DEDICATION
“That All May Be One”
I give thanks to God Almighty who calls me
to participate in the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I dedicate this humble work to the Blessed memory of the Servant
of God Mar Ivanios, who desired the unity of all the Malankara
Churches in the Catholic Communion. And also I dedicate it to
those who desire for the unity of the Malankara Church.
INTRODUCTION
The Church as reconciled and reconciling community cannot serve God’s
purpose in the world as it should when its own life is torn by divisions and
disagreements. The members of the Church, wherever they are found, are part of a
single people, the one body of Christ, whose mission is to be an anticipatory and
efficacious sign of the final unification of all things when God will be all in all.
Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. This one Church is
divided in to many groups today. Ecumenical movement is a help to bring the
divided churches in to unity. The first divisions occurred in the East, either
because of the dispute over the dogmatic formulae of the Councils of Ephesus and
Chalcedon, or later by the dissolving of ecclesiastical communion between the
Eastern Patriarchates and the Roman See. Still other divisions arose in the West
more than four centuries later. These stemmed from the events which are
communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See.
These various divisions, however, differ greatly from one another not only by
reason of their origin, place and time, but still more by reason of the nature and
seriousness of questions concerning faith and Church order.1 The Churches which,
while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united
to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid
Eucharist, are true particular Churches. The present work is to find a history of the
Ecumenical movements and the Ecumenical dialogues that helps the Catholic
Church to bring the Sisters Churches together. Primacy of Pope is one of main
problem in the ecumenical union of many orthodox Churches, here my duty also
to make a historical and biblical sources for the origin of the Primacy of Pope.
Relevance of the Title
The Primacy of the Pope or of Rome has a particular role in the
ecumenical dialogue with the other Christian Churches. Therefore, we must give
adequate information of this topic. As a Seminarian in the Malankara Catholic
Church I found it more important to give an ecumenical history of the Church in
general and of course the current situation of the ecumenical dialogue in the
churches especially between the Catholic and the Malankara Orthodox Churches.
The Servant of God Mar Ivanios the visionary of the Orthodox Church in India
became Catholic and founded the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church for the Unity
of all the divided Malankara communities together in to the Catholic Church in
the late 19th century. Taking his vision, I try to find some of the major problems in
particular the Primacy of the Pope which divides our sister churches to the
ecumenical unity.
Structure of the Study
This study contains four chapters as well as a general introduction,
conclusion and bibliography. The first chapter is a historical analysis of the
origin, development of ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue. This chapter also
explains the various divisions in the Church in particular in the East and in the
West. Ecumenism is an invitation to stretch our minds and hearts; it is a call to
broaden our horizons and enrich our tradition. As we work together, each step of
the way, we must acknowledge that ecumenism is ultimately a gift from God. The
Catholic view of ecumenical dialogues and that helps the Eastern Churches to
have the unity with the other sister churches in the Eastern Christendom. The
nature, scope, meaning of the catholic view of ecumenism gives an authentic
teaching in order to have an ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern and Oriental
Churches. The second chapter analyses ecumenism with the Eastern Churches in
particular to the Oriental Orthodox Churches Then I try to explain the history of
the ecumenical dialogue with these Churches and the current situation of the
ecumenical dialogue between the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Churches of India and its scope.
The third chapter analyses the history of the Syro-Malankara Catholic
Church, her origin and vocation to the unity of the all her sister churches. The
careful and prayerful study about ecumenism brought us an opportunity not only
to warm our hearts, but also to reach out to create occasions for study, prayer, and
action with our fellow Christian believers. The fourth Chapter deals with the
current ecumenical dialogue with the Malankara Orthodox Churches and the
dialogue on the Primacy of the Pope or of Rome. In second part we give a brief
account of the Primacy of Rome and then the Primacy according to Malankara
Orthodox Churches in the ecumenical dialogues. Then I would like to argue on
the historicity of the collegiality in the apostolic college and the biblical basis for
the Primacy of Peter.
Sources of this study
In this study we have made use of the different Church documents and
agreements between the Catholic Church and Malankara Syrian Orthodox church,
besides the Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of
Ecumenism from the Pontifical council for Christian unity. We have utilized
different documents from the Holy See. Secondary Sources are comprised of
valuable books and articles on ecumenism and the Papal Primacy. And also a
general bibliography at the end of this study shows the primary and secondary
sources.
Limits of Study
Ecumenism is a vast subject and this study is a comprehensive one.
Therefore I cannot include all the aspects of ecumenism. So I limited my studies
only to the brief history of ecumenism, ecumenical dialogue and the dialogue on
the Primacy of Pope. Even in history I could not add all the matter but limited
myself to necessary things. There are a lot data lacking in the ecumenical dialogue
with the Malankara Orthodox Churches. I have found only limited books. This is
only a first attempt to do a scientific work. I hope that it would be better to do in
deep and systematic way in the future.
Chapter I
THE CONCEPT AND THE HISTORY OF
ECUMENISM
1.1The Meaning of Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Dialogues
1.1.1 The Term and the Meaning
“The word ‘ecumenism’ is derived from Greek word ‘oikoumene’, which
means ‘the inhabited World’”,2 and was historically used with specific reference
to the Roman Empire. In its broadest sense, Ecumenism refers to initiatives aimed
at worldwide religious unity. “This term also refers variety of approaches to the
theology and relationship among the various Christian Churches and
denominations.”3 In a narrower and more common sense Ecumenism is the
movement that promotes unity among Christians. The word is used predominantly
by and with reference to the Christian Churches and denominations separated by
doctrine, history and practice. It is essential to remember that ecumenism is a
reform and renewal movement within the Churches that is rooted in a search for a
common mission, is nurtured in common spirituality, is lived in common service,
and is developed in the variety of cultural contexts in which the Church of Christ
finds itself incarnated. Most of all, the call of Christ to the unity of the Church is a
call to Spiritual renewal that is realized in prayer, mission, ministry, service, and
dialogue.4
2 New Catholic Enciclopedia, Catholic University of America, Vol.V, Washington, D. C.
1967. 96.
3 PETER M. J. STRAVINSKAS, (ed.) Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing
Divisions, Chicago 1993, 189.
4Cf. K. RAHNER - H. VORGRIMLER, Theological Dictionary, Herber and Herder, New
York 1965, 144.
1.1.2 The Word ‘Ecumenical Dialogue’
The words “ecumenical” and “dialogue” are constantly appearing in the
papers and journals of our time. They point to a need and a desire. The need is
evident. The Church of Christ by his own commandment should be one. Christ
made the unity and union of his followers a symbol whereby they might be
known. Today there is not only a nervous recognition of the Lord’s command but
a growing desire to fulfill it. “Ecumenism” and “dialogue” are words for this
effort to bring the churches together. “Converse is dialogue, if we put it in the
simplest language, we would say that dialogue is talking together. It is neither a
fight nor even a debate. It is a friendly exchange of ideas.”5 No one wishes to
outwit his partner in the conversation. Both sides sincerely with to learn from the
other and in turn inform the other. This is a new thing in inter-church relations and
it is pleasant. It will take time, patience and a tolerant spirit to make our
conversations easy and fruitful. Above all, the first efforts must be made by men
who know both their own faith and the faiths of others. Good will cannot
substitute for knowledge. Knowledge and good will make a sound partnership. On
such a foundation our conversations will be worthwhile.
In an Ecumenical dialogue we have to first discuss what we have in
common; we try to understand better what divides us, and to engage in dialogue
regarding the issues involved. Such a dialogue in truth and in love is not only an
exchange of ideas, but an exchange of gifts, which can always enrich and
challenge both the partners. Dialogue presupposes partners who have, and who
are aware of, a strong sense of the identity of their respective churches.
Accordingly, ecumenical dialogue has nothing to do with relativism and
indifferentism towards the doctrine of the faith. “Its goal is not syncretism or unity
on the lowest common denominator or peaceful coexistence in division, but full
visible communion in faith, sacramental life, apostolic ministry and mission.”6
Full communion does not mean uniformity; exist alongside cultural diversity, but
5 J. BOSC – J. GUITTON – J. DANIÉLOU, The Catholic Protestant Dialogue, Helicon press,
Paris 1960, 7.
6 W. KASPER, Harvesting the Fruits-Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical
Dialogue, Continuum Publication, New York 2009, 6.
complementary emphases and perspectives, etc. in this sense “ecumenism is
directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christian
growth towards full communion in truth and charity.7
1.1.3 Scope of Ecumenical Dialogue
The core of ecumenism we can see in the Gospel of St. John, where Jesus
prays for the unity of all.
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who believe in me because of
their message. I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us,
just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world
will believe that you sent me. I gave them the same glory you gave me, so
that they may be completely one, just as you and I are one: I in them and
you in me, so that they may be completely one, in order that the world may
know that you love them as you love me.” (Jn. 17: 20-23).
This is the message for all Christians, who are longing for ecumenism or
the unity of all Christians. Nowadays, the Christian Movements are growing,
which aims towards the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and
only one Church of Christ. This means ecumenical dialogues have entered into a
delicate and crucial stage. The ecumenical movements and Dialogues are grace of
God, given by the Father in answer to the prayer of Jesus (Cf. Jn. 17: 21) and the
supplication of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8: 26-27). While it is
carried out within the general mission of the Church to unite humanity in Christ,
its own specific field is the restoration of unity among Christians.8 Setting aside
theological differences, we can help each other in the things we all agree upon.
That effort is commonly referred to the scope of ecumenism.
1.2 What Ecumenical Dialogues Look for?
Some elements of the Roman Catholic perspective on ecumenism are
illustrated in the following quotations from the Council's decree on ecumenism,
Unitatis Redintegratio and in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ut Unum Sint. Every
renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own
7 Cf. UUS, n.14.
8 Cf. UR, n. 5.
12
calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity…; there can
be no unity of Church, worthy of the name without a change of heart.9 For it is
from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love
that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should
therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying,
humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly
generosity towards them. The words of St. John hold good about sins against
unity: ‘If we say we have not sinned we make him a liar, and his word is not in
us.’ So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we
forgive them that trespass against us.
The grace of God has impelled the members of many Churches and
ecclesial Communities, especially in the course of this present century, to strive to
overcome the divisions inherited from the past and to build a new communion of
love by prayer, by dialogues, by repentance and by asking pardon of each other
for sins of disunity past and present, by meeting in practical forms of cooperation
and theological dialogue. These are the aims and activities of what has come to be
called the ecumenical movement.10 The Catholic Church solemnly pledged itself
to work for Christian unity at the Second Vatican Council. This unity which of its
very nature requires full visible communion of all Christians is the ultimate goal
of the ecumenical movement.11 Divisions in the Church distort her witness,
frustrate her mission and contradict her own nature. If the Church is to
demonstrate the Gospel in its life as well as in its preaching, it must manifest to
the world the power of God to break down all barriers and to establish the
Church’s unity in Christ, because Christ is not divided.
1.2.1 A Change in Our Way of Thinking
Christian ecumenism, in the narrower sense referred to above, is the
promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or
9 Cf. UR, n. 6- 7.
10UR, n. 4.
11 Cf. Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, Vatican City
1993, 20.
13
denominations of Christianity. For Catholics it can have the goal of reconciling all
who profess Christian faith to bring them into a single, visible organization, i.e.
the one and unique Church of Christ. The most important fact in Christian
ecumenism is that people have to focus priMarily on Christ, not on separate
Church organizations. Pope John XXIII, who convoked the Second Vatican
Council, that brought the emphasis on this change, said that the Council's aim was
to seek renewal of the Church itself, which would serve, for those separated from
the See of Rome, as a gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus
Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father.12
Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings
inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices.
Indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation
worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the
conversion of hearts and prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification
of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired
by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness
and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past which
regrettably continues to provoke even today. We believe that this unity subsists in
the Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to
increase until the end of time. Any person who engages in ecumenism comes to
realize that the work of unity is the task of the spirit and not a human project. The
directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism meant to be
an instrument at the service of the whole church and especially of those who are
directly engaged in ecumenical activity in the Catholic Church, it also intends to
motive, enlighten and guide this activity.13
1.2.2 Catholic Meaning of Ecumenism
The opening statement of the Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) the Decree on
Ecumenism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council states that: “The
restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the
12 Cf. UR, n. 2.
13 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, n.12.
14
Second Vatican Council.”14 The Catholic Church embraced the ecumenical
movement at the Second Vatican Council and recognized it as a movement of the
Holy Spirit, and the Church solemnly pledged itself to work for Christian unity at
Council. The Catholic understanding of Christian unity in the early times, the
ecumenical movement considered as a Protestant affair and Catholics had no need
to search for Christian unity as this comes with unity to the Chair of Peter in
Rome in the Mystical Body of Christ. Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Ecclesiam
Suam (His Church) emphasized that the ecumenical movement “derives from the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit,”15 and is a source of holiness in the Lord. It is
generally noted that the participation of the Catholic Church in the Ecumenical
Movement was fifty years late with respect to the Protestant Churches. The
Second Vatican Council Renews the Church Union
The Second Vatican Council (1962- 1965), was the golden step from the
part of Roman Catholic Church, that promoted ecumenism at large. The Decree
on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio states, “This sacred Synod exhorts all the
Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to participate skillfully in
the work of ecumenism.”16 Pope John Paul II definitely remained faithful to his
firm commitment to the unity of Christians. The unity of Churches is an essential
condition of effective witnessing and for the spreading of the Gospel. 17 The
disunity contradicts the nature of the Church itself. It disfigures and obscures the
face and form of the body of Christ. A divide witness shall always be a serious
handicap.
All of the ecumenical pioneers, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox
realized so well, the work of ecumenism is a renewal movement that can only be
accomplished when believers are prepared to humble themselves, and by the
prayer and penitence, reform themselves, entering deeply into the mystery of the
14 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), 1964, n.1 in AAS 57 (1965),
90-112.
15 Cf. PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter - Paths of the Church: Ecclesiam Suam, Pauline Books
& Media, Boston 1964, 39.
16 UR, n. 4.
17 Cf. POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter - Ut Unum Sint on Commitment to
Ecumenism, Paulines Publications, Nairobi 1995, 5.
15
Lord’s death and resurrection. As Pope John Paul II reminds us in his encyclical
Ut Unum Sint, unity is essential to the very identity of the Christian and cannot be
seen as peripheral part of Church life. The call to be Christian is the call to
Trinitarian life: the koinonia of the people of God symbolizes the mystery of the
Blessed Trinity.18As we are in the third millennium, the entire Church is being
repeatedly requested to commit herself fully to the cause of ecumenical dialogues.
Early in 1960’s, the Second Vatican Council gave an ecumenical orientation to
the Catholic Church and created a much more favorable climate for restoring
unity among all Christians.
1.2.3 Ecumenical Christology
In the second half of the 20th century, the Churches began to have a reevaluation
of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and make an intense effort
to see whether the languages of the various churches could be made
understandable to the other Churches. Thus the Byzantine Orthodox Churches and
Oriental Orthodox Churches entered into ecumenical dialogue and it bore
abundant fruits. After their meeting they came to the conclusion that the
difference existing among the Churches in Christology is chiefly due to
terminology and not based on the essence of the Christological faith. In the
content of the faith, both the Church families hold the same Apostolic faith. And
they made a joint statement that “on the essence of Christological dogma we
found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by
each side, we say the same truth expressed.” Both sides found themselves
fundamentally following the Christological teaching of the one undivided Church
as expressed by St. Cyril.19
1.3 History of Ecumenism in the Early Church
To understand the history of the ecumenical movement, we must first
look at the history of the Churches themselves. The divisions came about as the
result of disputes over doctrine in the past, particularly in the fifth, eleventh and
18 Cf. UUS, n. 8.
19 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, Christology, A Publication of the Oriental Institute of Religious
Studies, Kottayam 2002, 159.
16
sixteenth centuries. All those disputes were heavily influenced by political and
cultural factors. In the fourth century one of the major disputes in the Church was
Aryanism. After the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), the
divisions begun by the Arius, an Alexandrian priest, were gradually resolved. The
first councils called to heal divisions, those of Nicaea and Constantinople gave
precision to Christian understanding of Christ and Trinity.20 Eventually five of the
bishops (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were
recognized as patriarchs. (We must know the bishop of Rome never called to be a
patriarch). These patriarchates were important in stabilizing the Church’s
teachings in the ancient world and adapting it to the various cultures of the
Empire.
The councils of the fifth century, called by the Emperor to unite the
debating Churches, focused on the relationship of the divinity and humanity of
Christ in the Incarnation. At the council of Ephesus (431) the Churches attempted
to resolve their differences in speaking of Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ only
(Christotokos) or as mother of God (Theotokos) as well. Unwillingness to speak
of the “God bearer” appeared to some to question the full divinity of Christ, while
to others the use of the title appeared to question of his full humanity. The Persian
Church did not accept the Council and fell out of the communion with the five
apostolic patriarchates.
After some years another heresy developed that is Nestorianism
(Monophysitism). In Greek, Monophysitism means “one nature” and has been
applied to those who have stressed Christ’s divinity to the point of overlooking,
even denying his humanity.21 The Council of Chalcedon condemned the error,
teaching that in “one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, must
be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion or change, without division or
20 Cf. H. GREEN, A New History of Christianity, Contiuum Publication, New York 1996,
33.
21 Cf. DOM CHARLES POULET, A History of the Catholic Church, vol. I, B. Herder book
co., New York 1934, 241.
17
separation.22 A group of Eastern Churches they also rejected the Christological
formula of the Chalcedon Council and today those Churches collectively known
as the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in
India is also a part of this Church.23 “The most distressing schism is that which
has opposed the four Eastern Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem to the Western patriarch of Rome since 1054.”24 The claims of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople to be the new Rome and the claims of the Bishop
of Rome to a universal primacy that was more than one of honour have never
been resolved and have often caused tensions among them. Even at this point, the
Church was still considered to be one.
1.3.1 Western Schism
We could see in the sixteenth century the West was split by the Protestant
Reformation. Anglicanism and Protestantism, with its two great branches of
Lutheranism and Calvinism, became rivals of Catholic Christianity, and claimed
to teach the pure doctrine of the Gospel which the Bishop of Rome had
contaminated in the course of time. Because of its emigration to America and its
missionary zeal, Protestantism has since become a worldwide phenomenon. All of
Northern Europe and important sections of Central Europe separated from the
Roman communion, not just in matters of discipline but in matters of faith.25
Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) attack on indulgences drove him to ask questions
like “How can I find a favorable God?”, “How can one be certain of salvation?”
The response to his question about a favorable God, he personally discovered a
forgiving, justifying God. This doctrine, often spoken as “justification by faith
alone” and he described the Church as the assembly of those enjoyed justification
by faith. The Council of Trent (1545-1563)26 became the reforming arm of the
Catholic Church. It was in this Conciliar forum that a level of reaction to
22 Cf. R. G. ROBERSON, The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey, Edizione
Orientalia Christiana, Roma 1985, 173-177.
23 Cf. GEORGE. H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The Search for Unity, Tran.
W. Hughes, Meter Omega Books, Notre Dame 1962, 16.
24 Cf. GEORGE. H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The Search for Unity..., 14.
25 Cf. GEORGE H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The search for Unity…,15.
26 E.G. JAY, The Church, vol.1, SPCK, London 1977, 107.
18
Protestantism arose. In theological areas, the council clarified Catholic teaching
where there had been confusion and examined the reformers’ views on the
Scriptures, justification, predestination, and the sacraments. The Catholic
reformation achieved an eventual purification of the Church. The First Vatican
Council (1870) clarified the role of the papacy in the context of the infallibility of
the Church. Catholic Canon Law was codified in 1917.
For precision’s sake, we should also mention a schism which did not
involve the Catholic Church, but which affected Russian Orthodox Christianity in
the seventeenth century. Liturgical and canonical reforms stirred up the opposition
of a large minority in the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1666 it resulted in the
“raskol” or schism of the Old Believers or “starovites.” They themselves spilt into
two groups, the Popovtzi and the Bezpopovtzi. 27 The Old Believers became very
numerous, always maintaining very narrow relations with the official Church. In
the same epoch, the Church of Rome suffered a new schism. The Archbishop of
Utrecht rejected the condemnation of Jansenism by the Bull Unigenitus in 1713,
and drew some Dutch Catholics into schism. Later on, this Jansenist Church drew
recruits from among the German and Swiss Catholics who rejected the dogma of
papal infallibility after the Vatican Council in 1871. It wasn’t the first time that a
definition of faith provoked a schism. It happened as early as 451 at the close of
the Council of Chalcedon. Later, when the dogma of the Assumption was defined,
it seemed evident that definitions increase the obstacles to the already difficult
tasks of ecumenical rapprochement, even if they are not the occasion of a schism.
28 Schisms have also taken place very recently, moreover. The Independent
Philippine Church, called the “Aglipayan” Church, separated from Rome at the
beginning of last century.
1.3.2 Developments and Origin of Ecumenical Movement in
Western Church
Since the beginning of the Church there have been heresies and schisms.
The Church’s attempt to reunite them pertains to general church History. In the
27 Cf. GEORGE H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The search for Unity…, 16.
28 Cf. GEORGE H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The search for Unity…, 15.
19
20th century this attempt starts as a movement. “At the Edinburgh Missionary
Conference (1910) Anglican and Protestant missionaries became more deeply
convinced that divisions among Christians were a powerful obstacle to the spread
of Christianity.”29 They recognized hostility, contentions, and even differences
among Christians as a scandal and realized that many causes of these divisions
seemed irrelevant in non-Christian lands. The International Missionary Council
was formed not only to spread information about effective missionary methods,
but also to lessen the scandal of Christian divisions by avoiding competition in
non-Christian countries. In 1925 the Life and Work Conference at Stockholm
studied the application of Christian principles to international relations and to
social, industrial, and economic life. Almost simultaneously the Faith and Order
Conferences began to discuss doctrinal matters, with a view to unity in faith and
order. From these three organizations was formed in 1948 the World Council of
Churches (WCC), with headquarters at Geneva, Switzerland. Separated brethren,
therefore, laid the foundations of the 20th century ecumenical movement.
The Catholic Church’s entry into the “ecumenical movement” officially
began with the Second Vatican Council, before it, ecumenical initiatives had
already been taken, especially in the organizing of prayer programs for Christian
unity. Father Paul Wattson, for example, as far back as 1908, while still an
Anglican, began the Church Unity Octave in Graymoor, New York. Also, there
was the French man, Abbé Paul-Iréné Couturier, who in 1933 introduced in Lyon
a triduum (Three days) of prayer for church unity. Later in the decade, this
became known as the Worldwide Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, and it
continues to be celebrated in the northern hemisphere in January and in the
southern hemisphere in July.30 Faith and Order Conferences at Edinburgh (1937)
and Lund (1952) increased realization of the death of doctrinal differences and of
the tenacity of denominational traditions. Paradoxically, efforts at unity have
increased denominational loyalties. World associations have been developed by
Anglicans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Lutherans,
29 FREDERICK M. BLISS, S. M., Catholic and Ecumenical: History and Hope, Rowman &
Littlefield Publication, New York 2007, 97.
30 Cf. FEDERICK M. BLISS., Catholic and Ecumenical: History and Hope…, 1.
20
Methodists, Pentecostalists, and Presbyterians. These world “confessional”
associations had the immediate effect of increasing denominational
consciousness; but in the long run they may enable unions to be formed on a
wider scale.
1.3.3 Attempts for a Unity
The early twentieth century has often been described as the moment of
birth of an ecumenical movement. Following are the important attempts made for
unity:31
• In 1902 Joachim III, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Holy Synod sent
an encyclical to all Orthodox Churches dealing with the means of possible
rapprochement with those who believed in the true God of the Trinity so
that the day of union of all Christians might eventually come.
• In 1908, Spencer Jones, an Anglican clergymen, and Paul Wattson, a
priest of the Episcopal Church in the United States who later became a
Roman Catholic, Proposed From a week of prayer for unity.
• 13 to 23 June 1910, The World Missionary Conference(Edinburgh)
summed up and brought into focus to give the gospel to the world.
• In 1920 the Church of Constantinople issued an encyclical to all the
Churches of the world. It was an invitation to all Christian Churches to
form a league of Churches.
• The following year Mott and Oldham presided a meeting of the
International Missionary Council, which was an outgrowth of the
Edinburgh Conference. The meeting sought to promote study,
coordination, and organization for Christian mission.32
These ecumenical activities were a source for preparing the World Council
of Churches. Second World War delayed the creation of the World Council until
1948.33 The war period proved to be a time of deepening and intensifying
ecumenical fellowship. One of the features that may be noted in the above
narrative is the conspicuous absence of Roman Catholic participation. All of this
changed when Pope John XXIII in 1960 created the Secretariat for Promoting
31 Cf. W.G. RUSCH, Ecumenism- A Movement toward Church Unity, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia 1985, 26.
32 Cf. W.G. RUSCH, Ecumenism- A Movement toward Church Unity…, 29.
33 Cf. GEORGE. H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The Search for Unity…, 143.
21
Christian Unity. After that a regular contact between the Roman Catholic Church,
the other Churches and the World Council has become possible.
1.3.4 Catholic Involvements in Ecumenism
Catholic involvement in ecumenism is a recent phenomenon. Moreover,
Catholic participation, although late, has been generally enthusiastic, especially on
the part of recent Popes. Pope Pius XI had great interest in the Eastern Churches.
Between 1922 and 1939 he issued 23 documents concerning them. He reorganized
the Pontifical Oriental Institute, entrusted it to the Jesuits, and provided it with a
new building and a large library. He also established the Ethiopian, Ruthenian,
and Russian colleges in Rome.34 Pope John XXIII decisively promoted Christian
unity. He deprecated the polemical tone used by some Catholic and frequently
spoke about separated brethren with respect and affection. His encyclicals Mater
et Magistra and Pacem in terries included statements indicative of his concern for
Christian unity. Vatican Council II was summoned by John XXIII to stimulate the
movement toward unity, among other things. The second Vatican Council in its
Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio (1964) (UR) declared the restoration
of unity among all Christians to be one of its principal concerns. “With this
Decree the Second Vatican Council formally brought the Catholic Church into the
ecumenical movement, and set in motion a series of ecumenical dialogues on the
international level, but also on the regional and local levels”.35
Since the Catholic Church entered the movement, she has demonstrated a
developing and deepening commitment to the work of Christian unity In May
1995, for instance, John Paul II wrote two important documents. The first of these
was an Apostolic Letter, Orientale Lumen (The light of the East), in which the
Pope suggests that the time has arrived for the Orthodox Church and the Catholic
Church to deepen their level of communication. The second document was an
encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint (On Commitment to Ecumenism), that
34 New Catholic Enciclopedia, Catholic University of America, Vol.V, Washington D. C
1967, 97.
35 W. KASPER, Harvesting the Fruits-Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical
Dialogue..., 1.
22
calls on all Christian peoples and churches to renew their enthusiasm for the
restoration of Christian unity: PCPCU has also contributed ideas to these
encyclicals.
23
Chapter II
ECUMENISM WITH THE EASTERN CHURCHES
2.1 Negotiation among Western Church and Eastern Church
By the thirteenth century the slowly evolving division between Eastern
Orthodoxy and the Latin Churches of the West had solidified, and it continued.
Even as the divisions were being created; simultaneous attempts were often made
to overcome them. The first legislative attempt for union was the Second Council
of Lyons (1274).36 This Council was called by Gregory X, with three aims: Union
with the Greeks, convocation of a crusade, and Church reform. The fourth session
of this Council on July 6, the decision in favour of union was proclaimed, and the
imperial party signed a creed that accepted the primacy, the filioque, belief in
purgatory, and the seven sacraments, but the attempt for unity was failed.
Numerous attempts at union among the Monophysite Churches have met
with some degree of success. The Maronite Church, which returned to Catholic
Communion in 1181, is a former schismatic group that followed Monophysitism.
It is concentrated in Syria and Lebanon. A reunion with the Armenians of Cilicia
lasted from 1198 to 1375.37 The Council of Florence (1438-39) attempted a shortlived
union of all the Monophysite Churches. The attempts were renewed in the
sixteenth century and since then a Syrian Church in union with Rome exists.
Some of the Armenians united with Rome in the eighteenth century. “In the
nineteenth century a group of Ethiopian Copts did the same. Finally, in 1930, the
reconciliation of a strong minority of Indian Jacobite introduced the Syro-
Malankara Rite into the Church.”38 It should come as a conclusion.
36 Cf. FEDERICK M. BLISS., Catholic and Ecumenical: History and Hope…, 84.
37 Cf. GEORGE. H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The Search for Unity…, 143.
38 GEORGE H. TAVARD, Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The search for Unity…, 15.
24
2.1.1 Ecumenical Dialogue in the Eastern Catholic Churches
Inspired by the Second Vatican Council’s view on ecumenism, the Code
of Canons of Eastern Churches (CCEO) gave legal expression to the ecumenical
endeavors of the Council. Therefore, the promulgation of CCEO has created in
ecumenical matters a disciplinary situation for the faithful to the Oriental Catholic
Churches. The Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones stated: “But what pertains to
the universal ecumenical movement stirred up by the Holy Spirit to perfect the
unity of the whole Church of Christ, the new Code is in no way the least obstacle
but rather greatly advances it. For the Code guards this fundamental right of the
human persons, namely that the faith be professed in whatever their rite, for the
most part derived by them in their mothers’ wombs, which is the rule of all
ecumenism.”39
Regarding the special ecumenical obligation of the Oriental Catholic
Churches, Sacri Canones stated that “distinctly there is place in a clear light by
Second Vatican Council that especially ‘a religious fidelity to the ancient
traditions’ along with ‘prayers, example of life, mutual and better knowledge,
collaboration and fraternal esteem for objects and attitudes’ bring it about that the
Eastern Churches having full communion with the Apostolic Roman See, fulfill ‘a
special task of fostering the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians’
(OE 24) according to the principles of the decree on ecumenism.”40
In CCEO, the titles XVII and XVIII are directly concerned with the
ecumenical question. The title XVII deals with the “baptized non- Catholics
coming into full communion with the Catholic Church” while the title XVIII
precisely focuses on the “ecumenism or fostering the unity of Christians.” Canon
143 §3 discuss of the non-Catholic participation in the Patriarchal Epharchial
Assemblies. Another aspect of ecumenism, the communicatio in sacris, is
discussed especially in canon 671 §2, §3. Also, there can be certain collaboration
in the sacrament of Baptism and Marriage with Orthodox Churches according to
the given norms. Furthermore, there are norms that guide the sharing of churches,
39 AAS 82 (1990)1035.
40 AAS 82 (1990) 1035.
25
cemeteries and liturgical objects for religious ceremonies with the Orthodox sister
Churches.
2.1.2 Pro Oriente and Oriental Orthodox Churches
After the Second Vatican Council, the Pro Oriente Foundation in Vienna
took up the challenge of theological discussions and sponsored a historic series of
discussions between theologians of the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
The First “Non-Official Ecumenical Consultation between theologians of the
Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches” took place in Vienna in
September 1971.41 It was a real search for truth and in the final Communiqué; the
theologians affirmed that a common basis has been found in the apostolic
traditions and in the first three ecumenical councils. After rejecting both
Eutychian and Nestorian Christologies, they expressed their common faith in
Christ.
Later, in September 1973, in the second meeting of Pro Oriente,
Christology again became the subject of theological discussions. In the final
Communiqué, the theologians added to what has stated in 1971 that the mystery of
Christ is incomprehensible, and that all concepts about Christ are limited. Thus
correct Christological formulations can be wrongly understood, and behind an
apparently wrong formulation, there can be a right understanding. This fact
enabled them to affirm that “the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, rightly
understood today, affirm the unity of person and the indissoluble union of
Godhead and Manhood in Christ despite the phrase “in two natures”.42 There are
definitive progresses in the area of ecclesiology between the Churches, although
certain differences still remain to be resolved. The Oriental Orthodox Churches
have accepted only the first three ecumenical Councils. Since the Oriental
Orthodox Churches have no experience of primacy among their five independent
41 Cf. XAVIER K, JOHN. P, Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the
Catholic Church and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Joint International
Commission for Dialogue Publications, Kottayam, 2001, 20
42 Cf. XAVIER K, JOHN. P, Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the
Catholic Church and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 25.
26
Churches, the basic concept of primacy itself needs to be discussed.43 Within their
Church they have a different concept of primacy, distinct from that of the Catholic
concept. Infallibility is another disputable concept. The principle of conciliarity
was a solution put forward, and they recognized the need for a structure for coordination
between the autocephalous Churches.
2.1.3 Oriental Orthodox Identity of Syro-Malankara Churches
On 22 October 451 the Holy Synod of Chalcedon approved a definition of
faith that in Christ there is one person (the divine Logos) but two natures (one
human and one divine). This Chalcedonian Christological definition was
supported by the Byzantine Imperial government and it was accepted within the
Empire. But outside its borders, especially in areas where there was strong
attachment to the earlier formula of Cyril of Alexandria, this Chalcedonian
definition was rejected by the faithful.44 They were more attached to the formula
of Cyril of Alexandria, about half of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the distant
Churches of Armenia and Ethiopia. Those who rejected the council of Chalcedon
were called Monophysites; while the Oriental Orthodox Churches accused that the
Chalcedonian Council followed the path of Nestorius. At Present there are six
Oriental Churches, which, although each is fully independent, are in communion
with one another. They are the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox
church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the Indian
Orthodox Church (Malankara Orthodox Syrian), the Syrian Orthodox Church
(Jacobite- Malankara Syrian Orthodox), and the Antiochian Catholic Church in
America is theologically aligned with these Churches, but is not in full
43 Not even a limited form of primacy exists similar to the role that the Patriarchate of
Constantinople plays among the Orthodox Churches. In 1976, at the third Pro Oriente
meeting, the Communiqué describes the areas of agreement on the nature of the Church
and the notion of conciliarity. It states “one and the same Church, for there cannot be
more than one, is manifested both locally and universally as koinonia of truth and love,
characterized by Eucharistic communion and the cooperate unity of the episcopate. The
unity of the Church, has its source and prototype in the unity of the Father, the Son and
Holy Spirit, into which we have been baptized. Communiqué, Wort und Wahrheit,
Supplementary Issue n. 3, Vienna, 1976, 223.
44 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, Christology, A Publication of the Oriental Institute of Religious
Studies, Kottayam 2002, 158-159.
27
communion with them.45 The Malankara Orthodox Churches belong to this family
of Oriental Orthodox Churches who were also called Pre-Chalcedonians by
accepting the Antiochian Liturgy and theology. The Malankara Syrian Orthodox
Church is an autonomous Church under the supervision of the Patriarch of
Antioch while the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is an autocephalous
Church. Each church has the strength of approximately 1,000,000 faithful.
2.2 Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Catholic
Church
The Syrian Orthodox Church periodically sought communion with the
Holy See of Rome even after the Council of Chalcedon. In the second half of the
Sixteenth Century, two partriarches, Ignatius Abd-Allah (1520-1556) and Ignatius
Nemat-Allah (1557-76), professed the Catholic faith and tried to bring the Syrian
Orthodox Church in to the Catholic communion. By the efforts of Patriarch
Nemat-Allah in Rome, his nephew and successor David-Shah (1576-1591) was
also confirmed by the Holy See as the Patriarch of Antionch in 1581. The
Apostolic Nuncio, Leonardo Abel, and Patriarch’s brother Bishop Thomas could
not agree upon a clause in the Profession of Faith. Therefore, negotiations were
suspended in 1586, and the reunion movement came to a standstill.46 In 1620’s,
the European missionaries, the Franciscans, Capuchin, Carmelites and Jesuits
opened mission and centers in Alleppo and elsewhere in the middle East. They
received individual laymen priests and bishops into the Catholic communion.
From 1630 onwards, the Capuchins and the Franciscans of Aleppo were in touch
with the Jacobite Archbishop. The Archbishop and two of his priests had
inclination of joining the Catholic Communion. The missionaries found the
Archbishop more heretical than the priests. In 1662, when the Patriarchate became
vacant, the Catholic party was able to elect one of its own, Andrew Akhidjan, as
Patriarch. This provoked a split in the community, and after Akhidjan’s death in
1677, two opposing Patriarchs were elected, from both parties. But when the
45Cf. P.HAFFNER, Mystery of the Church…, 85.
46 Cf. PHILIP N., Ecumenical Obligations of Syro-Malabar Church in Relation to the
Orthodox Churches in India, Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad Doctoratum, Pontificium
Institutum Orientale, Roma 1999, 8.
28
Catholic Patriarch died in 1702, this brief line of Syrian Catholic Patriarchs died
with him.
In 1782, the Syrian Orthodox Synod elected Metropolitan Michael Jarweh
of Aleppo as Patriarch. Shortly after his enthronement, he declared himself
Catholic. This caused a strong revolt against him, and the Patriarch took refuge in
Lebanon. After Jarweh, there has been an unbroken succession of Syrian Catholic
Patriarchs.
2.2.1 Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch
Shenouda III of Alexandria47
The initial statement of their Common Declaration expresses their
agreement on faith in the Word Incarnate:
“In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches
and preserved therein, and in Conformity with the three early ecumenical
councils, we confess on faith in the one Trine God, the divinity of the Only
Begotten Son of God, the effulgence of His Glory and the express image
of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real
body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but
without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us
all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to his divinity, perfect man
with respect to his humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His
humanity in a real, perfect union without alteration, without division,
without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an
instant, not for twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and indivisible
became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant.
In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties
of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable
union”48
2.2.2 Common Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch
Ignatius Yacoub III
The official visit of Syrian Patriarch Ignatius Yacoub III49 to Pope Paul
VI in Rome and the consequent common declaration (27 October 1971) is the first
47http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html
48 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, (Ed.) Xavier Koodapuzha- John Panickar, Joint
International Commission for Dialogue Publication, Kottayam 2001, 24-25.
49http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19711025_syrian-Church_en.html
29
important opening in the ecumenical relation between the Syrian Church of
Antioch and the Catholic Church in the last century. Pope Paul VI said:
“The history the relation between our Churches shows many light and
shadows. We recognize that difficulties which have been created over
centuries are not always easily overcome. Each of us is motivated by a
sincere desire to be faithful to our Fathers in the faith and to the tradition
they have handed down to us. Yet this very desire to be faithful to them
impels us to search with ever greater zeal for the realization of full
communion with each other.”50
The common elements the Churches inherit were many, and Pope
enumerates a few such as “a common sacramental life and common Apostolic
tradition, particularly as affirmed in what is popularly called the Nicene Creed.
The dogmatic definitions of the first three Ecumenical Councils form part of our
common heritage”. The Pope expected that they could encourage the common
efforts being made for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of this
mystery which, far from raising doubts about the two different ecclesiastical
traditions, can reinforce them and show the basic harmony which exists between
them. The Patriarch in his address to the Pope expressed his expectation that there
will be “a day when we will have even a greater visible unity and that too without
sacrificing our individuality and the cultural contribution each of our Churches
can make towards the speedy spreading of the Kingdom of God on earth”.51
2.2.3 Common declaration of Pope John Paul II and His Holiness
Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas
In order to strengthen the bonds that exist between the Church of Rome
and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, and thus to progress further towards
full Communion, Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch,
came on pilgrimage of the tombs of the Apostles Peter and Paul and visited Pope
John Paul II and the Church of Rome from 20-23 June 198452. The Patriarch was
50 Cf.PHILIP.N, Ecumenical Obligations of Syro-Malabar Church in Relation to the
Orthodox Churches in India…, 13.
51 Cf. PHILIP N., Ecumenical Obligations of Syro-Malabar Church in Relation to the
Orthodox Churches in India…, 14.
52http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i_en.html
30
accompanied by the Catholicos of the East, His Beatitude Mar Baselios Paulos II,
the Head of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and a group of bishops,
priests, and laity. A common declaration was signed by both the heads of the
Churches at the end of the Patriarch’s visit to Rome on 23 June 1984. Pope John
Paul II and the patriarch professed the faith of their two Churches as formulated at
the Council of Nicea and acknowledged that the confusions and schisms of
subsequent years stemmed from the terminology, culture and different formula
used by different theological schools. They admitted that today these differences
do not affect the substance of faith.
31
Chapter III
THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT IN THE
MALANKARA CHURCHES
3.1 History and Ecumenical Movements in the Malankara
Churches
3.1.1 St Thomas Christians (Marthoma Christianikal)
Our Lord Jesus Christ sent his twelve disciples to the four corners of the
world as heralds of the Good News of salvation. In divine providence, the Indian
Church was blessed to have an apostolic foundation in 52 A.D. through the
evangelization mission of St Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ.
St Thomas preached the Gospel in Kerala and the other parts of India and laid the
foundation for the Christian Church here. On account of it, he is regarded as the
Apostle of India. The Christians here are known as Thomas Christians (Marthoma
Christianikal), in the same sense that they received the Gospel message through
his preaching. Even today they are known as Thomas Christians.53. This Apostolic
Church was in Catholic Communion from the early centuries. It came in contact
with the Syro-Chaldean Church of the Middle East and consequently adopted the
East Syrian Liturgy. The Church of St Thomas Christians was an autonomous
metropolitan Church, headed by a metropolitan of all India, appointed by the
Chaldean Catholic Patriarch and governed by an indigenous archdeacon of all
India, assisted by the general people of God.54 Since the St Thomas Christians,
who kept intact their Catholic faith and liturgy, maintained the same socio-cultural
life of the autochthonous people, their tradition was considered one of the
religions of India.
53 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church, Bethany Sisters’ Publication,
Vadavathoor, Kottayam 2003, 11.
54 P. PALLATH, The Catholic Church in India, Mar Thoma Yogam, Rome 2005, 69.
32
3.1.2 The Brief History of Malankara Churches
Those who are not familiar with the history of the St Thomas Christians
in India could misunderstand the historic background of the Syro-Malankara
Catholic Church, talking it as a new Church, from the time of its re entry to the
Catholic Church in 1930, and forgetting the fact that the Malankara Church is part
and parcel of the apostolic church of the St Thomas Christians, which was in
Catholic communion till 1652. As part of the ancient apostolic church in India, the
Malankara Catholic Church is deeply rooted in the spiritual tradition and cultural
heritage of India.
3.1.3 Synod at Diamper and Coonan Cross Oath
The beginning of the Latin Church in India was when Vasco da Gama,
who discovered the sea route to India, landed in the harbor of Calicut on 21 May
1489. Followed by Vasco da Gama the Franciscan missionaries, Jesuits,
Dominicans, Augustinians and Carmelites arrived and start their evangelization
work and converted many Hindus all over India.55 Beyond doubt the history of the
Latin Church in India is essentially connected with two institutes, namely the
Portuguese Padroado and the Roman Congregation of Propaganda Fide. Hence
there started the conflicts between these two missionary agencies. In the sixteenth
century, the Indian Apostolic Church came into direct relationship with the
Western Church through the Portuguese missionaries.
The Portuguese extended the Padroado agreement in their evangelization
programme over India and wanted to bring the Indian Church of the St. Thomas
Christians under this jurisdiction. The arrival of the Portuguese missionaries was a
turning point in the internal administration and liturgical traditions of the Thomas
Christians and, in 1653 brought about, a split in the Church. The Church in India
which was rooted in the socio-cultural environment and which enjoyed autonomy
in internal administration in communion with the Universal Church, resisted the
unwanted intervention of the Portuguese who brought with them the Western
ecclesiastical traditions. The Portuguese missionaries, ignorant of the Oriental
55 P. PALLATH, The Catholic Church in India…, 43.
33
traditions of the Indian Church, had the conviction that anything different from
the Western Church was schism and heresy. Hence they wanted to Latinize the
Syrian Christians of India.56
In 1599 Bishop Franciz Roz (1599-1624) convoked a Synod at Diamper
and imposed latinization on the Apostolic Church of India. This was a blow to the
identity of the Indian Church. The Church of St.Thomas Christians could not
withstand any more the denial of her autonomy. The initial resistance slowly gave
way to discontentment, which ended up with the revolt in 1653 known as the
Koonan Cross Oath. Describing the Revolt, Mathias Mundadan, a well- known
Indian Church historian, writes: “Tempers rose and the Christians assembled in or
before a shrine or near an open-air cross (“the Coonan Cross”) and took the Oath
that they would never be under the Paulists, that is the Jesuits, and in future they
would never obey Jesuits missionaries.”57 Thus, the one Church of the St Thomas
Christians was split into two. A large majority of the broken-away-group hesitated
to sever ties with Rome and they remained in communion with Rome, but, under
the Latin Hierarchy. This group came to be called the Pazhayakûttukar, (later
Syro Malabar Church). The other group of Thomas Christians wanted, at any cost,
to hold on to their liturgical traditions and autonomy. So they opted to remain
outside the Latin rule, with the unfortunate result of losing the Catholic
communion, they were known as Puthenkûttukar. This group made several
attempts to come in communion with Rome safeguarding their autonomy and
ritual patrimony. Failing to re-establish communion with Rome, they happened to
come in communion with the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, and
they came to be known as the Malankara Church. These developments were not
acts against the Apostolic See of Rome but against the Portuguese missionaries
and their policy of Latinization. Even after the communion with the Jacobite
Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, the Malankara Prelates Mar Thomas I
(+1670), Mar Thomas II (+1686), Mar Thomas III (+1688), Mar Thomas IV
(+1728), Mar Thomas V (+1765), Mar Thomas VI (+1808) and Mar Thomas VII
56 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 36.
57 A.M. MUNDADAN, Indian Christians: search for Identity and struggle for Autonomy,
Bangalore DharMaram 1982, 92.
34
(+1815) one after the other had attempted reunion with the Holy See, but all
ended up in failure. Until Mar Thoma V, both the Puthenkur and Pazhayakur
factions were using the same East Syrian liturgical texts corrected and latinised by
Bishop Roz. Nobody was against the East Syrian liturgy. It had been in use in
Malankara for centuries and handed over from generation to generation. However,
when the community got divided and moved away from each other, the
Puthenkkuttukar began to use the Antochene liturgical tradition brought by the
Jacobites in more parishes.58
3.1.4 Further Split among the Malankara Church
From the Malankara Church a small group became independent in 1772,
under the leadership of Mar Coorilos Kattumagatt. They are known as the
Independent Syrian Church of Malabar, or the “Thozhiyoor Chruch”, a name
given after the place in which this community is mainly settled. Later the
Puthenkûr community came under the influence of the British missionaries in the
19th century. In 1836, some of the Malankara faithful joined the Church
Missionary Society (C.M.S) due to the Anglican influence. Again in 1875,
another section became independent also because of Anglican influence on their
theology and on their tradition. They are known as the Reformed Syrians, or the
Mar Thoma Syrian Church. This church can be rightly called “the Anglicanized
Malankara Church”. From this Church in 1961, the St. Thomas Evangelical
Church broke off, accusing the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of deviating from the
reformation spirit. The remaining Malakara Church was divided into three
Churches, namely, the Malankara Orthodox Church, The Malankara Syrian
Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Malankara Catholic
Church which came into Catholic Communion in 1930.59
58 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 68.
59 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 9.
35
60
3.2 The Attempt for Catholic Communion in the Malankara
Church
On the part of the Malankara church there had been many attempts to
regain catholic communion, ever since the division which took place in 1653.
Unfortunately, those attempts did not succeed due to various reasons. There were
many individual reunions during this period but it was only in 1930 that the
attempt to enter into the catholic communion succeeded as a movement. Most of
the Malankara prelates entered into correspondence with Rome for this purpose.61
3.2.1 The Failed Attempts for a Reunion
Initially the leaders of the “Puthenkur” had no intention of abandoning
the Catholic faith, nor the Chaldean rite. An examination of the history of the
pseudo bishops (Mar Thomas I to Mar Thomas V) who governed the schismatic
group from 1653 to 1808 demonstrates that only when their efforts to get united
60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malankara_Church
61 S. KANJIRAMUKALIL, Punaraikya Rekhakal (Mal), documents of the Reunion, OIRSI,
Kottayam 1989, 17.
36
with the Catholic Church had failed, did they turn to the Antiochian patriarch as a
last resort for obtaining Episcopal consecration for ensuring the spiritual good of
their faithful62
The efforts for reunion at that epoch failed mainly because the heads of the
Malankara Church demanded that they be consecrated bishops and be received
into the Catholic Church with jurisdiction over their faithful. But the Carmelite’s
vicars apostolic of Malabar (late Varapoly), the Portuguese Padroado authorities
and the Congregation of Propaganda Fide were not prepared to receive the
separated group with their head as a bishop with jurisdiction, since it was
detrimental to their authority over the St. Thomas Christians. And they were fear
of the reception of the separated group with their leader as bishop of “their own
rite and nation” might have signified the reunion of all the St Thomas Christians
under one head as before the sixteenth century and there would be the probable
end of the authority of the Latin bishops over the St. Thomas Christians. “In fact,
the policy of Propaganda Fide with regard to the St Thomas Christians was
manifested in the very mandate given to the first vicar apostolic Sebastiani which
require him to divert the St Thomas Christians from the Chaldean rite and convert
them gradually to the Latin rite, and evidently this was impossible of a native
bishop was admitted into the Catholic Church with Episcopal jurisdiction.”63
One must also note that, even if the first five heads ( Mar Thoma I to V)
of the separated community were not consecrated bishops, they exercised all the
Episcopal functions, including the ordination of priests. Consequently there was
the doubt that at least some successors of Mar Thomas I, selected from among the
“priests” not validly ordained, were simple laymen. The reunion efforts of the
fifth successor to Mar Thomas I deserve our special attention. “Until Mar Thoma
V, both the Puthenkur and Pazhayakur factions were using the same East Syrian
liturgical texts corrected and latinised by Bishop Roz.”64 At the time of Mar
Thoma V, there came from West Asia three Jacobie bishops, Mar Baselios, Mar
62 Cf. C. MALCHARUVIL, The Syro-Malankara Church, Bethany Publication, Alwaye
1973, 19,102-110.
63 Cf. P. PALLATH, The Catholic Church in India…, 167.
64 G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 68.
37
Gregorios and Mar Ivanios. It was these three bishops who tried to introduce the
West Syrian Antiochene liturgy in the place of the centuries old East Syrian
Liturgy.
On 29 June 1761 Mar Thomas V raised to “Episcopal dignity” Fr Joseph
Parambil who succeeded him in 1765 with the title Mar Thomas VI. From 1765
itself Mar Thomas VI began his attempts for a reconciliation with bishop Florence
of Jesus OCD (1750-1773), the vicar apostolic of Malabar, but based on the
suggestion of missionaries, Propaganda Fide was ready to grand only a Brief
conferring the dignity of Protonotary Apostolic to the “mitred layman” if he
desired to become an ecclesiastic or the dignity of Knighthood (Speron d’Oro), if
he would prefer to remain in the lay state. The intention of the Congregation was
to convert the “mitred layman”, offering him some honorific titles and to reunite
his people to the vicariate apostolic of Malabar.65
But such proposals became irrelevant since even before they were made
known to Mar Thomas VI, he was consecrated bishop by the Antiochiane bishop
Gregorios in the first week of January 1772 under the name Mar Dionysius I. after
his valid Episcopal consecration Mar Dionysius continued the efforts for
reconciliation through the Propaganda vicar apostolic of Malabar, regarding his
attempts through the vicar apostolic to Pope Pius VI through Mar Cariattil, the
head of the pazhayakur. Notwithstanding this, according to the proposal of the
Congregation, on 10 July 1784 the Holy Father granted all the necessary faculties
to archbishop Mar Cariattil to receive Mar Dionysius into the Catholic Church
with his Community. With this provision of the Pope, about five years of intense
travail of the Indian herald of ecumenism in Rome and Lisbon produced the
desired result, thus unleashing a ray of hope for the re-composition of the unity of
all the St Thomas Christians.
65 Cf. P. PALLATH, The Catholic Church in India…, 169.
38
3.2.2 The Unexpected Death of Mar Cariattil and the Last Blow to
Reunion
After further delay, on 23 April 1785 the return voyage of the two
pioneers of ecumenism began. The archbishop reached Goa on 1 May 1786.
Unfortunately, on 9 September 1786 Mar Cariattil died in Goa, causing an
irremediable and perpetual loss to the Church of St Thomas Christians. He passed
away in the archbishop’s house and was buried in the Cathedral on the following
day. If Mar Cariattil had reached Kerala, Mar Dionysius I and his community
would have been received into the mother Church (before any division and before
officially accepting the Antiochene rite) and the St Thomas Christians would have
remained one and undivided, without any of the numerous divisions found among
them today. As matter of fact the premature death of Mar Cariatttil extinguished
the last flames of hope that the old wound would eventually heal. After the death
of Mar Cariattil, Mar Dionysius I sincerely continued his efforts until 1799, but
did not achieve final success, especially because of the opposition and objections
of the Carmelite vicar apostolic of Malabar (Varapoly) and his missionaries, who
were largely responsible for the ultimate failure of the ecumenical Endeavour’s of
Mar Dionysius I. He died on 13 May 1808 without realizing his dream of Mar
Dionysius the unity and communion of all the St Thomas Christians with the
bosom of the Catholic Church.66
3.2.3 The Ecumenical Efforts of the Twentieth Century and the
Origin of the Syro- Malankara Catholic Church
After the death of Mar Dionysius I in 1808, we find only one serious
attempt for reunion during the governance of Mar Dionysius V (1876-1909),
which also failed.67 As we have seen above, following the schism the Malankara
Church became the victim of Antiochenization, Anglicanization and several
divisions. In the end the Malankara Church became the part of the Antiochene
patriarchal structure and the patriarch became the supreme head of the Church,
without leaving any room for reunion attempts in Kerala. But the division of the
66 Cf. P. PALLATH, The Catholic Church in India…, 170.
67 C. MANCHARUVIL, The Syro-Malankara Church…, 119.
39
Malankara Church and the independence of the Malankara Orthodox Church from
the patriarch the establishment of an autonomous Catholicate in 1912 placed this
church in a position to determine its own destiny and hence once again the quest
for entering into full communion with the Catholic Church came to the fore. The
synod of bishops held at Perumalai in Tiruvalla on 1 November 1926, presided
over by the Catholicos of the Malankara Church His Holiness Moran Mar
Baselios authorized Geevarghese Mar Ivanios, the metropolitan of Betheny to
enter into negotiations with the authorities of the Roman Church with a view to
full Communion.
3.2.4 The Attempt of Mar Ivanios
In accordance with the decision of the synod, in 1926 Mar Ivanios sent
an unofficial memorandum to the Holy See, in which he prospected the entry of
his Church into the Catholic Church,68 preserving the Antiochian rite and rituals,
retaining the jurisdiction of the individual bishops and the prerogatives of the holy
synod which consecrated bishops and metropolitans and performed all patriarchal
functions with the Catholicate, as well as accepting the supremacy of the Roman
Pontiff. He made it clear that the Holy Synod did not to be placed under the
jurisdiction of the Syrian Catholic patriarch of Antioch.69 After obtaining full
details concerning the Malankara Church from Mar Ivanios, on 5 August 1929 the
Holy See answered the memorandum assuring the preservation of the pure
Antiochian rite, the jurisdiction of the returning bishops over their flock and the
complete independence of the Malankara Church from the Catholic Syrian
patriarch of Antioch. It seems that since the Holy See denied the title of
“Catholicos” and synodal structure, the Catholicos Mar Baselios lost all interest in
the reunion. But clarifications and communications continued between Mar
Ivanios and the Holy See regarding the disputed questions.70 Finally on 4 July
1930 the plenary session of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church took
68 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 117.
69Cf. Archives of the Archdiocese of Trivandrum (=AAT), 10/1929; C.MALANCHARUVIL,
The Syro- Malakara Church, 122-123.
70 G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 118.
40
the definitive decision to receive Mar Ivanios, archbishop of Bethany and Mar
Theophilos, bishop of Tiruvalla to the Catholic Church.
3.2.5 The Reunion
After four years of discussion, there came the day for union. Mar Ivanios,
and his suffragan Mar Theophilos, accepted full communion with the Catholic
Church. By this time all the other prelates withdrew from the union project.
According to Hambye, a famous historian who studied the history of the
Malankara church says
“…..the Catholicos, Basil II, who stood by Mar Ivanios, died in 1928. His
successor hardly wanted to accept Ivanios views. This reluctance was all the
more understandable; because the Catholicos’ party had just won some
important law suits against the patriarch’s side”. It is quite unfortunate that
the whole Malankara orthodox Syrian church could not enter into full
communion with the Catholic Church. But nothing could shake the decision
of Mar Ivanios and Mar Theophilos, since they had accepted it as the divine
gift and plan for them. In his letter to the Apostolic Delegate, Mar Ivanios
wrote about his decision to accept the Catholic Church. But he did not rule
out a re union of the Catholicos, I do hope that at a later stage His Beatitude
and the remaining Bishops will see the light and seek reunion. On 20th
September 1930 Mar Ivanios, Mar Theophilos, father John O.I .C, Deacon
Seraphion OIC , and Mr. Chacko Kilileth were received into the catholic
church by bishop Aloysius Maria Benziger of Quilon, who was specially
deputed to that by the Holy See. The group, consisting of a metropolitan,
bishop, priest, deacon and layman, symbolically represented the church. On
11th June 1932, through the apostolic constitution christo pastorum principi,
Pope Pius XI granted a hierarchy to the Malankara Catholicos.71
According to the apostolic constitution, Mar Ivanios was appointed the
archbishop of Trivandrum and head of the Malankara Catholic Church and Mar
Theophilos the bishop of Thiruvalla. So the entry of a section of the ancient
Malankara church into the full communion of the Catholic Church, and the
acceptance of the primacy of the pope as the successor of St. Peter, Marked the
beginning of a new ecclesial life in Malankara. Such is the origin of the Syro-
Malankara Catholic Church. The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is known as
the Malankara Catholic Church. The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church has found
new strength by the reunions of Joseph Mar Severios, the Metropolitan of the
71 Cf. AAS 24 (1932) 289.292.
41
diocese of Niranam in the Malankara Orthodox church in 1939, Thomas Mar
Dioscoros, the head of the Malankara knanaya community in 1939 and Paulose
Mar Philoxinos, the head of the independent church of Malabar in 1977.
3.3 Malankara Catholic Church and Vatican II
The ecumenical directory of 1993 explicitly states that one of the key
concepts which came out of the second Vatican council was its communion
ecclesiology.72 The church is no longer defined or viewed as a perfect society, or
as a great organization with a powerful center upon which all the particular
churches should converge or depend for their survival. The second council
brought home the idea that the universal church is a catholic communion. For the
council, the visible unity of the church presupposes pluralism in the church. Unity
is not uniformity. The diversity manifests the beauty and richness of the Catholic
Church and therefore it is necessary to preserve proper freedom in the various
forms of spiritual life and discipline, in the variety of liturgical rites, and even in
theological expressions. They are the richer expressions of the authentic
catholicity and apostolicity of the church.73According to the ecumenical directory,
the unity of the church is realized in the midst of a rich diversity and this diversity
in the church is a dimension of its catholicity.74 The Malankara Catholic Church is
a Major Episcopal Church sui Iuris in the Catholic Church, adding beauty and
richness within the Catholic Church by proclaiming the Gospel to the world under
the direction and care of the supreme pontiff.75 The presence of the Malankara
Catholic Church in Catholic communion is an affirmation of the council’s
communion ecclesiology, and it is an invitation to the Malankara non Catholic
Churches to work for full communion within the universal church. It is also an
assurance that it is possible for the Eastern churches to be united with the
universal Catholic Church under the pastoral care of the bishop of Rome, without
renouncing their eastern character and autonomy.
72 Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism, n. 12.
73 Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4.
74 Cf. Ecumentical Directory n. 16.
75 OE.Orientalium Ecclesiarum n. 3.
42
3.3.1 Malankara Catholic Church Today
10 February 2005 is a day that is engraved in golden letters in the history
of the Malankara Church. The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church was raised to the
status of a Major Archiepiscopal Church by Pope John Paul II. The Hierarchical
Head of the Church was elevated as Major Archbishop who exercises patriarchal
powers and governs the Church assisted by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the
Church. The Major Archbishop also assumed the title “Catholicos” according to
the Antiochian - Malankara tradition. This is the crowing event of all the ecclesial
communion endeavours since 1653.76 After then The first Holy Episcopal Synod
constituted the Permanent Synod and the various Synodal Commissions headed
by Bishops to take care of various Apostolates of the Church. On Saturday, 14
July 2007 Moran Mor Baselios Cleemis, the second Major Archbishop-Catholicos
declared Archbishop Mar Ivanios as Servant of God on the basis of the petition
for the cause of canonization of Archbishop Mar Ivanios the Prophet of Reunion
Movement. Now the Malankara Church is blessed with two archdioceses and six
dioceses and having more than 5, 19,000 faithful.
3.4 The Role of Malankara Catholic Church in the
Ecumenical Movements
In his encyclical letter on Ecumenism, Ut unum sint, Pope John Paul II
stated that “it is absolutely clear that ecumenism, the movement promoting
Christian unity, is not just some sort of ‘appendix’, which is part of Her life and
work, and consequently must pervade all that She is and does.”77 The Syro-
Malankara Catholic Church, as an Oriental Catholic Church of Antiochian
liturgical family, has therefore, a great responsibility to these important
obligations of the Church. We have a good relationship with the Malankara
Orthodox Churches, to whom the Syro-Malankara Church shares an undivided 19
Centuries of history and the Churches remain in the same West Syrian liturgy and
traditions.
76 http://www.malankaracatholicChurch.net/Historic_Prelue.html
77 Ut Unum Sint, n. 20.
43
As a particular Sui Iuris Church in the Catholic Communion, Syro-
Malankara Church has a special ecumenical role towards her sister Churches. The
Syro-Malankara Church, who lives side by side with the Orthodox Churches, has
the responsibility to cooperate with the Orthodox Churches where common
witness is recommendable. The Churches can share its spiritual resources, places,
and sacraments, according to the established norms of the Church. The Syro-
Malankara Church has the responsibility to work together with the Orthodox
Churches for the well being of the society and the common good. In India, it is
inspiring to see that there are very many such common endeavors. More such
mutual cooperation is helpful to give a unified witness of Christians before the
secular society in India and to keep the desire for unity alive.
It is evident that the work of preparing and reconciling those individuals
who wish for full Catholic communion is of its nature distinct from ecumenical
action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the
Marvelous ways of God.78 When individual are convinced of the necessity of
entering into canonical communion with the Catholic Church, according to their
conscience they are free to enter into it. If person out of conviction enter into the
Catholic communion either as individuals or as group, Catholic Church does not
hinder them. But Catholic Church does not encourage any coercion. The Catholic
Church is against proselytism. It respects the freedom of individuals. But it
earnestly seeks the communion of Churches.79
3.4.1 Why there is a Dialogue with Malankara Orthodox
Churches
As we know the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church has not yet any direct
relation with her sister Orthodox Churches, she relate with them by the help of
other two Catholic rites in India namely Syro Malabar Church and the Latin
Church, so always the Malankara Church dialogues with them through the other
rites. Ever since the division among the St Thomas Christians in 1653, there have
been attempts for reconciliation between the churches as we have seen in the first
78 UR, n. 4.
79 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 247.
44
Chapter. St Thomas Christians who remained in the Catholic communion were
always encouraging these attempts with their own recommendations and
delegation s. But due to the negative attitudes of the Latin missionaries, who were
generally afraid of losing their authority in Malabar and sometimes the scrupulous
attitudes of the Orthodox Church leadership, these attempts were futile.
Now as a particular Oriental Catholic Church in the Catholic communion
the Syro-Malankara Church sincerely fulfils her vocation of ecumenical
obligations in all levels- in organization, formation and cooperation- towards her
sister Orthodox Churches, so that gradually there will be created an ecumenical
convergence among the St. Thomas Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox.
Furthermore, the prayer for unity from the heart of St. Thomas Christians with the
intercessions of their forefathers who sincerely worked for reconciliation and who
kept the unity intact for six long centuries may reach the Triune God, who alone
can create the ultimate and true ecclesial unity.
3.4.2 The Attitude of the Orthodox Churches toward the Syro
Malankara, Malabar Catholic Churches
Later, the reunion movement under the leadership of Mar Ivanios and the
subsequent flow of Christians from the Orthodox Church to Catholic communion
changed the ecumenical climate in Kerala. For the Orthodox Community, this
move by a few bishops, priests and a group of faithful was a kind of “sheep
stealing”, and still there is a constant accusation by some Orthodox of, sheep
steeling: by the Pope, by the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church.80 There
fore, they were hesitant to have any ecumenical conversations and collaborations.
The Malankara Church was always considered as a ‘rite’ by the
Orthodox Churches in Kerala. One of the reasons why the reunion model of
Malankara Church is unacceptable to Orthodox Church is it often leads to a
weakening of the status of the Eastern churches. Theoretically, the eastern
Catholic Churches are considered equal dignity with Roman Church. But in
practice, their status within the big Catholic Church is often considered to be low.
80 Cf. G. CHEDIATH, The Malankara Catholic Church…, 248.
45
Though blessed with Apostolic origin, having plenty of faithful and vocation to
priesthood and religious life, some of these churches are deprived of their right to
exercise their autonomy. Since autonomy is very dear to the East, a weak Eastern
Catholic Church would cause great problems for the Orthodox Churches who
aspire to full communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, this lowering of
the status is, in actuality and ecumenical problem. The Orthodox Churches value
their autonomous character and individuality highly.
3.4.3 Pope John Paul II’s Meeting with Mar Baselios Paulos II,
Catholicos of Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church.
On 7 February 1986 during his pastoral visit to India. Pope remarked that
his declaration with His Holiness Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas with its doctrinal and
pastoral implications was an important step in relations between the two Churches
and affirmed that it was a decisive step in relations between our two Churches as
we move towards unity. Pope John Paul II praised His Beatitude for his interest to
emphasize the importance of the declaration and made proposals for putting it in
to practice. His Holiness expressed his hope that the Church would find a new and
effective means of going forward together in theological dialogue and in pastoral
collaborations.
The meeting of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, with the Catholicos
of the East, His Beatitude, Mar Baselios Paulos II, was a stimulation for the
ecumenical relations with the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church. Further steps
in the ecumenical relations, such as the formation of the joint commission for the
theological dialogue between the two Churches and the subsequent agreements
especially in the mixed Marriage, were certainly encouraged by these fraternal
concerns.81
81 Cf. PHILIP N., Ecumenical Obligations of Syro-Malabar Church in Relation to the
Orthodox Churches in India…, 20.
46
3.5 Ecumenical Dialogue between the Malankara Catholic
Church and the Malankara Orthodox Churches
In the part of the Catholics there was a feeling of self insufficiency which
tied them to passivity. Even after Vatican II, this ecumenical frigidity continued
among the Churches. A breakthrough to this passivity and suspicion seemed to
take place in early 1980’s with an ecumenical move for a Church in Nilackal,
where St. Thomas the Apostle, their Father in Faith had been believed to have
founded a Christian community. There after the friendly relations between the
churches has been in steady progress, with annual Christian bishops meetings and
the ecumenical priests’ gatherings. The official Ecumenical dialogue began in
1989 with the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and in 1990 with the Syrian
Orthodox Church.
The ecumenical relation with the Malankara Orthodox Churches of India
has got historical, theological and juridical importance. The theological, especially
ecclesiological consensus leads to more collaboration between the churches
regulated by the norms of the Churches. The Catholic Church has agreements
with the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church in pastoral collaboration and in
mixed Marriage and Christological agreement with the Malankara orthodox
Syrian Church. At the same time the existing differences between the Churches
negate the full communion between the churches. Since it is an intermediary
situation, both the Churches ask to be conscious of the sensibilities of the others
avoiding the ecclesial indifferentism. It is, of course, a tough and necessary task
that demands great prudence and necessary knowledge of the Churches especially
of the developments in ecumenical dialogue. Ecumenical formation to the whole
Church is one of the important responsibilities of the Syro-Malankara Church.
Those who are involved in pastoral work in the Church should have knowledge of
the history of the St. Thomas Christians, of her divisions, the agreement between
the Churches, the unifying elements and the points of difference between these
Churches. The ongoing dialogue with the Malankara Orthodox Churches in the
international level is to clear the misunderstanding between the Churches which
may lead to a better knowledge of each other. The agreements already achieved in
47
Marriage and Christology with these Churches has opened new ways of mutual
acceptance and express the existing communion, though not full, with these
Churches. We can reasonably hope that this dialogue will draw the Churches
more and more into fuller communion. In this respect the Malankara reunion
movement and the event of 1930 are significant. The idea of negotiating for full
communion was initiated by the Malankara Orthodox Church. It had been trying
to regain the lost communion with the Catholic Church ever since it got separated
in 1653. Though practically all the Malankara metropolitans tried for union with
the Catholic Church they were unsuccessful in getting a movement started.
48
Chapter IV
CURRENT ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MALAKARA
ORTHODOX CHURCHES - ESPECIALLY ON
PRIMACY OF POPE
4.1 Dialogue between Syro-Malakara Churches and Catholic
Church
The Second Vatican Council helps the eastern Churches to work for the
Christian unity through the ecumenical dialogues especially through the Eastern
Code of Canon Law. The Syro Eastern Churches particularly the Orthodox
Churches, Malankara Orthodox and Catholic Churches are on their way of unity
through the ecumenical dialogues. The Joint International Commission for
Dialogues between the Catholic Church and the Syro Orthodox Churches give an
idea about of the contemporary progress of these Churches in the doctrinal
agreement in the Christological definitions, Sacramental Theology, History of St.
Thomas Christians, Inter-Church Marriage, mutual pastoral help and Common
Witness of the Church.
4.1.1 Official Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and
the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church
Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church is an autonomous Church under the
guidance of the Antiochian Patriarch. Therefore the agreement between the
Patriarch of Antioch and the Catholic Church also is applicable for this Church.
Hence, we have seen the relation with the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch’s
visits Rome in 1971 and the common declaration. As a part of the official
dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Malankara Syrian Orthodox
49
Church, a Joint Commission was set up by His Holiness Pope John Paul II and
His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas. The first meeting at the local level was held at
the Spirituality Centre, Manganam, Kottayam on Saturday 15 December 1990.
The sessions were presided over by Bishops Pierre Duprey, the then Secretary of
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Co-Chairman), the bishops of
the two Catholic rites of India and Metropolitan Abraham Mar Cleemis (one
bishop of Malankara Syrian OrthodoxChurch) jointly. In the discussions, it was
decided to set up three subcommittees to discuss the following issues: a)- pastoral
problems, b)- Inter- Church Marriage, and c)- Historical background of the
division.
The yearly ongoing dialogues were discussed the doctrinal Study on the
Relation between Episcopacy and the Petrine Ministry; Historical Approach of
our Common Heritage; developed and lived during the Pre-Portuguese Period.
Common Witness; The Petrine Ministry in Relation to the See of Rome and the
See of Antioch, The Nature of the Communion: Biblical and Ecclesiological
Perspectives; Study of the St. Thomas Christians in India and the patterns of
Communion in the First Millennium; Models of Communion and How to Promote
Communion Today.82 They came to agreement in Christological definitions and
the pastoral help in the Inter-Marriage, but still the dialogue continuing for the
unity among the St. Thomas Christians.
4.1.2 Official Dialogue between Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
The new era in ecumenical relation, after the establishment of the
Catholicate, begins with the visit of the Church His Holiness Baselios Mar Thoma
Mathews I’s, visit to the Holy Father and the Church of Rome in 1983. During
that historic visit, Catholicos requested the Creation of a dialogue commission
between his Church and the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II’s meeting with
the Catholicos during his pastoral visit to India in 1986 stimulated the ecumenical
relations between these two Churches. As a result, a joint commission for
dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Malankara Orthodox Church of
82 http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_syrindia/i_oo-rc_syrindia-info.html
50
India was created. The commission meets every year since 1989 to discuss
different theological and pastoral issues. It published an Christological agreement
with approval of the authorities.83
4.1.3 Continuing Dialogue
The ongoing meetings of the Joint International Commission between the
Catholic and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Churches are agreed upon Marriage
between members of both Churches and the issue of Ecclesial-Eucharistic
communion. They accepted the primacy and conciliarity as the complementary
dimension of exercising Apostolic authority in the Church. They were both
expressions and means of fostering communion. The commission also examined
the problem posed by mixed Marriages. To find a solution to this question, both
theological and pastoral, it was decided to continue reflection on mixed Marriage
and on the Sacrament of Marriage in general in the course of the commission’s
coming session.84 And also they were discussed the Unity of St. Thomas
Christians, Petrine primacy in the first four centuries, Bio-ethical Issues as they
emerge in the Present Day etc., On the last year Joint Commission decided to
study the scope of cooperation between both the churches in outer Kerala
Dioceses to share the churches and cemeteries and extending the services of the
priests in funeral services were either of the churches doesn't have parishes. The
commission decided to give the priests of both the churches, a printed copy of the
Marriage Arrangement formed between the churches in 1994 at Vatican and to
move together against the fundamentalism, terrorism and other social evils.85
4.2 Joint Agreements and Further Discussions
4.2.1 Doctrinal Agreement in Christology
The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, as an Oriental Orthodox Church,
holds the same Christological doctrine as that of the Coptic Church and the Syrian
83 Cfr. PHILIP N., Ecumenical Obligations of Syro-Malabar Church in Relation to the
Orthodox Churches in India…, 44.
84 http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_india/i_oo-rc_india-info.html
85http://stMaryprotectress.blogspot.com/2009/12/joint-commission-for-dialoguebetween.
html
51
Orthodox Church of Antioch. Therefore, this Doctrinal agreement largely based
on the common declaration of Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III86 as well as of
Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Zakka I Iwas. The members of the Joint
Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church drew up a declaration in which they confess
together an identical faith in Christ. The statement affirms that “we found our
common ground in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith held by the
undivided Church of the early centuries. The faith in Christ always affirmed by
both sides”, that faith could lead them to the restoration of full communion
between the Churches.87
They affirm the common faith, with the same content, “but in
formulating that content in the course of history, differences have arisen in
terminology and emphasis.” They expressed their conviction in “that these
differences are such as co-exist in the same communion and therefore needn’t and
shouldn’t divide us, especially when we proclaim Him to our brothers and sisters
in the world in terms which they can more easily understand.”88 The agreement
clarify that Christology is substantially the same in both the Churches. It finds
more existing communion between the Churches and therefore juridically it is
important in the further developments in ecumenical dialogue.
4.2.2 Agreement in Inter-Church Marriage
According to words of the Bishop Mar Kuriakose Kunnacherry one of the
theologians of the dialogue said: “I am glad that the question of Marriages
between Catholics and Syrian Malankara orthodox people is included as one of
the pastoral topics in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Syrian
Orthodox Church.”89 The Syrian Orthodox Church and the oriental Catholic
86http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html
87 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 12.
88 Cf. Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 30.
89 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 39.
52
churches in Kerala were one and the same church until the west Syrian Prelates
came to exercise ministry in Malabar. Till that time the oriental Christians here
were undivided following the Chaldean Liturgy. This fact has to be born in mind
in all the ecumenical discussions between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the
Catholic Church is only a little more than three centuries old and that too not on
political or doctrinal reasons but mainly to have bishops from among the St
Thomas Christians.
4.2.2.1 Joint Statement on Inter-Church Marriage
The joint Theological Commission of the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, having reached a deeper understanding of
each others theological and pastoral position statement regarding inter-church
Marriage which follows:
- In all inter-church Marriage, great respect must be shown for the
particular circumstances of each couple’s situation and the conscience of
each party. No one, therefore, whether orthodox or Catholic, may be
compelled to renounce the Church of his or her baptism. Any suggestion
of proselytism should be avoided by the members of both the Churches.
On the other hand, no canonical penalties may be inflicted on a person
(of his/her family) who freely chooses to follow his or her conscience in
this matter.
- The Marriage may normally be blessed in the Church of the bridegroom
and the bride may be permitted to receive Eucharistic Communion. In
certain situation and by mutual agreement of the parties, the Marriage
may be blessed in the Church of the bride; in this case the bridegroom
may be permitted to take Eucharistic communion.
- By all means the couple should see that the integrity and unity of the
family in the Church life is maintained. They cannot maintain Eucharistic
fellowship in both the Churches indiscriminately. However, on special
occasions the husband/wife may take Eucharistic communion from the
other Church by mutual consent.
- The couple may by mutual agreement, take a responsible decision as to
the Church (Catholic or Orthodox) in which their children should be
baptized and brought up, in full harmony with the tradition of the
Eucharist communion which they maintain.90
90 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 660, 661.
53
4.2.3 Joint Statement the Role of the Episcopate in the unity of the
Local Church
The Orthodox- Catholic Commission discussed the topic: “The Role of the
Episcopate in the Unity of the Church” and arrived at the following conclusion.
We Agree that:-
1. The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, is the Body of Christ into
which the belivers are incorporated through baptism in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2. This ecclesial reality is the frame work for understanding the role of the
Episcopate………………………………
8. The Episcopate is one and is inseparable from the One, Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church. The episcopate in the local Church and also represents
the local Church outside it as well even when there is no “ecumenical” or
provincial Council in session
9. This is based on the analogy of the apostolic college of the twelve, in
which each shared the on apostolic authority. 91
It is in further discussion for the forth coming dialogue between these
Churches.
4.3 Ecumenical Dialogue on the Papal Primacy
The decision to study the Primacy of the bishop of Rome in the universal
Church of Christ indicates that the Orthodox-Roman Catholic consultation is
moving towards the centre of the issues that have separated our respective
communions. My task is here to indicate the historical and the Biblical basis to
answer the argument put forward by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches
especially the arguments of the Joint International Commission for Dialogue
between the Catholic Church and Malankara Orthodox Church. This dialogue is
connected with the fact that both the current manifestation and the history of the
Papacy as a challenge for non-Catholics: they provoke very different responses, It
has become increasingly apparent in ecumenical circles that many non-Roman
theologians and churches are actually coming to agree that some exercising of
Primacy by the Roman see as "normal", "desirable" and “useful", or (to some
91 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 165,166.
54
degree) "required".92 There is, however, a considerable difference between the
official Roman Catholic view of Primacy and the type of Primacy that non-
Roman theologians, churches and communions would be ready to accept for the
well-being of the Church.
4.3.1 Malankara Orthodox View of Papal Primacy
According to the Joint Commission the Malankara Orthodox Theologian
Jacob Kurian presented the following article on the Papal Primacy.
The exercise of authority in the Church has been viewed differently, with
the particular reference to ‘collegiality’ and ‘Primacy’. By ‘collegiality is
generally meant collective responsibility of equal partners in a group and by
‘Primacy’ is generally meant executive, appellatory, superivisory and juridical
role of one partner over others. In the history of the Church, ‘collegiality’
generally refers to the collegiality of bishop in their synod or council and
‘Primacy’ refers to the Primacy of one Episcopal see or office over others
regionally or universally.93
4.3.1.1 Collegiality of the Apostolic College
Biblical witness is sufficiently strong, enough to substantiate at least, the
following with regard to ‘collegiality’ among the apostles:
i. The Apostles were promised authority, granted the Holy Spirit and
commissioned with the evangelical task in the collective manner.
ii. The important decisions like filling the place of and apostle,
regulations regarding the entry of gentiles in the Church etc. were
taken in council.
92 KLAUS SCHATZ, Papal Primacy-form its Origin to the Present, Tran. John A. Otto and
Linda M. Maloney, Minnesota 1996. ix.
93 Cf. Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 441.
55
Therefore it is unlikely that any juridical ‘Primacy’ existed among the apostles,
other than a role of ‘first among equals’.94
4.3.1.2 Collegiality and Primacies in the Early Councils
In the history of the Church we should notice the evolution of ‘Primacial
sees’ along with the exercise of Collegiality in Councils. Many Councils took the
decision that metropolitans of provincial headquarters (in Roman Empire) and the
patriarchs of the dioceses have privileges of supervision and jurisdiction over
other bishops.
For example the Bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the entire Roman
prefecture, the patriarch of Alexandria had jurisdiction over the Egyptian diocese.
Patriarch of Ephesus had Primacial powers over Asiatic diocese. Patriarch of
Caesarea over Cappadocia or Pontic diocese. The Partriarch of Thessalonica over
Illyrican Orientale, patriarch of Milan over Italian diocese and the Bishop of
Carthage over the African diocese. Among the Primacial powers were included
the right to ordain bishops (Chalce. Can. 28) to convene synods (Theod. Ep.81) to
receive appeals (Calce. Can. 9.17) and to ensure wrongdoers (Just. Novel 37.
C.5). These facts imply that the principle of Primacy was endorsed with one
condition i.e. the primates were subject to and answerable to the synod (councils)
they themselves convened.
4.3.1.3 Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (Papal Primacy)95
Primacy of the bishop of Rome seems to be a unique claim especially
because it is founded on the issue of the primacy of Peter over the universal
Church. To avoid any repetition of traditional arguments for and against the claim
and to enable a discussion on the basis of the present state of affairs of the debate,
we present the following position and observation:
94 Cf. Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 441.
95 Cf. Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 441.
56
4.3.1.4 Biblical Position
On the basis of a thorough consideration of the study ‘Peter in the New
Testament’ the Lutheran –R. Catholic dialogue group on Papal Primacy has
affirmed three things.
1. The question of Papal Primacy cannot adequately be treated in
terms of proof passages form the scripture or as a matter of
Church – law.
2. We have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever served as the
supervisor or bishop of the local Church in Rome
3. There is no conclusive documentary evidence from the first
century or the early decades of the second for the exercise of, or
even the claim to a primacy of the Roman bishop or to connect
him with Peter. 96
4.3.2 Catholic side on Primacy in the Joint Commission
According to the Catholic Theologian Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt put
forward the following Theological Pre-suppositions
“While discussing the question of primacy and the primacies we have to
respect the fact that East and West have to different ecclesiological consciousness.
There was a time in the history of the church the undivided church when all the
Churches have respected at least a kind of a primatial role of the See of Rome,
and the bishop of Rome”.97 Primacy has been developed and popularized as a
juridical and dogmatic reality. This dogmatic language is not that of the Bible.
This dogma has the merit that it has preserved the importance of Peter. It is only a
model. Model is not his reality. Primacy does not always mean the Roman
Primacy; there are primacies. The Pre-Nicene, post –nicene, Tridentine, I Vatican,
II Vatican shape of primacy and conciliarity deserves our attention. The balance
between primacy and conciliarity had been and has been precarious. To what
extent the Roman primacy is unacceptable to the Easterners is the basic question.
The spiritual, pastoral and martyrological (witnessing) role of the primacy is to be
regained instead of its universalistic and juridical natures. The expression
96Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 442.
97 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 423.
57
conciliarity and primacy really depends on the nature of the Church and the nature
of authority in the Church. Therefore what is needed is a theological discussion on
these questions.
4.3.2.1 Primacy and conciliarity: Pre- Nicene Period
This was the most collegial and conciliar period of the history of
Christianity. To speak of the primacy of the Church of Rome during the Pre-
Nicene period is a procedural concern. Before Nicea there was of course no
juridical formulation of Rome’s role much less jurisdictional primacy or ministry
of universal bishop. But the relation between the churches made the existence of
prototype church necessary. There was the need of an ideal church to imitate a
Church which could serve as a model for unity. The Churches began to look at the
Church of Rome in this Case
4.4 Ecumenical Dialogue to Malankara Orthodox Churches
on Primacy of Rome
4.4.1 What is the Primacy of Peter and Rome
After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter is the figure best known and
most frequently cited in the New Testament writings: he is mentioned 154 times
with the special name to Petros, ‘rock’, which is the Greek translation of the
Aramaic name Jesus gave him directly: ‘Kephas’, attested to nine times,
especially St. Paul’s Letters.98 The fact that the very writings that contain the
strongest witness in favor of Peter were composed after his death testifies to the
primitive Church’s abiding interest in the person and function of Peter.
Apparently he was not merely a figure of historical significance. He remained for
the Church an especially important and reliable guarantor of the Jesus tradition.
Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church.
There is no conclusive evidence, scripturally, historically or chronologically, that
Peter was in fact the Bishop of Rome. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History
places Peter's arrival in Rome between 41 and 54 A.D. The earliest traditions of
98 Cf. PUAL. HAFFNER, Mystery of the Church, Gracewing, Leominster 2007.148.
58
the Catholic Church maintain that he served as the bishop of Rome for 25 years
until 67 A.D.
4.4.2 Catholic View on Papal Primacy
Classic Roman Catholic tradition maintained that the Universal Primacy
of the bishop of Rome was divinely instituted by Jesus Christ. This was derived
from the Petrine texts, and from the Gospel accounts of Matthew (16:17-19), Luke
(22:32) and John (21:15-17). According to the Roman tradition, they all refer not
simply to the historical Peter, but to his successors to the end of time. Today,
scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New
Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among
Christ's twelve apostles. The Church built its identity on them as witnesses, and
responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter. “Bishop of Rome
is marked out among the early Eastern Churches as the one who has the
presidency of charity and is the first bishop in rank and honor in the whole Body
of the Lord. So the Pope was called Primus inter Pares (first among the
equals).”99
The Church of Rome Marked by good organization and charitable
activity also proved to be the stronghold of orthodoxy against Gnosticism and
other heresies. The Church of Rome always had a high moral authority. The
bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee
the Churches. Our early Church Fathers Clement, Cyprian and Ignatius make this
clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the jurisdictional
Primacy of Rome had been a matter of self –aggrandizement, someone would
have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church.
“The bishop of Rome has held the position of Pre-eminence among other bishops
99 ADRIANO GARUTI, O.F.M., Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical
Dialogue…, 11.
59
in the Church from its earlier years, since this is where St. Peter spent the last part
of his life and where he died.”100
4.4.3 Catholic Teaching on Papal Primacy
The catholic Church considers Peter the first Pope, but the first
succession lists, prepared by Irenaeus (A.D. 200) and the historian Hegesippus
(A.D.180) and later attested to by Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D.339), identified
Linus, not Peter, as the first Pope, because Popes were, in the understanding of the
early Church, the successors of Peter. Peter was not regarded as himself a Pope
until the late second or early third century. He was the first disciple called by
Jesus (Matt 4:18-19), served as a spokesman for the other apostles (Mark 8:29;
matt 18:21; Luke 12:41; John 6:67-69), was the first to whom the Lord appeared
after the resurrection (although Mary Magdalene is the primary witness in the
tradition of Matthew, John, and the Marcan appendix), and was the one most
frequently commissioned to preach the gospel following Easter event.101
According to Catholic teaching, the Pope continues Peter’s distinctive
ministry on behalf of the universal Church. For that reason, the service which the
Pope renders to the Church is called the Petrine ministry, which Jesus is believed
to have conferred upon Peter at the Last Supper:102 “I have prayed that your own
faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your
brothers” (Luke 22:32). It is essentially the same ministry of pastoral leadership
that Peter is described as exercising in the first part of the Acts of the Apostles,
involving the witnessing to the faith, overseeing the manner in which the local
churches preserve and transmit the faith, providing assistance and encouragement
to other pastoral leader in the proclamation and defense of the faith, speaking in
the name of other pastoral leasers and their local churches when the need arises,
and articulating the faith of the Church on behalf of the whole communion of the
local churches.
100 Cf. JOHN J. DIETZEN, Catholic Questions and Answers, A Crossroad Book Publishing
Company, New York 2002, 79.
101 Cf. RICHARD P. MCBRIEN, an article on The Papacy in -The Gift of the Church…, 318.
102 RICHARD P. MCBRIEN, an article on The Papacy in -The Gift of the Church…, 318.
60
4.4.3.1 Catholic Theological View on Papal Primacy
The doctrine of Papal Primacy upholds the divine authority of the
Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate
jurisdiction. Two Magisterial texts are keys to understanding its supreme nature
and the obligation of all who are not invincibly ignorant of this truth to submit to
Papal authority for the sake of their salvation. Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull
Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for
salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff and
regarding the Primacy of authority of Peter and his successors, he stated:
“This one and unique Church, therefore, has not two heads, like monster,
but one body and one head, viz., Christ and his vicar, Peter’s successor, for
the Lord said to Peter personally: “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17). ‘My’ he said
in general , not individually, meaning these or those; whereby it is
understood that he confieded all his sheep to him. If therefore Greeks or
others say that they were not confided to Peter and his successors, they must
necessarily confess that they are not among Christ’s sheep, for the Lord said
in John 10:16: “there shall be one fold and one shepherd.”103
But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is
not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter
himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established
rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. (Matt. 16:19).
Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of
God (cf. Rom. 13:2). First Vatican Council, which in addition to defining Papal
infallibility also defined Papal Primacy. The theologians who had prepared the De
Ecclesia Christi schema indicated very early in the game what they had in mind as
regards Papal Primacy; the council was asked to affirm that Papal jurisdiction was
“authentic”, “universal,” “Episcopal,” “ordinary,” and “immediate.”104 There
was an insistence on the part of the leadership to have as strong and clear a
definition as possible. The following is a sumMary of the meaning of some of the
major terms that either appear in the final text or else were objects of major
103 J. NEUNER, S.J.- J. DUPUIS, S.J., The Christian Faith in the doctrinal Documents of
the Catholic Church, Theological Publication in India, Bangalore 2004. 305.
104 Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edit. Paul C. Empie - T. Austin Murphy
Library of Congress, Washington 1974, 147.
61
discussion. Authentic jurisdiction (chap. 3, Canon, 3064; chap. 4, 3065; numbers
are from Denzinger-Schonmetzer given in Document 1)
“The pope is not a mere observer, a spectator; he has the power of
governing, the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Church
(Jurisdictio plena et suprema super Ecclesiam, see references given above).
It was also true that the body of bishops had this power (Etiam et eamdem
jurisdicionem plnam et supremam super Ecclsiam).”105
Both doctrines point the faithful to the necessity of union with the
Successor of Peter. Infallibility directs our attention to the unifying role of the
Pope in matters of faith, and Primacy to that role with respect to sacramental and
other ecclesiastical disciplines. The Catholic view of hierarchy differs from other
views by its insistence that the college of bishops is united not only inwardly by
the action of the Holy Spirit, but outwardly by a visible solidarity with the Pope,
who by reason of the direct succession of his powers from the first bishop of
Rome, St. Peter, is the Prime Bishop. This is the doctrine of Papal Primacy. By it,
the bishop of Rome is acknowledged as the first among the bishops, not only in
rank and dignity, but in pastoral authority as well.
4.4.4 Collegiality of the Apostolic College
The point that there were no juridical ‘Primacy’ existed among the
apostles, other than a role of ‘first among equals, Any biblical and historical
scholar today would consider anachronistic the question whether Jesus constituted
Peter the first pope, since this question derives from a later model of the Papacy
which it projects back into the New Testament. Such a reading helps neither papal
opponents nor papal supporters. Therefore terms such as “Primacy” and
“jurisdiction” are best avoided when one describes the role of Peter in the New
Testament. Even without these terms, however, a wide variety of images is
applied to Peter in the New Testament which signalizes his importance in the
early church. It is well to approach the question of Peter’s role in the church by
recognizing that the New Testament writings describe various forms of Ministry
105 Papal Primacy and the Universal Church…, 147.
62
directed towards the church as a whole. These writings show a Primacy concern
for local communities of believers (the churches).106
The fact that Jesus’ naming of Peter as “rock” occurs in three different
contexts in three separate Gospels has raised a question for biblical scholars about
the original setting of the incident itself. Moreover, while the conferral of the
power of the keys of the kingdom suggests an imposing measure of authority,
given the symbolism of the keys, there is no explicit indication that the authority
was meant to be exercised over others or that it is monarchical in character- a type
of authority that developed especially in the Middle ages and thereafter. On the
contrary, Peter is portrayed as consulting with the other apostles and is even sent
by them (Acts 8:14). And Paul “opposes him to his face” (Gal 2:11) for his
inconsistency and hypocrisy in drawing back from table fellowship with Gentile
Christians in Antioch because of pressure from newly arrived Jewish Christians
from Jerusalem.107
Roman Catholics convinced that the Papal and Episcopal form of
Ministry, as it concretely evolved, is a divinely-willed sequel to the function
exercised respectively by Peter and other apostles according to various New
Testament traditions. In seeking to carry out its mission throughout the Roman
Empire the episcopate frequently appealed to the theological judgment and
unifying influence of the Chair of Peter (cathedra Petri) at Rome, where Peter and
Paul were believed to have been Martyred. “Thus the Petrine function, already
attested in New Testament times, was increasingly taken up by the bishop of
Rome.”108In confronting the specific problems and errors of Petrine Primacy,
Vatican Council I sensed that a concentration on the Papacy was crucially
important, in order to safeguard the church’s evangelical freedom from political
pressures and its universality in an age of divisive national particularism.109
106 Papal Primacy and the Universal Church…, 13.
107 RICHARD P. MCBRIEN, an article on The Papacy in -The Gift of the Church…, 318.
108 Papal Primacy and the Universal Church…, 35.
109 Cf. J. NEUNER, S.J.- J. DUPUIS, S.J., The Christian Faith in the doctrinal Documents
of the Catholic Church…, 315-317.
63
4.4.4.1 Collegiality and Primacies in the early Councils
The Malankara Orthodox view on Collegiality and Primacies in the early
Councils imply that the principle of Primacy was endorsed with one condition ie.
The primates were subject to and answerable to the synod (councils) they
themselves convened. I be against it with the following reasons.
4.4.4.2 Rome as Centre of Communio
The early Church was as Communio ecclesiarum- the key to the ancient
Church’s self-understating, is the word communio( communion). It encompasses
varied dimensions: first of all, “the communio is the local church as a community
of believers with the bishop as its center.”110 Beyond that, it is the community of
faith uniting the Churches with one another. This includes not only Eucharistic
communion but also the very important element of communication. Bishops
informed each other about important events: they notified each other of their
election and sent word when they condemned and excommunicated heretics so
that a heretic excluded from one church would not obtain access to another.111
Part of this communio of local churches in them and with one another was that
when bishops were elected the choice by the local church and the final decision of
the neighboring bishops were coordinated elements.
Another expression of this communion was the “communion letters” or
“peace letters” bishops wrote for travelers or Christians moving from place to
place. Anyone who could present such a communion letter was accepted into the
new community as a Christian and a member of the catholica; he or she could
participate in the Eucharistic celebration and had a claim to Christian hospitality,
which meant being housed and cared for at community expense. Only bishop
could write such communion letters valid for the entire Church; presbyters could
address them only to the churches in their immediate vicinity. Of course it was
impossible for every bishop to keep all the other bishops constantly informed. For
example, the bishop of North Arica maintained communion with the whole
Church through the bishop of Carthege, and the Egyptian bishops through the see
110 KLAUS SCHATZ, Papal Primacy -from its Origins to the Present…, 17.
111 Cf. EAMON DUFFY, Saints and Sinners- A History of the Popes…, 15.
64
of Alexandria. Rome thus communicated and corresponded directly with Carthage
and Alexandria, and they in turn kept in touch with their provincial bishops. To
begin with this system was based on equality. But when communion was
disrupted in some way – when, for example, the two bishops in a single
community quarreled over the Episcopal see, or when bishops from different
communities mutually “excommunicated” one another, where did true
communion rest? The first answer was that the true communion is “catholic”, that
is, universal.112
A local church whose communion was restricted to a single region or
state did not count. It is characteristic of genuine communion that it extends
throughout the whole world. But how was that to be determined in the initial
means, from the end of the second century onward, were regional Episcopal
synods. These synods were firmly convinced that they taught the truth and the
genuine apostolic tradition. There was no need as yet for a higher authority; it was
only the appearance of the Arian controversy in the fourth century that would
bring to light the inadequacy of the synod.113 In the interest of communion these
synods exchanged word of their decisions with other churches, especially the most
important ones. In this way, by the third century at least the three “principal
churches” of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch had acquired a kind of normative
status. Important Church matters were often dealt with “at the highest level,” that
is, by these three. They were the three most important “nodal points” of
communication.
4.4.4.3 Rome became a Referring Point
All the same, some notion of the special authority of the Roman church
was already widespread. At the beginning of the second century, Ignatius wrote
extravagantly about the Roman church as ‘she who is pre-eminent in the territory
of the Romans… foremost in love… purified from every alien and discoloring
stain’. Ignatius admonished other churches, but for the church at Rome he had
112 Cf. KLAUS SCHATZ, Papal Primacy -from its Origins to the Present…, 18.
113 Cf. KLAUS SCHATZ, Papal Primacy -from its Origins to the Present…, 18.
65
only praise.114 But the prestige of the Church of Rome was not at this stage
priMarily a matter of the bishop’s or authority, it was the Church of Rome as a
whole which basked in the glory of the Apostles and commanded the respect of
other second and third century Christian communities. By the beginning of the
third century, then, the church at Rome was an acknowledged point of reference
for Christians throughout the Mediterranean world, and might even function as a
court of appeal. When under attack for teaching of heresy, the great Alexandrian
theologian Origen would send letters appealing for support not only to the bishops
of his own region, but to faraway Bishop Fabian of Rome, where he himself as
young man had made a pilgrimage.115Africa, in the person of its greatest
theologian before Augustine, acknowledged the weight of Rome’s authority. In
Rome, it was already a substantial property-owner, and by AD 251 the Church
employed forty-six elders, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolytes
and fifty-two lesser clerics, readers and door- keepers: it had over 1,500 widows
and other needy people receiving poor-relief. Its total membership in the city may
have been as many as 50.000.
4.4.4.4 The Synod of Sardica. Rome Assumes the Task of Supervision
The Council of Sardica in 342 was convoked by both Emperors of East
and West. The council collapsed at the very beginning. First the eastern, anti-
Athanasian bishops demanded that Athanasius and the other bishops should not be
allowed to take part, but their demand was rejected. They insisted particularly on
the authonomy of East and West, asserting that the West should not interfere in
eastern disputes and vice versa. Finally they excused themselves, saying that they
had just received news of a victory by their eastern emperor over the Persians and
they felt obligated to celebrate it in their own congretations.
The west continued to meet alone. One result of their deliberations was
that, in light of their experience that synods were no longer sufficient to deal with
ecclesiastical conflicts, they made the first attempt to establish a legal basis for
Rome’s responsibility to maintain communion among the bishops. At the
114 Cf. EAMON DUFFY, Saints and Sinners- A History of the Popes…, 16.
115 Cf. EAMON DUFFY, Saints and Sinners- A History of the Popes…, 17, 18.
66
initiative of Bishop Ossius of Cordoba it was decreed that bishops who were
deposed by a synod could appeal to the bishop of Rome. If he judged that the
synod’s decision was incorrect he could order a new hearing before the bishops of
the neighboring province; if the deposed bishop so desired, Roman presbyters
could also take part. This synod was then to review the case. Strictly speaking,
Rome is not yet established as a genuine court of appeal because it is not the
Roman bishop himself who makes a new decision in the case. Rome is only a
reviewing authority to see to it that the appeal (to a different synod) is carried out.
Noteworthy in this is the reason given for the Roman bishhop’s being
entrusted with this kind of supervisory function: Petri memoriam horemus (out of
respect to the memory of the apostle Peter). This is typical of the contemporary
state of historical awareness. The religious authority that accrues to the Roman
church as the church of Peter is very general in nature. This ascribed religious
authority makes it legitimate for the Roman church to accept the new legal
obligation that has become necessary because of ecclesiastical conflicts.116
4.5 Biblical View Point of Papal Primacy
4.5.1 The Lutheran Catholic View in New Testament
All the dialogue deal with the question of a universal ministry of unity,
reveling several approaches to a Petrine ministry, especially in the biblical
discussion of the role of Peter in the New Testament.117 In each of the four
dialogue between Catholic and Lutheran, there has been at least initial reflection
on doctrinal questions related to the Petrine ministry, such as the need for
episcope at the universal level; in some there has even been a cautious/ qualified
openness to the specific idea of a Petrine ministry; three of the dialogues directly
mention the Bishop of Rome as the one who holds the Petrine ministry and would
hold it in a united Church of the future; and at least in one dialogue, the Catholic
Church’s dialogue partner expresses a willingness to receive aspects of the
Petrine ministry into its life even now. The most detailed and advanced statement
116 Cf. KLAUS SCHATZ, Papal Primacy -from its Origins to the Present…, 25.
117 C. W. KASPER, Harvesting the Fruits- Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical
Dialogue…, 133.
67
can be found in the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission
(ARCIC) documents. They show agreement on some form of universal Primacy,
indeed its necessity for the unity of the Church. According to this document “We
agree that visible expression is the will of God and that the maintenance of visible
unity at the universal level includes the episcope of a universal primate.118
4.5.2 The Proofs from New Testaments
The New Testament speaks with many voices. It is not a single book, but
a library, built up over half a century or so form traditions of the remembered
saying and actions of Jesus, early Christian sermons, hymns and liturgies, and the
letters of the great founding teachers of the early Church. Despite that, the Gospel
offer a remarkably persuasive portrait of Peter the Apostle, a Galilean fisherman
whose original name was Simon Bar Jonah.119 Warm-hearted, impulsive,
generous, he was, with his bother Andrew, the first to respond to Jesus’ call to
abandon his old life and become ‘fishers of men’ ardently loyal and constantly
protesting his devotion to Jesus, Peter is just as constantly portrayed in all the
Gospels as prone to misunderstand Jesus’ mission and intentions, angrily rejecting
Christ’s prophecy of his Passion, refusing to have his feet washed at the Last
Supper, snatching up a sword in a misguided attempt to protect Jesus when the
Temple police come to arrest him in Gethsemane. Peter act first and thinks later.
His denial of Christ in the courtyard of the High Priest- and his subsequent bitter
repentance- are all of a piece with the other action of the man as he emerges from
the sources.
In all the Gospels he is the leader, or at any rates the spokesman, of the
Apostles. Throughout the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke Peter’s name
occurs first in every list of the names of the Twelve. In each Gospel he is the first
disciple to be called by Jesus. At Caesarea Philippi, at the turning point of Jesus’
ministry, it is Peter who recognizes and confesses him as the Messiah, thereby
explicitly expressing the Church’s faith in its Lord for the first time. Peter is the
first of the inner circle of disciples permitted by Jesus to witness his
118 C. W. KASPER, Harvesting the Fruits- Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical
Dialogue…, 134.
119 Cf. EAMON DUFFY, Saints and Sinners- A History of the Popes…, 4.
68
transfiguration on the mountain, and it is Peter who (foolishly) calls out to Christ
in wonder and fear during it.120
4.5.2.1 Gospel of Matthew
Of all the evangelists, it is Matthew who insists most on the centrality of
Peter. In particular, Matthew elaborates the account of Peter’s Confession of Faith
at Caesarea Philippi.121 In his version, Jesus declares Peter’s faith to be a direct
revelation from God, and rewards it by renaming Simon ‘Kephas,’ Peter, the
Rock. He goes on to declare that ‘upon this Rock I will build my Church, and I
will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on
earth shall be bound also in heaven’, the text that would later come to be seen as
the foundation charter of the Papacy (Matthew 16:13-23).122 There is an
equivalent scene in the final chapter of the Gospel of John. Christ, in an exchange
designed to remind us of Peter’s threefold betrayal of Jesus during the Passion,
asks Peter three time, ‘Do you love me?’, and in response to the Apostle’s
reiterated ‘You know everything, you know that I love you,’ Jesus three times
commands his, ‘Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.’ For John, as for Matthew, Peter
is the privileged recipient of a special commission, based on the confession of his
faith and trust in Christ (John 21: 15-17). The special status of Peter in the
Gospels, his commission to bind and loose, to feed the sheep of Christ, flow from
his role as primary witness and guardian of faith. In the subsequent reflection of
the Church that complex of ideas would decisively shape Christian understanding
of the nature and roots of true authority. The office of Peter, to proclaim the
Church’s faith, and to guard and nourish that faith, would lie at the root of the
self-understanding of the Roman community and their bishop, in which it was
believed the responsibilities and the privileges of the Apostles had been
perpetuated.
120 Cf. Papal Primacy and the Universal Church…, 15.
121 STEPHEN K. RAY, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture
and the Early Church…, 24.
122 Joint International Commission for Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church…, 422.
69
4.5.2.2 Proofs from Act of Apostles and Paul’s Letters
The picture of peter which emerges from Paul’s writings, as the most
authoritative Apostles and head of the mission to the Jews of the Mediterranean
Diaspora, is developed and elaborated in the first half of the Acts of Apostles.
Though other disciples pay important roles, here in these early chapters of Luke’s
continuation of his Gospel Peter is the dominant figure.123 He leads the Pentecost
proclamation of the resurrection, presides over the meetings of the young church,
works many miracles, is rescued from prison by an angel, and even pre-empts
Paul’s later role as Apostle to the Gentiles by baptizing the centurion Cornelius,
having received a vision from heaven revealing that this was God’s will. The
same sense the Peter’s authority is perpetuated within the Christian community is
in evidence in the New Testament writing attributed to Peter himself. The First
Epistle of Peter claims to have been written by the Apostle, in a time of
persecution, form ‘Babylon’ an early Christian code-names for Rome. Many
scholars have detected an early Christian baptismal sermon buried under the letter
format, however, and the elegant Greek style of the letter makes it very unlikely
indeed that it is Peter’s unaided work. Possibly it represents Peter’s teaching
mediated through an educated amanuensis. Whether he wrote it or not, however,
Peter is presented in the letter not merely as an apostle and witness of the saving
work of Christ, but as a source for authority and responsibilities of the elders or
governing officials of the Church.
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the
office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the
very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the
Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome,
and that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme
headship.
123 Cf. EAMON DUFFY, Saints and Sinners- A History of the Popes…, 5.
70
CONCLUSION
The four chapters of this dissertation we have done a historical and
analytical study of Ecumenism and the current dialogue in the Catholic and
Malankara Catholic Church. We conclude our study with a review of the main
themes of the preceding chapters where we focused our attention on the
ecumenical dialogue in the Malankara Catholic Church in India. The St. Thomas
Christians of Kerala, of whom the Syro-Malankara Church is an authentic part,
have a Christian tradition that dates back to the preaching of St. Thomas the
Apostle in the first century. To learn about the ecumenical vision of the Church, it
is necessary to look at her in the historical, ecclesial, doctrinal point of views.
From the study of the history of the ecumenism we realized that the Church of
Christ have a common faith, bonds of communion with the apostles, and charity
appear to be the constituents of Christian communion from the beginning. Later it
is divided into different Churches and ecclesial communities because of several
spiritual, cultural, and theological visions. Therefore firstly this study is a search
seeks to understand why the Catholic Church decided to become ecumenical and
what she is doing it for.
We are analyzing the history of the Church where we could find a need
for Christian unity is necessary. After the Second Vatican Council Catholic
mentality about ecumenism is changed. For promoting unity some important
agencies like WCC, PCPCU, and Joint Working Groups are organizing lot of
activities among Christians. The Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio),
the Directory for the Application of the Principles and norms of Ecumenism, Pope
John Paul II’s encyclical Ut Unum Sint (A commitment to ecumenism) are the
important documents about restoration of unity and ecumenism. From this study
we understood that the problems are not resolved by argumentation or violence,
but by talking and listening and working things out in an atmosphere of goodwill.
That means authentic dialogue is necessary. We understood that in the history of
71
Indian Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church has a particular role in the
promotion of unity among Christians. The reunion movement initiated by Mar
Ivanios finally found its crowning conclusion on 20 September 1930 is an
important event in the history of the St. Thomas Christians. The effort to bring
about the unity of the separated Churches is the duty and obligation of the Syro-
Malankara Catholic Church. The reunion of 1930 generated an urge for a mission
of dialogue, reconciliation, and ecumenical mission. The mission of reunion of the
separated brethren means serving, healing and reconciling a divided and wounded
humanity.
The decision to study the Primacy of the bishop of Rome in the universal
Church of Christ indicates that the Orthodox-Roman Catholic consultation is
moving towards the centre of the issues that have separated our respective
communions. Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern
in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to
Peter among Christ's twelve apostles. In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly
commissioned to "bind and loose"; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly
promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation
upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the
whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10). It is thus
possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter's ministry are
stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the
ministry of the other apostles. Many theologians regard Roman "Primacy" as
having developed gradually in the West due to the convergence of a number of
factors, e.g., the dignity of Rome as the only apostolic Church in the West; the
tradition that both Peter and Paul had been martyred there; Rome's long history as
a capital of the Roman empire; and its continuing position as the chief centre of
commerce and communication. This view, however, does not necessarily consider
the Primacy of the bishop of Rome as contrary to the New Testament.
We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church. Based
on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the Church of Rome's
claims of universal Primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the
72
identification of this primacy as "supreme power" transforming Rome into the
principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The
Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical
centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judeo-Christian period this
centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the Church of Rome - "presiding
in agape" according to St Ignatius of Antioch.
All the above mentioned concerns are the challenges of Malankara
Catholic Church. She is in the on going ecumenical dialogue and evangelical
work for the unity of all separated St. Thomas Christians. I hope this work can
help to my co-brothers those who are in the ecumenical dialogue with the other
Malankara Churches.
“THAT ALL MAY BE ONE”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. PRIMARY SOURCES
1.1 DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH
ARCHIVES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF TRIVANDRUM (AAT), 10/1929.
CODE OF CANONS OF THE EATERN CHURCHES, Latin-English
Translation, Canon Law Society of America, Washington 2001.
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON
ECUMENISM, by the Pontifical Council for promoting Christian unity,
libreria Editrice Vaticana, Rome 1993.
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM, Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches, 21
November 1964, in AAS 57, 1965.
JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter, Ut Unum Sint in AAS 87, 1995.
PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, in AAS 56, 1964.
PIUS XI, Apostolic Constitution Christo Pastorum Principi IN AAS 24 1932.
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY, The Ecumenical
Dimension in the Formation of those Engaged in Pastoral Work, Boston,
Pauline Books&Media, 1998.
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY,
Ecumenical Directory, Ad Totam Ecclesiam in AAS 1967, 574-592; in AAS
1970.
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church, 21 November 1964, in AAS 57, 1965.
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), 21 November
1964, n.1 in AAS 57, 1965.
2. SECONDARY SOURCES
2.1 Ecumenism
BLISS, F.M., Catholic and Ecumenical. History and hope, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, New York 2007.
74
BOSC, J. – GUITTON, J. – DANIÉLOU, J., The Catholic Protestant Dialogue,
Helicon press, Paris 1960.
C. EMPIE, P., Papal primacy and the universal church, Library of Congress,
Washington 1974,
CHEDIATH, G., Christology, A Publication of the Oriental Institute of Religious
Studies, Kottayam 2002.
CHEDIATH, G., The Catholicos of the East, M S Publication, Trivandrum 2005.
CHEDIATH, G., The Malankara Catholic Church, Bethany Sisters’ Publication,
Kottayam 2003.
COMMUNIQUÉ, Wort und Wahrheit, Supplementary Issue n. 3, Vienna 1976.
DIETZEN, J J., Catholic Questions and Answers, A Crossroad Book Publishing
Company, New York 2002,
DUFFY, E., Saints and Sinners- A History of the Popes, Yale University Press,
London 2006.
FLANNERY, A., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Consiliar
Document, St. Paul’s, Bombay 1997.
GARUTI, A., Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue, Tran.
Michael J. Miller, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2004.
GREEN, H., A New History of Christianity, Contiuum Publication, New York
1996.
H AFFNER, P., Mystery of the Church, Gracewing, Leominster 2007.
JAY, E.G., The Church, vol.1, SPCK, London, 1977.
KANJIRAMUKALIL, S., Punaraikya Rekhakal (mal)/,documents of the Reunion,
OIRSI, Kottayam 1989.
KASPER, W., Harvesting the Fruits-Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in
Ecumenical Dialogue, Continuum publications, New York 2009.
KUDAPUZHA, X. – PANICKAR, J., (Ed.) Joint International Commission for
Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Malankara Orthodox
Syrian Church, Joint International Commission for Dialogue Publications,
Kottayam 2001.
MALCHARUVIL, C. The Syro-Malankara church, Alwaye 1973.
MCBRIEN, R. P., an article on the Papacy in The Gift of the Church, Liturgical
press, San Francisco 2000.
75
MUNDADAN, A.M. Indian Christians: search for Identity and struggle for
Autonomy, Bangalore Dharmaram 1982.
NELPURAKKAL, P., Ecumenical Obligations of Syro-Malabar Church in
Relation to the Orthodox Churches in India, Excerpta ex Dissertatione ad
Doctoratum, Pontificium Institutum Orientale, Roma 1999.
NEUNER, J. S.J.- DUPUIS J. S.J., The Christian Faith in the doctrinal
Documents of the Catholic Church, Theological Publication in India,
Bangalore 2004.
New Catholic Enciclopedia, Catholic University of America, Vol.V, Washington
D.C. 1967.
P. MCBRIEN, R., -The Gift of the Church- The Papacy in AAVV, Liturgical
Press, San Francisco, 2000.
PALLATH, P., The Catholic Church in India, Mar Thoma Yogam, Rome, 2005
POULET, C., A History of the Catholic Church, vol. I, B. Herder book co. San
Francisco 1934.
RAHNER, K. - VORGRIMLER H., Theological Dictionary, Herber and Herder,
New York 1965.
RAY, S. K., Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and
the Early Church, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999.
ROBERSON, R. G., The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey, Edizione
Orientalia Christiana, Roma 1985.
RUSCH, W.G., Ecumenism. A Movement toward Church Unity, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia 1985.
SCHATZ, K., Papal Primacy-form its Origin to the Present, Tran. John A. Otto
and Linda M. Maloney, Minnesota 1996. ix.
STRAVINSKAS, P. M. J., (Ed.) Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor
Publishing Divisions, Chicago 1993.
TAVARD, G. H., Two Centuries of Ecumenism- The search for Unity, Tran. W.
Hughes, Meter Omega Books, Washington 1962.
http://stmaryprotectress.blogspot.com/2009/12/joint-commission-for-dialoguebetween.
html [12/03/2010]
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_india/i_oo-rc_india-info.html
[24/02/2010]
76
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/oo-rc_syrindia/i_oo-rc_syrindia-info.html
[17/01/2010]
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19711025_syrian-church_en.html [2/03/2010]
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i_en.html [26/03/2010]
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-chdocs/
rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html [23/01/2010]
http://www.malankaracatholicchurch.net/Historic_Prelue.html [26/02/2010]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malankara_Church [02/03/2010]