The Myth: Claims and Sources

According to the standard Syro-Malankara Catholic narrative, the process of "reunion" with the See of Rome was initiated by a meeting of the Episcopal Synod of Malankara at Parumala in 1926. Geevarghese Mar Ivanios (who later established the Syro-Malankara hierarchy), then, merely undertook these efforts and carried out correspondences with the Catholic hierarchs, and actualized the process even when his fellow prelates backed out of it.

The origin of this narrative can be traced back to the Memoranda of Ivanios himself, addressed to Bp. Edward Mooney, Apostolic Nuncio to the East Indies. Both letters are written as if from the official perspective of the "Holy Synod of the Catholicate" of Malankara, though signatures of any figure - including Ivanios - are found lacking.

It is the bishops of the Catholicate that seek reunion with the Holy See. .. The Holy Synod of the Catholicate prays that they be admitted into unity of the Catholic Church, themselves, (i) preserving the ancient rites and rituals, (ii) retaining for the Holy Synod and for the individual bishops their jurisdiction over all the Jacobite Syrian that come into reunion, and (iii) accepting the supremacy of the Holy See, the Pope being the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the apostles of our Lord. .. The Holy Synod will finally decide about the reunion after definitely hearing from the Roman Church. (First Memorandum; cf. Paul Pallath, Syro Malankara Catholic Church: Important Documents (1925-2019) [2022], pp. 136-7)

At a meeting of the Bishops’ Synod held at Parumala, Tiruvalla, on 1 November 1926, at which (1) His Holiness Moran Mar Baselius, Catholicos; (2) The Most Rev. Mar Gregorius (titular) Metropolitan, Kundara; and (3) The Right Rev. Mar Ivanios, Bishop of Bethany, were present, it was decided that the Bishop of Bethany be authorized to make enquiries with the authorities of the Roman Church with a view to reunion. It was further decided that this resolution as well as the correspondences and proceedings connected with it be kept strictly secret, and that the Most Rev. Mar Dionysius be not informed of this at present, but that at a later stage, the whole matter be made known to His Grace. (Second Memorandum; cf. ibid., p. 142)

Subsequent Syro-Malankara sources follow Ivanios in retelling the narrative, word-to-word. Thus, Benedict Mar Gregorios, the second Archbishop of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and Ivanios' successor, writes:

A Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church was held in 1926 at Parumala, a sacred sanctuary of the Orthodox. In this synod, it was decided to seek formal union with the Catholic Church. Metropolitan Mar Ivanios was chosen by the synod to make necessary correspondence with the Holy See. The following is the form of petition which was finally submitted to the Holy See: "The Holy Synod of the Catholicate prays that they be admitted into the unity of the Catholic Church, themselves (1) preserving the ancient rites and rituals, (2) retaining for the Holy Synod, and for the individual bishops, their jurisdiction over all the Jacobite Syrians that come into reunion, and (3) accepting the supremacy of the Holy See, the Pope being the successor of St Peter, the Chief of the Apostles of Our Lord. A positive reply from Rome came after four long years. Meanwhile, due to various pressures and circumstances, the signatories of the petition for communion with the Catholic Church, with the exception of Metropolitan Mar Ivanios and Bishop Mar Theophilos, withdrew from their resolve. (An Oriental Church Returns to Unity: Choosing Priestly Celibacy)

In the same manner, the Preamble to The Code of Particular Canons of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (2012):

On 1 November 1926, the Episcopal Synod held at Parumala near Tiruvalla, Kerala, decided again open negotiation with Rome for communion with the Catholic Church in order to establish peace in Malankara. The Synod authorized Mar Ivanios, then Bishop of Bethany, to make the necessary correspondence with Rome regarding communion. He earnestly followed the mandate of the Episcopal Synod.

While Catholic sources reporting the same can be multiplied, we may lastly quote from Fr. Paul Pallath, Relator of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints and Professor at the Pontifical Oriental Institute:

The synod of bishops held at Parumala in Tiruvalla on 01 November 1926, presided over by the catholicos Mar Baselios authorised the bishop of Bethany to enter into negotiations with the authorities of the Roman Church with a view to full communion. Mar Dionysius VI did not join the Synod directly as he was leading the litigations against ‘patriarchal faction’ in the civil court, but he was ready to accept their decisions, whatever they might be. Mar Ivanios presented the matter of Patriarch Rahmani’s letter to other bishops and prepared a draft response for the Patriarch. (Pallath 2022, pp. 123-4; apparently based on Fr. Thomas Inchakalody, Archbishop Mar Ivanios Vol. 1, p. 232).

It may be noted that the above considers St. Dionysius the Iluminator (Mar Dionysius VI) to have known the supposed proceedings, while Ivanios himself explicitly denies the involvement and awareness of the Malankara Metropolitan. Such inconsistencies are found throughout the sources concerning the "Synod", though they nevertheless agree on certain key points: (a) the Synod took place on Nov. 1, 1926; (b) three out of the four prelates of the Malankara Church at the time participated in the meeting and concurred to its decisions; (c) the Synod was presided over by H.H. Cath. Geevarghese I who was present at the meeting; and (d) St. Dionysius was not present at the Synod.

Cath. Geevarghese I's Diary

Cath. Geevarghese I (r. 1925-28) had the habit of keeping a diary and regularly updating it with day-to-day events from the time he was a deacon. For our purposes here, we will be consulting the diary-records from the period of his Catholicate: more precisely, for late October and early November 1926.

On [Thulam] 15th [Oct. 31], the protagonist [Mal. kathānāyakaṉ: the Catholicos' way of referring to himself in his diary] and others left for the Feast at Parumala, and arrived there on the next day [i.e. Thulam 16]. Dionysius Methranachan was present there.

On [Thulam] 17th [Nov. 2], Philippose Kathanar celebrated the Eucharist.

On [Thulam] 18th [Nov. 3], the protagonist, Philippose Kathanar, and Panakkamattom Kochu-Kathanar celebrated the Trimass.

On [Thulam] 19th [Nov. 4], Gregorios Methrachan arrived from Maramon and Bethany Episcopa and Pampady Rambachan from Thiruvalla in the morning.

On [Thulam] 20th [Nov. 5], the protagonist, Gregorios Methrachan and Pampady Rambachan celebrated the Trimass on the Feast. At the meeting of the clergy in the afternoon, all the metropolitans, along with the vicar of the Thiruvananthapuram parish, gave speeches. Everyone departed after [hoisting of] the flag and [the blessing of] the cross. (Treasure of the Catholicate [2005], p. 328)

The contradiction is clear. Cath. Geevarghese I arrived at Parumala on Nov. 1st, but Met. Geevarghese Mar Gregorios (later Cath. Geevarghese II) and Ivanios arrived only on Nov. 4th. Furthermore, contrary to Ivanios' account (as well as the embellished account of later sources inc. Pallath 2002), St. Dionysius was at Parumala throughout these days, and spoke at the meeting of the clergy on Nov. 5th. It may also be noted that this meeting (Mal. vaidikayōgaṁ) was an annual assembly of the clergy associated with the Feast of St. Gregorios of Parumala, since the Catholicos refers to this annual assembly on every feast that he records in the diary.

A Contextual Inconsistency

A contextual inconsistency can be identified with respect to Ivanios' claims besides the discrepancy with the historical chronology and events as described above.

Temporal and administrative power is wholly vested in the office of the Malankara Metropolitan. During the early decades after the re-establishment of the Catholicate in 1912, St. Dionysius - being the Malankara Metropolitan - continued to manage the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Church. This is clear from the fact that he managed and oversaw the legal suits and litigations, as well as foreign affairs: for instance, Cath. Geevarghese I records in his diary how talks and negotiations with the See of Antioch were discussed and decided by the Synod presided over by St. Dionysius (cf. Record on Medam 3rd, 1923).

Therefore, it is highly improbable that an "Episcopal Synod" would take place without participation of the Malankara Metropolitan, and furthermore, that the Catholicos and Mar Gregorios would concur to proceed with matters of foreign affairs without the knowledge of St. Dionysius. Later sources would've noticed this inconsistency, leading to the embellished account according to which St. Dionysius was aware of the proposal of reunion as well as the Synod.

Conclusion

It is evident that a "Synod" did not take place on Nov. 1, 1926. Furthermore, the vaidikayōgaṁ on Nov. 5 was not an Episcopal Synod but an assembly of the clergy, one which was attended by all metropolitans including the reigning Malankara Metropolitan, St. Dionysius (contrary to the Syro-Malankara narrative).