Talk:Maphrian

message: It is quite easy to confuse the office of Maphrianate with the office of the Catholicate. Whoever wrote the last paragraph of the Introduction to this article was clearly under the impression that the two were comparable, leading them to make the following observation:
Although Sebastian Brock's work is provided as the reference for this, Brock doesn't make any such observations in his book. Unless some appropriate references are provided to validate this paragraph, I suggest that it be removed instead of creating unnecessary confusion.
To prove my point, I would like to dissect this paragraph sentence by sentence.
The office established in India in 1912 was the Catholicate of the East, not a Maphrianate. It was not established under the Syriac Orthodox Church or under any other Church. The bulls/encyclicals provided by the Patriarch Ignatius Abdel M'sih II who officiated this ceremony corroborate this. The Patriarch specifically mentions in these bulls that the Catholicate is entirely independent and autonomous, with full capacity to consecrate bishops and Myrrh (holy oil), thereby ceding unconditionally the spiritual authority that the Patriarchs of Antioch had held over Malankara for decades. Any accusations that a different Church was formed because of the installation of the office of the Catholicate in 1912 is biased and baseless. The split in Malankara Church had nothing to do with the establishment of the Catholicate. The split began with the rival Patriarch of Antioch Abded Aloho II asking the Malankara Metropolitan (primate of Malankara Orthodox Church) to submit a Testament of Submission in 1911 and the latter refused to do so. The rift took on a permanent nature when the Patriarch installed a parallel See, consecrating another bishop as the rival Malankara Metropolitan in 1913. It is relevant to note that the split would not have occurred at all if the rival Patriarch Abded Aloho II had not set out to obtain temporal authority over the Malankara Church.
In 1912, there were two rival Patriarchs in the Syriac Orthodox Church claiming the throne of Antioch. One of them, Ignatius Abdel M'sih II himself officiated the establishment of the Catholicate and ceded spiritual authority over Malankara entirely to the Catholicos with full autonomy. Hence, any allegation that the Catholicate was not recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch is incorrect, and any claim that the Catholicate even requires any such recognition is irrelevant.
This is a classic example of forging lies and presenting them as historical facts in the most biased manner. The united Malankara Church was split again in the 1970s following an unreasonable bull that was sent by the Patriarch of Antioch to the Catholicos in Malankara saying that the Apostle Thomas was not even a priest, and thus questioning the validity of the Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas. Naturally, a faction of Malankara supported the Patriarch and sparked rows in several Churches in India causing them to be shut down for several years, and finally ended up creating a separate Jacobite Syrian Christian Association in 2002 owing allegiance to the Patriarch (parallel to the apex governing council Malankara Syrian Christian Association that owes its allegiance to the Catholicos). However, civil disputes in the Courts of India have resulted in ending the parallel administration, when the Supreme Court of India famously made the observation that the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over Malankara has reached a vanishing point
Again, the Catholicate of the East is not a Maphrianate. It is an office of rank equal to Patriarchates, not subordinate. Historically, the title Patriarch was used to address the bishops of prominent metropolitan cities in the Roman Empire starting 5th century, while the bishops of prominent metropolises outside the Roman Empire were addressed as Catholicos (including Armenian, Persian/Chaldean, Iberain, Georgian Catholicosates). I emphasize again that the office of Catholicos is not to be confused with a Maphrianate. As such,the accusation that there are two rival maphrianates in India is invalid, although there is one Maphrian (owing allegiance to the Patriarch of Antioch) who was installed as a rival to the Catholicos of the East who is the primate of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and not a Maphrian.
So, I reiterate that unless some appropriate and credible references are provided to validate this paragraph, I suggest that it be removed instead of creating unnecessary confusion.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. This paragraph indeed seems to be written with the intent of propagating a version biased towards the dissident faction of Malankara Church. Sad to see that the author blatantly misuses Dr. Sebastian Brock's name to give false credibility to their claims. While Dr. Brock's work in relation to Syriac language and traditions is unquestionable, whoever wrote this paragraph shouldn't have falsely misused it in this way. I will go ahead and mark it as unreliable source. If the author(s) do not provide reliable source, please delete this paragraph. --Swordofcherubim (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't confuse the position/office of Maphrian with that of Catholicos