not choose the convenience of switching sides to appease an emperor, or a mob, or to save his own skin, but rather chose self-exile. It is indeed these qualities that caused this saintly and scholarly patriarch to be remembered in the SOC’s diptychs as: ‘the mouthpiece, the pillar, the malpan, the meadow filled with flowers, and he who always preached that Mary was truly the Mother of God, our Patriarch Mor Severus’.
These details of the 90 odd years’ history are conveniently skipped over by some historians in order to establish the myth that after Chalcedon, Patr. Severus (512-538) was the only odd miaphysite Patriarch of Antioch. However, this is seen to be a deliberate misrepresentation, as in this turbulent period of Church history, against all the might of the Emperors of Constantinople and the intrigues of Rome, Antioch more often than not was governed by miaphysite patriarchs, indicating that the majority of people under this See continued to hold the miaphysite doctrine. In fact, when Severus became Patriarch of Antioch (512), the three Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch were governed by miaphysite Patriarchs. No emperors attempted to challenge or unseat Patr. Severus because of the fame of his intensely pure, monastical and prayerful life. Under Severius, another Council was convened in Tyre where the true and orthodox faith of the Universal Church was reiterated.
But Mor Severus’ exile in 518 marks the point from which the SO Patriarchs of Antioch no longer resided in Antioch for fear of the long arm of Constantinople and Rome. The general perception and connection made by Church Fathers and historians alike is that Antioch’s glory was eclipsed when Mor Severus left it. It is a historical fact that the city was struck by a catastrophic earthquake in 526, followed by fires and lesser quakes over the next fifty years, leading to the city’s ruinous state ever afterward.
After the run of three successive miaphysite emperors, the miaphysites came under more severe and sustained persecution with the accession of three dyophysite emperors in Constantinople, further intensified by Rome’s intrigues against them. In the first half of the 6th c., Emperors Justin I (518-27), Justinian (527-65) and Justin II (565-74) intensified their persecution of the miaphysites. Their bishops were killed, imprisoned or exiled and counter-Patriarchs were appointed in Antioch. Their monasteries were destroyed and monks scattered, and by Imperial decree, miaphysite priests and bishops could no longer be ordained or consecrated anywhere. By these measures, they hoped to incapacitate and completely eradicate what they called ‘the heresy of miaphysitism’.
But their opponents – that is, the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Armenia- considering their faith as ‘the true Orthodox faith and dogma ratified and confessed by the Church Fathers at the First Three Councils’, refused to abandon their faith even in these terrible circumstances.
This writer persists in his attempts to tarnish the name of the See of Antioch and its Patriarchs by writing inaccurate statements, distorting the events and personalities of the 6th century which was a turbulent period for all Christians. He appears to have no hesitation in maligning Mor Jacob, a saint revered by a Church. Raising doubts about how Jacob Baradaeus (Mor Yakob Burdana=wearer of rough clothes) managed to consecrate bishops and Patriarchs in the 6th century, whether it was canonical etc. is also based on a lack of understanding of the history of this period.
Jacob Baradaeus was a monk from the Phesilta monastery in eastern Turkey, who at the time when Severus was in exile, was already famous for his austere asceticism, saintliness and scholarship. When the persecution of the miaphysites by the Byzantine state and supporters of Chalcedon intensified after Mor Severus’ death in 538, Mor Jacob rose to be one of the greatest and foremost leaders of the Syrian Church of Antioch, who was instrumental in its survival and revival.
But according to this writer, Mar Jacob was nothing but a secretly consecrated ‘Episcopus Vagrant’ (=a bishop who is a vagabond or a tramp), a ‘controversial figure’, and whose life was ‘full of controversies’. He alleges that Mor Jacob was the originator of a separate ‘Jacobite Syrian Church’, and he further has the audacity to make the defamatory statement that the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch was the creation of a nefarious collusion between Mor Jacob Baradaeus and the Empress Theodora.
Towards the middle of this century, the prisons of Constantinople contained over a thousand miaphysite clergy incarcerated in them, including the Patriarch of Alexandria and many other bishops. Justinian’s miaphysite wife, the Empress Theodora was able to bring some relief and solace to her imprisoned co-religionists.[7] There remained alive only three bishops outside prisons in these times. Fearing for their lives and keeping their confession a secret, the faithful of the Church were scattered to the extent that the survival of the Church was doubtful. At this time, emboldened by the support of Empress Theodora, the miaphysites pressed Mor Jacob to go to Constantinople and plead their case with the Emperor, which he did, but was unsuccessful. [8]
It was under these circumstances, and by the encouragement of the Arab king al-Harith ibn Jabalah al-Ghassani and the efforts of Empress Theodora, that Jacob Baradaeus was called to Constantinople in 54, and consecrated in 542 as the Bishop of Edessa and the ecumenical bishop (thibelaya) of all orthodox Christians, by Mor Theodosius, Patriarch of Alexandria, assisted by other imprisoned bishops.[9]
Assisted by two Syrian bishops Mor Geevargi, Mor Gregorius[10] he consecrated Sergius of Tella as the Patriarch of Antioch in 544, thus restoring the Apostolic Succession of the See of Antioch. From then on, Mor Jacob travelled extensively in the vast regions under the See of Antioch, covering Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia, instructing and encouraging the true Orthodox believers. His objective was to replenish miaphysite Antioch’s clerical ranks and to revive the Church. He is thought to have consecrated two patriarchs, scores of bishops and ordained thousands of priests and deacons. During all this time however, he was relentlessly pursued by the imperial forces to obstruct him in this purpose, which forced Mor Jakob to travel in disguise in ragged clothes, suffering extreme privations and in constant fear of being killed, not because he was a ‘vagrant bishop’ or of ill-repute as his opponents such as this writer allege. He worked in this manner for thirty-five years, indefatigably fighting the good fight for the Church in the time of its gravest adversity, and helped revive the miaphysite See of Antioch from the brink of extinction.
This writer also alleges that Mor Jacob was the cause of controversies and schisms between Antioch and Alexandria, but this is not historically accurate. After the death of Patr. Sergius of Tella[11] in 560, Patr. Paul II (the Black) was consecrated as Patriarch of Antioch in 564 by Mor Jacob. It is true that Paul II’s rapprochements with the dyophysite ‘Melkites’ of Antioch and his own ambitions for becoming the Patriarch of Alexandria, of which he immediately regretted, caused some conflicts and led eventually to this Patriarch’s downfall, but Paul II’s errors do not appear to have cast any shadows upon the St. Jacob’s character in any perceivable manner. In fact, in the spirit of forgiveness, the saint reinstated Paul II when he repented of his folly.
Similarly, his name has not been tarnished by the Tritheist controversy as this writer alleges. When Paul II was deposed for his Chalcedonian leanings, Patr. Peter III (of Callinicum 581-591) was consecrated, and because Alexandria played a role in this, it caused a conflict between the close allies, Antioch and Alexandria. But other factors such as personal ambition (of Paul II) and the doctrinal issue of Tritheism were also inherent in this conflict. So, while it is true that these factors led to a rift between Antioch and Alexandria, most of the events occurred after Mor Jacob’s death in 578, and besides, the rift was repaired in 616 after the death of the key players.
The true historical accounts given in brief above makes it clear that if at all Mor Jakob could be described as a person of ill-repute and a ‘controversial figure’, it is only so far as his enemies the Byzantine authorities were concerned, because they were unable capture or thwart him in his purpose. It appears that this writer has been unduly influenced by numerous European writers who wrote from hostility towards the miaphysite or Oriental Churches, defaming Mor Jacob the founder of the Syrian Church of Antioch, and naming the anti-Chalcedonian Oriental Churches as Monophysite, which is a simplistic misnomer. Any attempt to defame the name of this revered saint of the Syrian Orthodox Church is unseemly for a writer who by his own Syrian Christian identity is wholly indebted to this saint in his selfless exertions and sacrifices for the Church.
This writer claims that the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch was founded by Jacob Baradeus, and that as such it was a post-Chalcedonian deviant or heretical faith. It is evident from the account given in the previous sections that although Mor Jacob was an important figure in the revival of the See of Antioch in the 6th c., he was neither its founder nor its doctrinarian. While it is true that Mor Jacob played a very important role, along with others, in ensuring the survival of the Syriac and other Oriental Churches that opposed the Imperial religious policy, he did not create a new Church, nor create a new separated ‘Syrian Hierarchy’ of bishops. He merely restored the historical Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch after it was persecuted to the point near-extinction under severe persecution in the first half of the 6th century.
He was himself unambitious of rank or power as is evident from the fact that he remained Bishop of Edessa to his end. For all these sacrifices he made to his church, he is remembered as ‘the preserver of the True Orthodox faith, our holy, righteous and just Father Mor Yakob Burdana,’ in the diptychs (prayers of commemoration) of the SOC.
This writer claims that the line of Apostolic Succession of the miaphysite See of Antioch was broken with the exile of Mor Severus, and that ‘the Apostolic Succession remained in the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch after Chalcedon’.
Based on a recognition of the well-attested historical accounts we have to hand relating to the first 400 years of the Church, and credit to the veracity of the brief summary given above on the history of the 6th c., the state of the Apostolic Succession of the See of Antioch can be summarised as follows:
From this, it is evident that Jacob Baradaeus was not the founder of a new Church at any time, but a key person in the revival of the historic See of Antioch which rejected Chalcedon in favour a miaphysite Christology.
This writer’s next attempt to vilify the Syrian Orthodox Church is with the allegation that the title ‘Patriarch of Antioch’ is insecure and controversial as it is claimed by five other claimants. It is true that there are six Patriarchates of Antioch, but these are not the result of schisms within the original Antiochian Church, but the unfortunate result of its geographical location and un-canonical incursions of other Churches. Antioch lies in the politically sensitive region between the Roman and Persian empires, and also, after Chalcedon, it was the closest See that opposed dyophysitism. As such, in contrast to Alexandria, it was within the reach of the Emperor in Constantinople and the Roman Catholic Pope in Rome in their attempts to subvert it. Consequently, it is a historical fact that five more ‘Patriarchs of Antioch’ came into existence.
In addition to the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, the five other claimants of the See of Antioch are as follows:
A close study of the origins and subsequent fortunes each of these will reveal how the (miaphysite) Syrian Orthodox Patriarch is the original Patriarch of the See of Antioch, and whose Apostolic Succession has remained uninterrupted and unbroken from the beginning.
A summary of the other five Patriarchs is given below:
As seen earlier, after Chalcedon in 451, the legitimate Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs were forcibly removed and others appointed as ‘Patriarchs of Antioch’ by and through the strong-arm of the Emperors Constantinople, often under the instigation of Rome, with the people of the Holy See continuing to support the Syrian Orth. Patr. These enforced Patrs. and their small group of mainly Greek-speaking supporters were pejoratively called Melkite or Emperor’s Party by their opponents. But after the reinstatement of the miaphysite Patriarchs of Antioch in 544, the Melkite Patriarch’s authority became progressively diminished for various reasons, and after the Melkite Patr. Anastas (d.610), there appears to be a long disruption. According to some historians, they removed themselves to Constantinople, while the Christians of Egypt and Syria-Palestine etc. continued to be governed by the true miaphysite Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and growing in strength, although Antioch itself was abandoned as the seat of the Patriarch.
When the Chalcedonian Church suffered what is called the Great Schism of 1054, (that is when Rome introduced the ‘Filioque clause’ into the Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son), Constantinople severed all links with Rome and this Church changed its name to the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’. Since this time, this Patriarchate designated itself as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Maron (d.410) was a 4th c. monk who left Antioch with some followers and established a monastery. After the Chalcedonian schism, they supported Emperors’ side adopting Chalcedonian dogmas, and for a while received the support, recognition, and protection of the Byzantine Emperors and Rome.
In 685, the Maronites elected Bishop John Maron of Batroun as ‘Patriarch of Antioch and all the East’ and through him, claimed full Apostolic Succession through the Patriarchal See of Antioch. While this installation of a patriarch was seen as a usurpation of the Melkite Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, John received the approval of Pope of Rome Sergius I, and became the first Maronite Patriarch of the oldest See in Christianity. Their loyalty however was poorly rewarded by the Byzantine Emperors. Further, they were caught between the Byzantines and the Abbassid Arab Muslims, and suffered a great deal of persecution.
After four centuries of weakness, during the Crusades, they re-established their links with European Christians, and affirmed their affiliation with the Holy See of Rome in 1182. This Patriarch with the designation of ‘Patriarch Cardinal’ is the second Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, originating at best in the 7th c., but more accurately in the 12th c.
In 1728, Bishop Serapion of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch joined the Roman Catholic Church, marking the origin of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. Interestingly, obfuscating historical establishment of the four separate Patriarchates Sees, some historians claim that he was Patriarch not only of Antioch, but also of ‘Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East’. Some others provide an even longer list of his areas of jurisdiction. But it is to be noted that he is only one of the Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, with no history before the 18thc.
In 1783, the Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Aleppo, Michael Jarweh, along with four other Metropolitans, defected from the Syrian Orthodox Church to Rome and Jarweh was consecrated as their ‘Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch’.
During the Crusades in the early 12th century, Rome appointed someone called Barnard as the ‘Latin Patriarch of Antioch’. When the Turks recaptured Antioch in 1268 and the Latin Patriarchs, finding themselves unable to remain there any longer, removed to Rome. The title then became an honorary one, and was formally terminated in 1964.
From the above it is evident that the Syrian Orthodox Church and its Patriarch of Antioch is the only true Apostolic See established in the first century and this is in continuation to the present day (with a break of six years from the death of Mor Severus of Antioch in 538 to the consecration of Mor Sergius of Tella in 544).
Throughout the latter half of the 6th century, the miaphysite Church in Antioch was beset by constant interference by Constantinople, resulting in the consecration of hierarchs who turned out to be secret diophysites. This led to a number of disputes and excommunications, and sometimes put the relationship with Alexandria under strain. This was a difficult time for the Church, but they maintained their doctrinal position and ecclesiastical order through this period.
Contrary to the general impression the writer of this article has endeavoured to create, despite all the adversities the Syrian Orthodox Church endured from the 5th to 8th centuries, and despite every attempt to persecute it to near-extinction, the confession of the masses remained un-suppressed and unaltered. The vast majority of Christians in the region continued to confess the anti-Chalcedonian miaphysite faith and adhere to the SOC of Antioch. Significantly, they were spiritually inspired and strengthened by a great company of martyrs produced by the persecutions, and by a continuous line Church Fathers who were their guides, doctrinarians, poets and saints, at least 35 luminaries, including Mor Jacob of Serug (d.521), Mor Philoxenos of Mabug (d.523), Mor Antimos of Constantinople (d.536), Patriarch Severus of Antioch (d.538), Mor Habib of Edessa, Joshua the Stylite, the 3 great Isaacs of Edessa, John of Tella (d.538), Simon of Beth Arsham, Theodosius of Alexandria, Mor Ahudemmeh of Takrit, Mor Marutha of Takrit among others.
In addition, SOC monasteries were flourishing. It is reported that when Severus journeyed to Constantinople, 200 monks travelled with him to defend the miaphysite doctrine before the Emperor. If the Patriarchate began to look devoid of the trappings of wealth, power and luxury at this time, it was not because the Church was deficient in any way, but because the same Severus, the prolific writer and defender of the miaphysite doctrine had removed all accessories of luxurious living from the Patriarchal house, although he was of a noble and rich family and was trained as a lawyer before he renounced the riches and entered a monastery.
The Syrian Orthodox Church also suffered at times at the hands of the Islamic Caliphate in Baghdad. At one point, the tensions created by this struggle led to the creation of two lines of the SOC Patriarchate – one in Tur Abdin and one in Antioch. These divisions did eventually get resolved with all breakaway members being reconciled to the one Patriarchate in Antioch. This is similar in some ways to the creation of parallel papacy (in the Roman Catholic Church) in Avignon in the 14th century, and later reconciliation.
The writer of this article misconstrues the attempts of the Holy Fathers of the SOC to discuss rapprochement with the Catholic Church of Rome. It is a complicated issue to address, and can be compared to similar discussions between the SOC with the Protestant churches of Europe. In both these cases, the SOC was clearly the weaker partner, relatively poor in material terms, and located in a politically unstable region, and looking for allies to protect itself from hostile forces around it. It is sufficient here to say that in each case, it became clear that the prospective rapprochement could only have been effected with the SOC surrendering their faith and doctrine, being absorbed into these more powerful partners, thus effectively leading to its own extinction. Writers who condemn the SOC in this regard fail to appreciate that its survival was a result of the Church Fathers unwilling to renounce their doctrine and faith.
The SOCA was founded in Antioch by St. Peter in the decades immediately following Christ’s Resurrection in about 32-33 AD. Similar Churches were planted in various cities of the Roman Empire at the time. In recognition of the geographical spread and political divisions of the Roman Empire, by the 3rd century these regional Churches were already being guided, evangelised and governed by chief bishops residing in the three most important Christian centres of the time, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The ante-Nicene recognition of these cities is seen in the Canons of Nicaea.
With the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 315AD and Christianity becoming the State Religion, the governance of the Empire was streamlined within a unified religious framework of Christianity. For ease of governance, the Christian Church also was divided into provinces following the earlier divisions of political jurisdiction centred in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Later the Imperial city of Constantinople was also added as a centre with its own area of jurisdiction. Thus, from the 4th century, these four seats of the ‘Patriarchs’ or chief bishops were recognised as the religious, administrative and geographical divisions of the Roman Empire in accordance with the four cardinal directions of the world.
In the Great Councils convened by successive Emperors, the authority of these Patriarchs and the areas of their governance etc. were clarified, ratified and recorded as the ‘Canons’ or rules of the Church, along with other Canons relating to Faith and Doctrine, and they were designated ‘Holy Sees’. This was how the ‘See of the Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East’ came into existence, along with the other three Sees, ‘Rome and all the West’, ‘Alexandria and all Africa’, and ‘Constantinople and all the North’.[12]
In keeping with this authentic history, the SOC has never claimed that it is the only true Church, but that it is one Church among the four Patriarchates established by the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, and as such it accords all others their due respect and honour, even while remaining true to its own dogmas and doctrines. While the Church is Catholic (meaning Universal) and One (united) in matters of Faith, each of the Sees evolved to have its own characteristics, dogmas, rites, rituals, language etc., based on the cultural and historical environment in which it developed, and the theologians it produced. Thus, the Church in Antioch was formed by the coming together of Jewish Christians who spoke Aramaic-Hebrew, Syrians whose language was Aramaic-Syriac, and a part of the Greek-speaking citizens of Greece settled in those regions. From its inception, this Church incorporated into its worship, ancient Jewish priestly rites and traditions through the adoption of its liturgy of St. James, its hymns and Psalmody. These are factors that make this Church distinct from the others.
In yet another attempt to denigrate this Church, this writer proceeds to give the impression that the SOC of Antioch was riven with ecclesiastical dissensions and schisms. In a rare moment of admission of the facts, he concedes and that rival patriarchs were created by Islamic authorities against the wishes of the Church and that the fissures caused were healed in the 15th century. Glaring by his omission is an acknowledgement or even a nod to the religious and socio-political context of these events.
As mentioned earlier, the SOC of A. occupied the most geographically sensitive and vulnerable region in Christendom. In the long 1000 years of the Medieval period, the difficulties experienced by the Church were not happening in a salubrious background or in a vacuum. In this period the land where the SOC of Antioch existed was overrun, destroyed or appropriated, its population captured, exiled or killed, and its religious institutions razed, by successive waves of religious expansionists, Empire-builders, territory annexers, ruthless and mercurial rulers and warlords, and sadly also proselytisers, the Sassanid Zoroastrians, the Islamic Arab Caliphates, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the Huns, Turks, Ghazanids, Seljuks, Tartars, Mongols etc. to name a few. In the next 500 years there was the slow attrition by the subtler workings of the ‘barefoot-missionaries’ deployed by Rome, and in the wake of the discovery of oil in the region, the political destabilisers and Christian-alliance seekers of France, Britain and America. That any Christian Church survived in this vast landscape of time and territory is not only a miracle but also a testament to the tenacity of their faith and the capacity for endurance. Consequently, this writer’s simplistic assessment of the evolution of the SOC of Antioch is not worth the attention of a rational and reasonable reader.
The present Patriarch of the SOCA is His Holiness Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Aprem II, and this title has come to him through generational succession from St. Peter in the 1st century to the present day. As seen in section 7, although there are now four other claimants to this title, the SOC believe that their Church is the legitimate claimant to this See, for the cultural and linguistic, and historical reasons briefly outlined in this paper.
To allege that all the SOC Patriarchs in the 20th and 21st century – ‘from Abd al Aloho (1906) to Aprem Karim (2014)’ were /are originators of ‘yet more disputes’ and doers of ‘many controversial things’, and who have ‘accumulated infamy for themselves’, is also a gross distortion of the facts and a failure to take an objective historical approach to the complex set of events of the 20th century. While Wikipedia is a useful introduction to topics, it cannot be seen as a source of historically-researched information. It can be hijacked by groups promoting particular arguments and interests, and should be treated with caution.
The historical facts are straightforward: Patriarch Abd al Massih II was deposed from his office in 1903. There has been much speculation about the reasons for this: a) that he apostatised to Rome, b) that he had a nervous break-down after witnessing the Syrian and Armenian massacres of 1895, c) that he had developed an alcohol problem, and d) that he began to suffer from dementia. Although the exact reasons for the deposition are not clear, the fact remains that his status was that of a deposed Patriarch at the time he was invited in 1912 to come to Kerala. In Kerala, he proceeded to consecrate a bishop as the Catholicos of the East, for which he had no authority, nor did he follow the canonical requirements for such a consecration. This led to a schism in the SOC in Kerala, and this will be discussed in more detail in a separate article.
This paper is written in response to an article published in Malayalam on Facebook, in which the arguments follow a certain pattern of inaccurate claims, misrepresentations and allegations on the history, doctrine and progress of the SOC often seen repeated in other similar articles. Through this paper I have tried to present historical arguments and reasons to reject or correct some of these.
Finally, it cannot be ignored that the line of argument adopted by the writer of the present article is written in the context of a serious and often violent conflict between the SOC of Kerala and its opponents, the Indian Orthodox Church. It is in this light that the writer has endeavoured to deny that the SOC in Kerala had any spiritual or material contact with or ecclesiastical sustenance from Antioch, despite the wealth of evidence that supports the contrary. This is particularly peculiar as the writer of the article appears to deny his own identity in which the word ‘Syrian’ is a prominent part, and the prayers, hymns, liturgy, and almost all other elements of his religious identity are inseparable from the SOC and proclaimed in the second name by which his Church goes, namely ‘the Orthodox Syrian Church’.
As is evident from the brief outline of its history above, the SOC has maintained its doctrine, faith, traditions and its Apostolic Succession despite all the persecution it has suffered as a Christian Church and a Holy See, surviving in a hostile environment in the Syria-Palestine-Mesopotamia region through many turbulent periods, and through many depredations. Whereas it had neither material wealth, nor temporal power, nor pomp and ceremony, what it had was its priceless heritage and the deep and abiding faith of its people, the timeless generational link to the Holy Apostles and through them to Christ our Lord, and through Christ to God’s covenant with humanity. Had this not been the case, the Catholic Church in the 16th -19th centuries, the Protestant Churches in the 17th -20th centuries, and by the IOC at present, would not have wished to seek union with it, as is well-documented in their successive chipping away at its body-politic.
Similarly, the present sufferings of the SOC whether in Syria or in Kerala that are well known and compassionately viewed by Christians and non-Christians alike all over the world, have not been brought about by the infamy of the city of Antioch or by the misdeeds of its venerable prelates, but factors such as a desire to possess lands which are rich in natural resources, desire for instant proselytization and adding to one’s numbers millions of other ready-made Christians, desire for power, and desire to preside over extensive dioceses and rich parishes not built up by the sweat of one’s own brow, but through a short-cut, by appropriating what legitimately belongs to others. It is evident to any impartial judge that hands other than that of God’s has been operating in these sad and difficult times.
https://archive.org/details/instituteseccle08murdgoog/page/n8/mode/2up?q=Chalcedon
https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi03scha/page/772/mode/2up?q=Chalcedon
https://archive.org/stream/lessereasternchu00fortuoft#page/n361/mode/2up
https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Peter-of-Kallinikoshttps://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Pawlos-of-Tella
[1] It needs to be borne in mind that though nationalistic, the Indian Orthodox Church, in some contexts such as in legal depositions, calls itself the ‘Orthodox Syrian Church’ , whereby it appears that it is unwilling and unable to renounce the words ‘Syrian’ and ‘Orthodox’ in order to appear legitimate, and yet turning the words around in an uncommon collocation in order to appear distinct from the true Syrian Orthodox Church in Kerala.
[2] Nicolaitism was one of the earliest heresies which the Holy Apostles themselves condemned. It is thought Deacon Nicolas brought some of the forbidden pagan practices of that time into Christianity. Nicolaitism encouraged the practice of sexual promiscuity in the religious context, including the use of so-called ‘sacred prostitutes’ in shrines and temples as part of religious ceremonies. They preached that these were sanctioned by Christ because Christ freed them from the Laws of Moses in the Old Testament against such immorality.
(See the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6; also 2 Peter 13-22, Jude verses 6-8,12; Revelations 2:14-15.)
[3] Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 ravaging, looting, and carrying away captives of the city. This was followed by a more severe sacking in 476 by the Vandals who looted, pillaged and burnt the city, and this date is marked as the ‘Fall of Rome’. Later, allying with the French Emperor Charles the Great (9th century) Rome’s Imperial dignity was claimed by the Popes of Rome, adopting such titles as Pontifex Maximus (= ‘bridge-builder’ – a title used by Roman Emperors as priest-kings).
[4] It was Patr. Peter who added to the Trisagion the words “O thou that was crucified for us,” as a declaration of the miaphysite faith, anathematizing those who declined to accept it.
[5] Emp. Anastasius I passed the Henotikon, or “Act of Union” in 482, to reconcile the Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonians.
[6] Although Patr. Palladius (488–498) and Patr. Flavian II (498–512) are listed as pro-Chalcedonians, actually they were orthodox believers of the non-Chalcedonian group supported by Emp. Flavian. Some historians list them as Chalcedonian, merely adding that they ‘accepted Flavian’s Henoticon’, that is, the act of union of the two sides.
[7] Over the 100 years after Chalcedon in 451, many Great Councils were held to reconcile the two sides, the most important of which was the Second Council of Constantinople called by Justinian I in 553. It was attended by 500-odd mostly Eastern bishops. This Council rejected many key tenets of Chalcedon as well as Pope Leo’s ‘Tome’. Two things are significant here: firstly, though present in Constantinople at the time, Pope Leo refused to attend this Council, indicating his attitude to reconciliation. Secondly, it was the rejection of this ‘Tome of Leo’ at the 2nd Council of Ephesus in 449 that had sowed the seeds of schism and resulted in the convening of Chalcedon in the first place. However, the decisions of this Second Council of Constantinople were reversed again by the next Emperor, thus making the schism permanent.
[8] It has to be said of this writer that joining the Chalcedonian supporters in slandering the name of the virtuous Empress Theodora in these terms is unflattering to the writer, as he himself appears to profess the miaphysite faith which that Empress endeavoured to protect.
[9] Mor Theodore was consecrated at the same time for the great number of anti-Chalcedonian Christians in the Ghassanid city of Hirta.
[10] Some histories give the names as Conon, Bishop of Tarsus, and Eugenius, Bishop of Seleucia.
[11] The writer appears to be confused about the identity of Paul of Tella (late 6th to early 7th c.). He was not a Patriarch as he claims, but the Bishop of Tella consecrated between 610-615, and a great scholar of the SOC. Twice he was exiled in Egypt during the Persian conquests of Syria, where with other scholars he was probably responsible for the first full Syriac translation of the Septuagint, the Syro-Hexapla.
[12] Jerusalem, the genuinely pre-eminent Christian city being in a state of political turmoil from the 1st century onwards, was accorded a titular ‘Patriarchate’ under the See of Antioch later.
Malankara Research 