Talk:Catholicos of the East

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Oriental Orthodoxy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

St. Thomas did not ordain successors to preside over the church in India cbut "maphriyono" or "catholicose". He had a high degree of autonomy, but was not autocephalous. After Nestorious, this catholicate fell into heresy. It would be a stretch for a non-Nestorian, Oriental Orthodox church to claim a line of "succession from St. Thomas" via a Nestorian hierarchy. Indeed, this view has only been promulgateed in the last ten to fifteen years in order to justify separation from Antioch. It is quite clear, though a "line of succession" has been produced, that St. Thomas ordained no ecclesiatical successor in Persia.

The supreme court of India declared in its historic 1995 decision that the Patriarch of Antioch was the spiritual head of all Syrian Christians in India. The Catholicose of the IOC was given the right to be the local temporal and spiritual head of all churches belonging to the "Malankara Syrian Christian Association," a party in the lawsuit. Subsequently, under the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution of India, those churches rejecting the leadership of the IOC and wishing to remain loyal to the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church seceded from the above association and formed the Malankara Jacobite Association mentioned in the article. Note that the 1995 decision of spiritual primacy still applies to both sides.

St.Thomas did indeed have successors, as did all the apostles: "APOSTLE THOMAS, THE FOUNDER It was Apostle Thomas who sent his co-Apostle St. Thaddaeus (Mar Addai Sleeha) to Persia where the nation along with King Agbar believed. In canonical writings, the chronology of the heads of the Eastern Church (Syrian Church of the East) begins with Apostle Thomas.

"Persian Church consider St. Thomas, the Apostle, as its first head. According to the tradition of the Persian Church, the Apostle on his way to India for propogation of the Gospel halted at Edessa for some time and spread the faith in and around it through his disciples Addai and Aggai. Addai sent his own disciple mari to Seleucia, the capital of Persian empire. Due to his labours, a Church was established there." (Fr. Dr. V.C. Samuel, Malankara Sabhayude Antiochian Bandham)

INDEPENDENT STATUS

In the initial stages of the growth of the Syrian Church of the East, it was self sustained. The chair of succession is mentioned in the Doctrine of Mar Addai, an ancient Syriac manuscript.

"No other Church either in Jerusalem or at Antioch or elsewhere sustained it by any ecclesiastical authority other than of its own. The history of the Church in its first two centuries show that neither it did owe allegiance to any extraterritorial Church nor any Church outside Persia, especially its neighbour the Church of Syria had laid claim either juridical or jurisdictional, although a tendency is discernible from several later instances that antioch would have liked the Persian Church to be within its sphere of authority". (Dr. David Daniel, The Orthodox Church of India)

W.A. Wingram writes. "The Church of Easterners was the daughter not of Antioch but of Edessa and was never included in the Patriarchate of the former cirty." (W.A. Wingram, the History of the Assyrian Church, pp 25-26 quoted in Dr. David Daniel).

INITIAL CONNECTION WITH THE WEST

In the Eastern Church Mar Aggai succeeded Mar Addai and Mar Mari succeeded Mar Aggai. The rebellious sons of King Agbar were against the Apostles and they persecuted Mar Addai. They broke the leg of Mar Addai. Mar Addai had ordained Mar Aggai as his successor in the chair (throne).

"And all the people of the church went from time to time, and prayed there diligently, and the commemoration of his (King Agbar's) death they made from year to year, according to the command and instruction which was received by them from Addai the Apostle, and according to the word of Aggai, who was himself the guide and ruler and the successor of his chair after him, by the hand of the priesthood, which he had received from him before every man." (The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, translation from Syriac manuscript. English translation in 1876 by George Phillips,D.D., PRESIDENT OF QUEENS' COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE)

After the departure of Mar Mari, the See was vacant. Mar Abrosius, the disciple of Mar Mari made a goodwill visit to Antioch and requested help.

According to Dr. David Daniel, this was the first occasion, as recorded by Bar Hebraeus, when the Persian Church had received an ordination from the Church of Antioch.

On this incident, Dr. V.C. Samuel has made the following comments. "Two things are clear from this incident. Firstly, it was the Eastern fathers which requested for a Metropolitan for Seleucia. In other words, Bar Hebraeus only mentions that the Eastern Church requested for help in an exigent situation when they had no Metropolitans. Secondly, although Bar Hebraeus tries to highlight the Antiochian role, he does not mention the Patriarch to have played any part. It was not he who consecrated Abrosius, but the brethren there. It was only accidental that Seleucia transacted a relationship with Antioch" (Dr. V.C. Samuel, Church Weekly 17.9.1978 quoted by Dr. David Daniel)

The successors Mar Abraham (201-213) was consecrated in Antioch. His successors Mar Jacob (213-231) and Mar Ahod Abuei (231-246) were consecrated in Jerusalem.

When Mar Ahod Abuie was consecrated in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Church was concerned about the independent status of the Church in the East. Bar Hebraeus reports about this: "Consequent to the consecration, the Western fathers allowed the Eastern fathers to consecrate candidates of their choice when their leader passed away and also directed that they, therefore, need not go to Antioch for that purpose. They also issued a letter of Authority (Staticon) which specified that the Great Metropolitan of the East shall be proclaimed as Catholicos Patriarch. This act did not please the Patriarch of Antioch." (Rao Sahib O.M. Cherian, Concise history of the Catholicate, translated by Dr. David Daniel)

After Mar Ahod Abuei at Seleucia and Mar Shaluppa (AD 246-66), the Church elevated Mar Pappa (Babai) as the Catholicos in AD 266. Through elevating Catholicos Mar Pappa, the Eastern Church maintained its independent status.

Catholicos Mar Pappa strengthened the Church consulting with Western Bishops. "They wrote a letter to the Emperor Constantine on this subject in their name addressed to the Kings and nobles of the West- thatis, the Roman Empire - there were several Pariarchs - those of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople - so there should be in the East, that is in the Persian Empire, at least one Patriarch. This request was agreed to and accepted by all the Eastern Bishops, who were afraid other-wise of trouble both from Constantine and from Shapur 11." (Mashiha-Zakha: Chronicles of Arbil quoted in Orthodox Church of India by Dr. David Daniel)

The Eastern Syrian Church suffered the persecution of non-Christian Kings of Persia. In the 4th century King Shapur 11 (AD 345) persecuted the Christians. A group of Christians under the leadership of Thoma of Kana came to India to escape the persecution. This happened when the Church was headed by Catholicos Mar Simun Bar Sheba (AD 337-350). We know this also from the ancient song of the Knanaya community of Kerala - their ancient song "munnam malankara ....katholikka arulale kappal pukinthu ....". It is clear that they came from the jurisdiction of the Catholicos of the East. They were integral part of the Synod of the Catholicos until 1970's and even today a group of Knanaya remains as part of Catholicate of the East.

Catholicos Mar Simun Bar Sheba suffered martyrdom for refusing to collect tax for the King.

POST-CHALCEDON PERIOD:

A division occured in the Eastern Syrian Church after the council of Chalcedon (AD 451). In AD 486, a faction of the Eastern Church officially adopted the Nestorian faith in the Synod of Acacius, which resulted in a division in the Syrian Church of the East - one group accepting Nestorian faith and the Orthodox faction rejecting it. The Orthodox and the Nestorians were not in good terms for many years after this and the Catholicate of the East was occupied by the Nestorians. A change happened in the sixth century with St. Jacob (Mar Yakub Burdana). St. Jacob himself was ordained a general bishop, by Patriarch St. Theodosius of Alexandria, to take care of the needs of the Orthodox (Oriental) in Armenia, Mesopotomia, Persia and even Egypt. In AD 559 St. Jacob elevated Mar Ahoudemme (AD 559-577) as the Catholicos for the Orthodox of the East. This event is reported in the history of St. John of Ephesus.

"The king Khosrun, however, approved and praised what had been spoken by the orthodox, and said to the Catholicus, 'These men know what they say, and can establish and prove their words, and their arguments seem to me to be very true: but yours are confused and indistinct, and have no solid foundation; nor do ye yourselves seem able to prove your words; nor, in fact, do they seem to me to have any certainty and truth, like those spoken on the other side. And from this I perceive that you have accused them before me without just and fitting cause; and now that I have myself seen and heard them, I command that ye never again offend against them, nor do them wrong.' And when he had uttered this command, all the orthodox fell down, and made obeisance to him, and thanked him, saying, Lord, they persecute us, and fall upon us, and spoil us, and uproot our churches and monasteries, and do not permit us to offer up in them our prayers and supplications unto God, that He would establish and watch over your life, and the welfare of your kingdom.' Upon which he comforted them, and bade them go and build their churches and monasteries: 'for no one,' said he, 'henceforth shall be permitted to injure you.' And thus having worshipped him, and prayed for him, they returned to their homes with great joy: and henceforward all the orthodox in the Persian dominions dwelt there in great confidence and fearlessness, so as even to venture, after having received this commandment, upon doing a great act, which was no less than the setting up of a Catholicus of their own , by the hands of the blessed lord Jacob, the bishop of the Orthodox, a thing which had never been done before in the Persian dominions: but from that time even until this day there has continued to be a Catholicus of the believers in Persia." [John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, Part 3 -- Book 6]

We can clearly learn two aspects from the account of St. John of Ephesus (himself an Oriental Orthodox father):

There is no mention of Antioch when describing the act of St. Jacob of elevating a Catholicos for the Orthodox people.

The Catholicos is described as 'a Catholicos of their own'.

This account once again affirms the historic independent status of Catholicate of the East, which is in the succession of Apostle Thomas.

We have the following succession of Patriarchs of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East.

Mar Thoma Sleeha (Apostle Thomas) (AD 35-72)
Apostolic period
Mar Addai Sleeha (Apostle Thaddaeus) (72-120)
Mar Aggai Sleeha (Apostle Aggaeus) (120-152)
Mar Mari Sleeha (152-85)
Mar Abrosius (185-201) - requested help from Antioch
Mar Abraham (201-13) - ordained in Jerusalem Church
Mar Yakoub (213 - 31) - ordained in Jerusalem Church
Mar Ahod Abuei (231-46)
Mar Shaluppa (246-66)
Mar Pappa (Babai) (267-336) - affirmed independent status of Catholicate.
Mar Simun Bar Sheba (337-50) - Kananaya migration.
.... (lineage continues)
Mar Baselius Paulos 1 (1912 - 13) - relocation to India
Mar Baselius Gheevarghese 1 (1925 -28)
Mar Baselius Gheevarghese 11 (1929-64)
Mar Baselius Augen (1964-75 retired due to age) -
Orthodox council of Addis Ababa in 1965
Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 1 (1975 - 1991)
Mar Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews 11 (1991 - )
Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Didymos 1

Source: http://castlecomputers.com/stthomasla/catholicose_history.htm

This information is suspect as it relies solely on an IOC apologist. I reiterate that this point of view has only been put forth in the most recent decades. The central thesis is that St. Thomas did not ordain anyone to represent him in India, something not addressed above.

Again, the Eastern Church is by far largely Nestorian. However, the Syriac Orthodox Church still has faithful in places like Iraq, showing the continued influence and association with Antioch. The current Patriarch hails from Mosul.

It's possible that initially Eastern Bishops requested an overseer closer to them. It is clear that they appealed to Antioch to makes things so and that ecclesiastical rank was clear. If they appealed to Antioch, then of course Antioch had to of had some influence over them.

Edessa is the Syriac Orthodox "heartland" and was administered by the Patriarch of Antioch. If anyone "appealed to Edessa", then they were appealing to the Syriac Orthodox Church.

Regardless of events in Persia, it is clear that a "succession" leading to the current IOC catholicose is absurd. No one asked the Persian Christians if their abolished Catholicate should be moved to India. Even many IOC seminarians consider this "lineage" a fabrication. It is a reaction to Jacobite attempts to show that the IOC is essentially a trouble making schismatic group.

No other church accepts the Nestorian/IOC line of succession of St. Thomas. Very few Apostles have clear, recorded lines of succession accepted universally.

The Syriac Church is quite fortunate in this regard. Eusebius clearly writes of the succession of Peter in Antioch - Euvodius to Ignatius Noorono, etc. Catholics, quite keen on establishing Petrine influence to support their own claims, acknowledges fully Syriac Orthodox succesion. Furthermore, at Nicea and subsequent synods it was made clear that Petrine successors were to rule the Church.

To further underscore the point, the "Bar Hebreaus" quoteed in the above treatise was himself a "Catholicose." He is venerated as one of the most celebrated figures in the Syriac Church. He clearly identified himself with Antioch and Syriac Christianity in his teachings. To quote him in as a source for material to support Nestorian/schismatic teaching is similar to quoting Dick Cheney as defending Saddam Hussein.

The lineage of the Catholicos of the East is none other than that of St.Thomas. It was St. Thomas who sent Mar Addai(one of the seveny disciples) to Persia, where he initially preached the gosepl. En route to India, St.Thomas did indeed evangelize Persia and established the Catholicate there. The Priesthood given to Christians in India by St.Thomas is indisputable, as numerous ancient manuscripts confirm it:

1.) It is clearly recorded in the Doctrine of Addai (Syriac manuscript), that Mar Addai was sent by St. Thomas and Mar Addai (of the seventy Apostles) ordained Mar Aggai to succeed him in the Chair.

2.)Vatican codex 22 written in Cranganore 1301 AD says 'Mar Jacob, Bishop Metropolitan, prelate and ruler of the Holy See of the Apostle St. Thomas, namely, our ruler and (the ruler) of the entire Holy Church of the Christians of India.'

3.) The Blessed Bar Ebraya says in his second volume of church history: 'I begin with the Apostolic times of Apostle Thomas, the first High-Priest of the East. As we understand from the book Doctrine of the Apostles, in the beginning, St. Thomas preached the Gospel of Christ in the East.'

4.)From the Doctrine of the Apostles (pp 33, Cureton): 'India and all its countries and those bordering it even to the farthest sea, received the Apostle's hand of priesthood from Judas Thomas, who was the guide and ruler in the Church he built there and ministered there.'

So, as one can see, the claims that St.Thomas ordained no successors is naught but factional fanatacism.

The notion that "Petrine successors" are the rulers of the church is considered to be rank heresy by the Orthodox church. This doctrine is a Roman Catholic preversion of Christ's revelation to St.Peter. There is a distinct difference between "Primacy" and "Supremacy," which is of the utmost importance when it comes to jurisdiction. The Indian Orthodox Church gives the Patriarch a "Primacy" of honor. This is not an invitation to take over the church. Needless to say, the Petrine Supremacy movement is carried on by misled laity and some RCC influenced clergy, and is not the view of the SOC leadership. The SOC will not adopt such a doctrine, as it will not be tolerated in any Ecumenical Orthodox Forum, and may result in the estrangement of the SOC from the Oriental Orthodox Church.

The above writer must belong to a Protestant Church. The unity and fidelity of the Syriac Orthodox Church is represented by the Patriarch of Antioch whose position rests solely on the fact that those blessed by Peter anoint him to lead the church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Period. Name me one Patriarch of the historic mother churches set up by the councils of Nicea and Constantinople that is not ordained by successors of St. Peter? It's not possible. If you don't understand this, then you understand little about Orthodoxy, obviously your "history" is suspect, and there is little more to discuss. If you are referring to the fact that the successor of Peter in the SOC does not rule in the fashion of the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope), you are onto something there. Trust me, however, the SOC is solidly "Petrine." The other Oriental Orthodox Churches also keenly gurad their line of succession from Peter - (Peter to Mark to the Egyptians, Eithiopians, and Eritreans. Peter through Antioch to the Armenians)

You have no standing whatsoever to suggest that the SOC might be estranged from the O.O. Communion. You must have no idea what these churches have been through together after Chalcedon.

You have not answered the central issue: What does Thomas' succession have to do with the current IOC? Absolutley nothing.

"Factional Fanaticism" occurs when only one side of an issue is presented as irrefuteable when an alternative highly plausible explanation exists and is not discussed. The SOC does not accept the Catholicate history you present. Citing the "doctrine of Addai" is like citing the "Gospel of Thomas." Interesting work, but not necessarily accepted or revealed fact in toto. As stated before, Bar Hebraeus is as to the Syriac Church as white is to snow. He is not the friend of those opposed to Antioch. Bar Hebraeus never lists a successor to St.Thomas. No one disputes that St. Thomas preached in Persia. But did he establish a church with bishops? Not as far as we can tell, Nestorian claims notwithstanding, and certainly not without input from the greater church - the closest great Christian center being in Antioch.

Your citing of Cureton - Does he list Thomas' successor? Who carried on his line? Again, I believe Thomas came to India, but this is not at issue. The issue is whether he created a viable, self-sustaining, autocephalous church. It is clear he did not.

Who was the successor of Mar Jacob, Metropolitan? Who ordained him? Who came before him? Doesn't this contradict the line of succession from Thomas presented earlier? Did this bishop come from Thoma of Cana influence? Nestorians? No one has any idea. He was probably Syriac Orthodox.

You may misunderstand me - I am not claiming that St. Thomas did not come to India. I am happy if he did. But this is irrelevant to the present state of the church. More money has been spent on this factional fight in the last 150 years than all the evangelistic endeavors of the church over two thousand years. One side bases its hierarchy on fiction. One side has clearly been wronged, dragged through the mud, and almost destroyed several times. The end of this fighting is the ultimate goal. Knowing the full truth will facilitate this. Hence, this discussion.

As a parting point of consideration, if St. Thomas sent St. Addai (St. Thaddeus), then shouldn't the church in Persia claim succession from St. Addai, who himself was an Apostle? Meaning - why mention Thomas at all?

Thomas is mentioned in the IOC circle to legitimize the IOC Catholicate because it is quite clear that St. Thaddeus had no activity in India.

All arguments aside, the present writer has a suggestion to make, which will help maintain the neutrality of this wiki. I propose that one half of the page maintains the IOC point of view of the history of the Catholicate, while the other presents the JSOC interpretation. It can be mentioned at the beginning of the wiki that both viewpoints are being presented. Another alternative would be to start a page for the "Catholicos of India," which is the official title of the JSOC Catholicos. I hope this suggestion will be accepted in the spirit of unity. This discussion, however, I wish to continue afterwards.

This is an interesting suggestion. Can you positively dispute any fact presented in the current article? The current article skips factional interpretations and only presents facts universally accepted a mere 20 years ago, incorporates sources from outside Kerala and the SOC, and includes information from Supreme Court cases. Scholarship has not changed recently, only the nature of the factional fight. Furthermore, only the current Catholicos of the Jacobites, H.B. Baselious Thomas I, is known as the Catholicos of India. The other Catholici of the Jacobites are known as the "Catholicose of the East" and are mentioned in the article text.

As an example, to present a diametrically opposed view on the founding of the Catholicate in Persia when good, unbiased evidence exists would undermine the "quest for truth" that Wikipedia represents, especially since the IOC view is a new interpretation and neither side is willing to use soft terms like "evidence suggests" or "some believe."

If all can agree on a mutually acceptable text, then this may be worth pursuing. However, spouting propaganda in a "hot" factional fight is not the purpose here. I have cited and intend to continue to cite universally accepted sources, not just the work of apologists. More to come.

I have edited the wiki to reflect both viewpoints. A question I would like to put forth: What exactly do u mean when you say that the successio of The Coptic Patriarch is from St. Peter? I have read various accounts on the history of the Papacy and nothing even remotely close to this is mentioned. From what I understand, The Patriarch is of the See of St.Mark the Evangelist.

Thank you for your edit, which I have added to as well. If you will ask a Coptic hierarch, they might say that St. Mark established the see of Alexandria in the stead of St. Peter. Petrine lineage was required to establish a hierarchy at the Council of Nicea (AD 325) (though not the importanceof a particular church). This council codified the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as the universal primates for their respective sphere of influence. Each demonstrated an acceptable lineage from the "chief of the Apostles." These bishops were given the title "Patriarch." Of course, St. Mark was not an apostle himself. Concerning Antioch, Eusebius, other church fathers, and Rome itself agrees that Peter taught in Antioch, actually laid hands on St. Euvodius, and ordained him to shepard the Antiochian faithful. After Euvodius comes Ignatious Noorono, the great saint, martyr, and patriarch who is the chief fountain of the doctrine of succession and ecclesiastical hierarchy. I will post a link with more specifics (coptic website) shortly

Here is the link to the "Coptic Synaxarium" the official lives of the saints in the Coptic Church. The relevant point is that all the cast members are named, and that Mark is intimately associated with St. Peter. http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/8_30.html#1

This information is news to me. I have never heard of Patrirachs being required to have a succesful lineage from St.Peter at the councils. I am not too sure if the present Oriental Orthodox Hierarchs would be too pleased with this perspective... I am not concerned with the History of Rev.V.C.Samuel, as such stories from both factions are often biased. I have heard tell that the present Jacobite Catholicos used to be a worker for H.H.Baselios Mathews I. I doubt the validity of this story, but it once again shows the biased views of both factions. I would like to comment on "Primacy." The Orthodox church believes in the "Primacy" of one Patriarch over another, and not "Supremacy," which is a catholic distortion. H.H. Pope Shenouda has the Primacy of Honor in the Oriental Orthodox Church, but this doesn't give him the right to cross his jurisdicitional boundaries and interfere with other Patriarchs, unless invited to do so. The Patriarch of Antioch is given primacy by the IOC. The IOC dose not mean this as Patriarchal Supremacy. The popular IOC suggestion for a resolution to the factional feud is that the Catholicos be supreme head in the East, while the Patriarch remains supreme head in the West. This relationship should be governed, of course, by the canons of the synod of Capharthutha:

" When the differences between the Patriarch and the Maphrian snowballed, a council of the bishops under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch and the Maphrian assembled in Capharthutha in February 869. This assembly codified 8 canons dealing with the Patriarch and the Maphrian of Tigris. The canons are given below:

1. The bishops and the monks in the Mar Mathai's Monastery, should submit to and obey the Maphrian whose seat is in Tigris.

2. The Patriarch should not interfere in the administration of the Church in Tigris, unless when invited. In the same way the maphrian should not interfere in the Patriarchal See.

3. When the Maphrian is present along with the Patriarch of Antioch he should be seated immediately at the right hand side of the Patriarch. The name of the Maphrian shall be mentioned immediately after that of the Patriarch, in the liturgy; and he should receive the Holy Qurbana after, the Patriarch.

4. When a Maphrian is alive, a Patriarch should not be installed without his concurrence, otherwise, the orientals shall have the right to install the Maphrian by themselves. The question of who should perform the laying on of hands on the new Patriarch - ie, the Maphrian or the President of the Synod, shall be decided by four bishops, two each elected by the orientals and the westerners (Antiochan) respectively.

5. The Archdiocese of Kurdu, Beth-Sabdaya and also Najran, provided, the Arabs agree to it, shall vest with Tigris administration.

6. The mutual excommunications between the orientals and the Antiochans shall be withdrawn.

7. A final decision was taken about the three bishops consecrated by the Patriarch in the see of the Maphrian.

8. A bishop excommunicated by the Maphrian shall also be considered as excommunicated by the Patriarch. "

Let us put aside, for a moment, the issue of the apostolic lineage of the Maphrianate. Regardless of the Maphrian's origin, we can see that at this point, the Maphrian had indisputable authority in the East. The current relationship in the SOC between Patriarch and the Catholicos of India is not governed by these canons. The Patriarch has much more authority that recommended by the Council. If the SOC and IOC could agree to follow these canons, then is the issue of Apostolic origin really that important? I think it should be a cultural aspect left up to the Indian Church, which strongly holds through tradition and doctrine that St.Thomas did indeed ordain successors. The Addis Ababa Council did not dispute this, as it referred to His Holiness Baselios Augen I as "the Catholicos of the ancient see of St.Thomas." I think if the relationship between the Patriarchate and the Ancient Maphrianate had continued, it would have resulted in a situation such as is happening in the Armenian Church at present. This need for autocephaly and a national hierarch is a natural feeling in the Orthodox church. I think The Coptic church set a prime example by granting Independence to Both the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches, while maintaining a close fraternal relationship. Regardless of Mar Hebreaus's position in History, his works are still quotable. It is clear that he makes a distinction between "Catholicos" and "Maphrian." An analysis on Mar Bar Hebreaus' account is given below.

'As per this account., St. Thomas, the Apostle, is the first Metropolitan of the East. According to Bar Hebraeus, the immediate successors of St. Thomas were Adai, Agai, Mari, Ambrosius, Abraham and Jacob.Bar Hebraeus states that Jacob was ordained at Jerusalem. He also gives the following account; towards the fag end of life, Jacob sent two of his disciples - Ahodabooi and Kom Yesu - to Antioch, with a request that one of them may be selected and ordained as bishop by the Patriarch of Antioch. However, Kom-Yesu was murdered by the Romans, as the Roman authorities suspected that the two Persians were spies. Ahodabooi escaped to Jerusalem and he was ordained as bishop by the Metropolitans of Jerusalem on an instruction from the Patriarch of Antioch, and sent him back to Persia. Moreover, the council of the bishops of Jerusalem decided that from then on the bishop of Persia can elect and install a Catholicos as the head of the Persian Church. Bar Hebraeus adds that this decision of the Jerusalem council of Bishops was not to the liking of the Patriarch of Antioch. This incident took place in 231 AD. Ahodabooi returned to Persia and ruled over the Persian Church. After his demise, the bishops of the Eastern Church elected Shahaluppa and installed him as the Catholicos. Bar Hebraeus notes that Shahaluppa was the first Catholicos Installed by the Persian bishops themselves. He also states that the origin of the Catholicate of the East is the installation of Ahodabooi in 231 In Jerusalem. Many books of Church history has been compiled in Malankara on the basis of this account of Bar Hebraeus. All these accounts state that the establishment of the Catholicate of the East was in 231 A.D.' Earlier, you said that the Catholicate was established by a patriarchal delegate in 410 A.D. At the same time, this wiki states that Knai Thoma came to India in the 350s.The Knaya Community descended from Knai Thoma sings in their ancient song which has been passed down through generations: 'munnam malankara ....katholikka arulale kappal pukinthu ....' This songs supports the idea that the Catholicate existed prior to 410 A.D.

In your defense of the present IOC Catholicate, an appeal has been made to the Knaya Church, Bar Hebreaus, and various church canons. None of these sources support the notion that Mor Didymus I is the canonical successor of St. Thomas in India. As is typical in these debates, the subject is changed to mask what is occurring on the ground in India. In fact, all the above support the Antiochian stand. If your interpretation is in any remote sense correct, why was there an appeal to Mor Abdul Mashih? If this interpretation is more than a mere justification, why does Augen I say in his "salmoosa" that he is tied and bound to the Patriarch of Antioch? Come on? What about the celebrated Supreme Court case?

Why in God's name should a schismatic group with little to stand on outside of Antiochian ecclesiastical leadership dictate jurisdictional boundaries for the leader of arguably the most ancient church in Christendom?

Locally, the Catholicate was supreme (not in S. India, his office did not extend there). However, he was not "indisputable." He was accountable to the Patriarch.

I am sorry you do not know enough about the Council of Nicea. You should read about it in detail. This council and the two that followed is the basis for Christianity in Oriental Orthodoxy. (not the Christian faith per se, but Christian governance, structure, and specific doctrine). The IOC remembers this council in the 5th Thubden still?

The Universal Syriac Orthodox Church, which the Indian Orthodox Church is a part, is governed by the Patriarch, the Universal and Local Synods, and the Hudayo Canon. That's it.

As to the nature of the Maphriyonate, I think we might be talking past each other because you are quoting Nestorian sources. If "bishops" were governing the Persian church after Nicea, they had to be Petrine or they would have been out of communion. The IOC still recites the Nicene Creed, I believe?

As to your quoting the Addis Abba Council - Are you aware that if I sent Pope Benedict a letter and identified myself as "Prince Apostle of Malankara," I would get a letter back addressed to "Prince Apostle of Malankara." This is called a "courtesy" response. If this is strong evidence well... Note that in 1965 Mor Augen I was still under the patriarch, and that's the prime (maybe only) reason he got to sit at the meeting in the first place!

The Patriarch is never officially called the "primate" of this church. His title is "Prince Patriarch of all the East, Supreme Head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church".

Your interpretation of primacy and supremacy is moot. All bishops in communion with one another are fraternal. However, the Church believes that the Bishop of Antioch (the Patriarch) is more than simply "first among equals". Just like in the Coptic Church before the autocephaly drive. The canons of the church give real disciplinary and ecclesiastic duties and powers to the supreme head of the church to be used judiciously and in consultation with the synod. The Patriarch is the leader of the synod, but he makes no dogmatic statements on his own. No one, especially the current Patriarch, believes he should override the local synod and interfere in day to day matters, nor could he practically do so. We do not carry the "primacy" of the Patriarch to the extent the Catholics do, i.e the Patriarch does not speak "ex cathedra", the Patriarch cannot excommunicate someone at whim, etc. As an example, to change the 5th Thubden to mention Mor Gregorious, the local synod requested that the Patriarch approve the change. He did. His input was necessary because those names in the Thubden are extremely important and historic, and the entire church should be involved in making any changes.

I gave you the official Coptic source for my claim that Peter is behind Mark and the Alexandrian church and you still try to dance around it. What's the point in this discussion if you can't accept basic facts? Set aside lineages and consecreations that occured in the mist of ancient history. What about clear facts today? You fail to recall that the Eithiopian and Eritrean churches forced the autocephaly issue after decades of strife, very similar to the IOC tactic. Look what happened after the Eithiopian church separated itself - the Eritreans began fighting. This is the legacy of the IOC too. Soon, those outside India will be clamouring for autocephaly. That spirit is already in many of your seminarians. I have heard the sentiment directly. How much more will the church suffer? Even if your interpretation is correct concerning the Copts, it has little bearing on the Syriac Church, which is fully and solely Petrine in nature. That doesn't mean the Patriarch rules like the Pope in Rome as noted earlier. Again, I appeal to the "salmoosa" recited by Mor Augen. Can there be any doubt? For further support of the link to Peter in the Coptic Church, here is a link to a Ukrainian Church website, the Ukrainians being keen on autocephaly themselves. http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/petrine.htm If you won't listen to the Copts themselves, then maybe the Ukrainians?

Clarifying here - Petrine means sharing in the ministry of St. Peter. The term in no way minimizes any other Apostle, or any other Christian for that matter. The entire Christian Church in Universal Synod (Nicea), for better or worse, decided that those in the direct line of Peter's ministry - by laying on of hands - should govern the church. This is a very simple unassailable fact. The Protestants, the Greeks and Russians, and of course the myriad decentralized sects abandoned this teaching some time ago. Look at how broken the church has become since. Furthermore, if some dissident group within the IOC decided to declare autocephaly from Devokalam, of course there would be a fight.

It would not surprise me that H.B. Baselious Thomas I would have at one time "worked" for people now in the IOC. The two churches were united under the Patriarch at one time. What does work mean? Does it mean, for example, starting the Kolenchery Medical Mission Hospital, one of the premier medical institutions in Kerala, and then losing it after Mor Augen's schism?

Such a knowlegdable person should not plead ignorance when one of your sources is criticized as a partisan "hack." Look into it yourself. V.C. Samuel passed away in the last decade. He wrote books in support of the Jacobites before jumping ship under less than praiseworthy circumstances. He studied at Manjinnikirra.

This debate is becoming tiresome, as it always eventually does. I'll make a deal. I will answer your Persian lineage questions, and any other questions, with a full treatise if you can answer me these simple questions:

-> Why does the Supreme Court of India say that the Orthodox Church in India is an integral part of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church? Why did Augen I have to swear to uphold Petrine succession if he was seated on the throne of St. Thomas? Who put Augen on the throne of St. Thomas? What is the sacramental service that creates a "throne?" If succession does not matter, why claim Thomas at all? Why did the great saint of the IOC, Mor Vatterserril, curse those who wished to depart from Antioch, though he was for autonomy? Finally, and maybe most germane to this debate, what does Persia have to do directly with Thomasine Devokalm, as it is clear the Orthodox Catholicate was abolished in 1860? (w/o appeal to Abdul Mashih since he was Petrine).

Of course I know there are no satisfactory answers because you represent a schismatic group that is attempting to justify its existence. I know because I only get silence or "a dance" when I've asked this before in wider circles. I welcome a try, but my expectations are very low.

Ultimately, I hope an esteemed person like yourself will one day wake up and understand that belonging to a universal church is a blessing and destroying the church in India because of nationalistic and/or racist issues is unChristian and counter productive. For God's sake - Peter, Thomas, needless to say JESUS - were Jews. Thank God they weren't Malayalees.

The sources I have cited all point to St.Thomas having Ecclesiastical successors. Indeed, Mar Hebreaus' account clearly affirms this. I cited the Knaya song because it negates claims that a “Patriarchal Delegate” established the Persian Catholicate in the 400s. Although the song doesn't say how, it maintains that the Catholicate was in existence before the 400s. Apart from the Apostolic founding of the church in India, there are numerous evidences that it had a fraternal relationship with the Persian Catholicate, and was overseen by Persian bishops. St.Thomas established the church in A.D. 52, yet this relationship with the Persian church started in the 4th century. Now, earlier, you claimed that ‘the issue is whether he created a viable, self-sustaining, autocephalous church. It is clear he did not.’ Tell me, how in God’s name did the church survive for 350 years with no outside aid, if it didn’t have a self-sustaining, hierarchical structure? I don't understand how the Apostolic lineage of either the ancient Persian church or the modern Malankara church can be disputed. Even H.H.Zakka I claims that 'Addai, one of the seventy preachers, was sent by his brother, the apostle Thomas, to Edessa,’ and that ‘Thomas passed through these places and preached their inhabitants on his way to India.’ Surely St. Thomas had the common sense to ordain successors after going through all this trouble to evangelize the east! He had to, in order to effectively carry out the work of his master. As far as I know, there isn't "rock solid" evidence in some of the other Orthodox churches for their Apostolic foundation either (besides Rome or Antioch, which are mentioned in the Bible). The belief of apostolic origin is based, rather, on tradition. Regarding the Addis Ababa Council, First, H.H. Pope Benedict would mind if you identified yourself as “Pope of the See of St. Peter,” because that would be a title that concerns him. In a similar way, the Oriental Orthodox fathers present wouldn’t have accepted H.H. Mar Augen’s title so easily if it weren’t justified. Second, why didn’t H.H. Mar Yakob object to H.H. Mar Augen being called “Your Holiness” and “Catholicos of the See of St.Thomas?” Why did he insist on bringing it up after the council and even going as far as defying the priesthood of St.Thomas?

In regards to Mar Masiha, The appeal to H.H.Mar Abdul Mashiha was made to maintain a healthy relationship with the Patriarchate, since H.H.Mar Abdullah was certainly not helping that along. In regards to St. Dionysius, as far as I know, he only cursed those who wished to sever ties with Antioch. The IOC has no wish to do this even today. The church leadership would like to maintain a fraternal relationship with the SOC. As for the Salmoosa of H.H.Mar Augen, has anyone actually ever seen this thing? The IOC leadership asserts that Mar Augen didn’t submit to Antioch, but to the Malankara Synod. But, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he did submit to the Patriarch. The peace that then existed in the church was the result of a compromise. The Catholicos gave the Patriarch a primacy of honor by accepting him as his “Spiritual head,” while the Patriarch recognized the autocephalous status of the Catholicos. Thus Mar Augen submitted the salmoosa to the Patriarch (if it was indeed done in this manner) in good faith that the Patriarch would uphold the compromise. The Patriarch violated this when he issued an encyclical to Mar Augen in which he claimed that St.Thomas had no priesthood, and that Mar Augen couldn’t use the title “His Holiness.” This is similar to the way in which Mar Philexinos (later Mar Baselios Paulose II) separated from the church when even after he promised to “obey the directions given” by Mar Augen. When he felt his trust had been violated, he was no longer bound by the vow. By the way, why was the first JSOC Catholicos called “Mar Baselios Paulose II?” If H.H. Baselios Paulose I wasn’t canonically ordained, why make a distinction? I have looked through the lineage of the Catholicate and haven’t seen any other “Baselios Pauloses.” I have attempted to answer your question based on my abilities and the resources available to me, which are not vast. Now, I am hoping you can answer some of mine: What is your response to Mar Hebreaus’ assertion that St.Thomas had successors? How did the Malankara church maintain its succession for hundreds of years without outside help? Why didn’t His Holiness Mar Yakob III question the apostolic lineage or rank of the Catholicate at Addis Ababa?

Wow! These answers are much better than most I've seen. After a quick reading, I find most still rather spurious, round about, and illogical - but you've gotten the point! It's not enough to quote lineages and heritage from either Nestorians or fellows such as Bar Hebreaus who are Antiochian diehards - you have to legitimize Mor Didymus today! OK. Well, I'm not ready to concede much. I look forward to answering these questions in voluminous detail after Christmas time. I hope others will raise further questions and answers. Thank you for the challenge!

A few very quick thoughts of note - to deny the Salmoosa is folly. Every deacon pledges alliegance to his superior in a similar fashion. How much more a Catholicose! I understand this is the quickest way to negate its devastating effect in this argument, but saying that the salmoosa is false is like saying Mor Yaqub III did not exist. It is just nonsense. If Mor Yaqub was there, then this salmoosa was said. As you can see, Mor Yaqub is in the pictures. BTW The name of Baselious Paulose the II is just that, a name. It lends no credence to the former's canonicity. Names distinguish people. Second merely distinguishes from First. As a playful counter volley, does the current IOC Catholicose's name "Didymus," imply he is Greek? Not to mention , why is an "autocephalous" Indian fellow's name Baselious (Syriac?). The Patriarch of Antioch has never once ackknowledged the "autocephalous" nature of the Indian Church. I challenge you to produce a document from the Patriarch stating this. Again, an oath is an oath - to paraphase with great license King David. A Christain ruler should live up to a solemn oath. In every salmoosa, the consecrated goes on to pronounce a curse upon himself if he breaks the oath - look at the destruction this Augen has caused! Where is the "letter from the Patriarch questioning St. Thomas' authority?" No one knows exactly what was in the letter. Can Devokalam produce it? No, because it was never read in any church. My sources say it was rescinded immediately. Do you really feel that this justifies breaking the Salmoosa? Why should a Catholicose be called "His Holiness?" What kind of Christian ruler seeks such a title, when he has a perfectly good one?

You say it would be foolish for St. Thomas to not ordain successors in India. Supply one direct successor's NAME in INDIA, and you have an argument.

You have not addressed the Supreme Court's judgement, nor have you told me how the Persian Catholicate lives on in Mor Didymus. You have not explained why, if you purport that a "throne" does not matter, that you cling to Thomasine succession. You have not pointed me to the book with the "service" creating a throne. Your explanation of a "fraternal relationship" with Antioch does not take into account the lakhs of money fighting the church in court, boarded churches, and power grab seen in India. This is almost an insulting statement if you think there is fraternity between the IOC Catholicate and the SOC at the moment. I am glad you admit that Mor Vatterseril wanted to keep ties with Antioch. What you fail to admit is that he did not care for autocephaly, which is different from autonomy. He was the supreme spiritual head to be Antioch. Read his curse!

Bar Hebreaus' lineage has nothing to do with Mor Didymus I. This is as clear as I can be. Bar Hebreaus would not support your interpretaion. More to come on this after Christmas.

We do not claim that the church had no ecclesiasia before 1650. In fact, we claim that the church was part of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church, given the right to administer "all th East" including India, in AD 325. We believe there was "outside help." I can't tell you specifically who gave that help. The point is - you cannot name one in the line of St. Thomas, except from the Crangonore inscription, a thousand years after St. Thomas. If you could name one, the problem of Nicea, and the Petrine nature of the church after the 1650s, would be a real sore spot in your explanation. Do you purport that Abdul Masih ordaining the Mor Vatterserril was some sort of "courtesy," that really he wasn't needed? Then why get him out of retirement and bring him to India? Come on!

How do you know that Mor Yaqub did not protest at Addis Abba? Why would he cause a ruckus in front of other churches? The churches did not meet to approve Mor Augen's title, but were discussing much more weighty matters. I reiterate - so far, this is the strongest "evidence" you have put forth, and it is about as strong as a blade of grass.

I don't see your point in your reference to Pope Benedict above. I was trying to communicate that churches, in an effort not to offend anyone, try to address people by the title they wish to be called. There is no fault with the O.O. Patriarchs at Addis Abba, but the fault lies in Mor Augen reaching for a title he should not have.

I just thought of a great idea - I am a St. Thomas Christian. What prevents me from establishing the throne of St. Thomas in North Carolina, and starting the autocephalous Church of St. Thomas in North Carolina, with me as His Holiness (or His Platitude, or His Covetous, or whatever)(besides membership and money)? I'll make you an Archdeacon! Let me know. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Again - full, further questions and answers to come.

[edit] Cleanup

This article has grown a lot recently. However, a lot of new material has been added in a way that does not correspond to neutral point of view or the manual of style. Cleaning up the style is fairly straightforward for anyone who knows what a Wikipedia article should look like. Cleaning up the POV is slightly more difficult. --Gareth Hughes 18:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my uneducated view here - but who are you and how do you know more aboutt these issues than those directly involved? Your edit puts forth a point of view that might be "neutral" but is far from "true." If you have any sense, instead of editing out the "truth" as vigorously discussed above, why don't you provide style tips or examples of how sentences should be written in the Queen's English? I am reverting this page back to what actual players in these matters believe is accurate, not some wishy washy waste of time.

I am responding to the way in which Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel´s name has been used unnecessarily in this debate. He did not study in Manjinikkara. Due to his close proximity to the Patriarch who was staying in Manjinikkara at that time, and due to the fact that Fr. Samuel´s father who was a promiment person in the locality, Samuel was asked to aid him in his day to day affairs. Samuel did learn Syriac well and mastered the language during this time. He studied in Madras Christian College, Yale University and Chicago University, and became a world authority in church history and christology, these are the places we could say that where he "studied". I hope you will not disagree with the fact that his thesis "Council of Chalcedon re-examined" has definitely increased the status and acceptance of all Orthodox churches around the world today. His findings have definitely improved the dialogues between Orthodox churches and the Catholic church and has definitely helped in better understanding and mutual respect between the churches which was lacking in the past. I do not understand how some one could write about such a personality with out showing respect. He might have changed his mind when he learned more about the nature and the need of an "Indian Church", I think that led to his switch of sides (if there was any). May be his family was supporters of the "Patriarch of Antioch" during this time, as many in Kerala thought that if some one´s skin is fairer than ours he has more authority. This is basically what led to all the foreign invasions and colonialisation right? I am personally not aware of anything which he has written supporting the Jacobite church (before his so called switch of sides). But, I have never heard him taking about the Patriarch with out respect, he had many friends and even bishops and priests who still consider him as their teacher or “guru”, in Jacobite church as well. I think he always maintained his stand that the Holy father in Antioch should be respected as the spiritual leader. Well about his marriage, I think he had a clear conscience on this matter, he knew doctrine well, better than any of us. He did not receive any particluar blessings from anyone in the Orthodox faction for his wedding after becoming a priest. And even now I do not think many in the Orthodox church who does not understand church history well supports this decision of his. My final word is I think all who belongs to any Orthodox church should be thankful or be respectful about the saintly person who is no more, as he is mainly responsible for the doctrinal existence of the Orthodox churches now, he has spend his entire life for this cause. One should not think in factional terms here, probably the person who wrote like this should ask for forgiveness and seek his blessings.

Fr. V.C. Samuel has seen falsification of documents by Jacobites at Manjinikkara Dayaro. Documents were created in Kerala and promoted as if it came from Damascus.

He was truly convinced that the Jacobite fanaticism is not his way. Most Jacobites leaders follow the approach of religious fanaticism, or only such leaders are elevated as bishops. No propoer election is conducted, just the interest of Jacobite head and people at top level coming from aristrocratic families. Some of the are given the title 'Chevalier' by the Patriarch. Such a title of chivalry is not given in Oriental Orthodox Churches.

In India there is a strong tradition of Apostle Thomas establishing the Church. Same is true about the East Syrian Church of Persia. These two churches remained in good contact until it was disrupted by Portuguese invasion.

The name 'Universal Syrian Orthodox' is uncanonical. No ecumenical council gave the name 'Universal' only to the current hierarchy calling itself 'Syrian Orthodox'. It cannot be called even Orthodox in the strict sense due to them enetering in to communion with other Churches.

I would like to stress that Damascus care nothing about keeping the Indian Church united. They are actually further dividing the Church through creating independent bishops for Knanaya, American Malankara Jacobite, etc. These bishops do not sit in Malankara Jacobite Synod.

"Catholicos of India" is the official title given to the head of Jacobites. This title was created in 2002 to escape legal issues after the Indian Supreme Court judgement which clearly declared the head of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as the legitimate CAtholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan elected according to the consitution of the united Malankara Church of 1934. Malankara Jacobite Church was registered only in 2002.

In the Oriental Orthodox council of 1965 Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was counted as one of the five Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholicos of the East was described as 'Catholicos of the East, CAtholicos of the Apostolic Throne of St. Thomas and Malankara metropolitan". (Please refer to the official minutes).

In my opinion Jacobites should leave the approach of religous fanaticism and try to understand the need for unity as one Indian Church from a Christian perspective. All Oriental Orthodox Churches are enjoying freedom. The position taken by Malankara Orthodox should be honored in this perspective.

Antiochian Church has many well written works about history of that Church. In none of these works there is evidence of Antioch appointing a Bishop for India.

But there are many evidences that the Eastern Syrian Church (founded by Apostle Thomas) was appointing bishops for India.

Edessan Church is the mother of all Syriac Churches. Antiochian Church was originally strongly Greek. But later the non-Chalcedonians adopted the name 'Syrian Orthodox'. This does not make them 'Universal Syrian'. They are just one of the Syrian Churches inheriting the original hetirage of the Edessan Church.

The Antiochian Church also cannot claim continuous succession. Their succession was broken few times, especially after the councuil of Chalcedon there was no Patriarch for few years.

As for India, the Church was always cared by the Syrian Church of the East. There is clear evidence for this. But there is absolutely no evidence in authentic Antiochian history work that Antioch ever sent a bishop to India.

The first Indian person to be ordained by a Syrian Antiochian Patriarch was Bishop Mar Athanasius of the Mar Thoma Church (Protestant faith). He ordaine him without consulting with the head of the Indian Church the Mar Thoma. This resulted in a division and the need for inviting Syrian Antiochian Patriarch to India to prove that MAr Athanasius is not authentic. Before this there is no historic evidence of Antiochian Patriarch ordaining an Indian bishop.

Please give at least one evidence for Antiochian Patriarch ordaining a bishop for India?

It is very clearly described in the constitution of Syriac Orthodox Church that the Patriarch's territory. It does not include India.

As for the Maphriyan, the position should be understood as a delimited Catholicos of the East following the same lineage as the Eastern Syrian Church. It was only after a large group of East Syrians became Nestorian that Catholicos was reduced to a Maphriyan. Actually there is nothing wrong in reviving it to the old status.

As I mentioned earlier even the Antiochian Patriarchate was revived after broken succession in the 6th century.

[edit] Identify yourselves, please!

Following the discussions here is very difficult -- in part because people are not using the Wikipedia tags, but mostly due to the fact no one is identifying themselves. I feel as if I'm in a room full of ghosts arguing over some long-forgotten event. Please identify yourselves at the end of your comments, either (if you have an account) put the characters ~~~~ or some name at the end of your comment. And to encourage everyone to do this, because this page is so long, I will archive all unsigned comments in the next few days. Thanks. -- llywrch 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now... It's our friend Thomas P. These arguments have been aired before and constantly been found wanting. Facts presented in rebuttal are rarely answered clearly or dealt with; only an endless cycle of irrelevant questions and innuendo arise. I am not going to respond to the above charges. Everything brought up is dealt with in the Yahoo Forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SOCM-FORUM/ I encourage the neophyte to enquire.

One request - please stop erasing the Jacobite point of view. It is not useful. A young IOC follower and I are responsible for much of the current text. We agreed to give both views since the dispute is so hot. You attempts to hijack the site will be repelled since I am constantly monitoring this article. If you have something to add, add it in the IOC point of view. If not, then please break the "snatch and grab" mentality the IOC fanatic seemingly has ingrained in their genetic code!

- Deaconzach Dallas, TX. P.S. Thanks to Llywrch for improving the article and not merely offering cheap criticism. This wiki-newbie salutes you.