CHAPTER 3

K.N. DANIEL CASE: DEFINING REFORMATION

3.1. Introduction

After the establishment of the Mar Thoma Church, the Reformation was

interpreted in different ways. The two notions of the reformed identity of the Church

were debated and latter it led to a court case between Metropolitan and K.N. Daniel.

The debates within the Church, K.N.Daniel Case and the judgments of the

Honourable Courts are decisive in the attempt of defining the identity of the Mar

Thoma Church.

3.2. History of the debate

The ideological difference of the Radical Reformists and traditionalists got

widened during the period of Yuhanon Mar Thoma. After the Episcopal election in

1937, they formed two groups with the names Pathyopadesa Samithy and Sathaya

Viswasa Samithy. Their arguments and the official responses of the church were very

decisive documents in the K. N. Daniel case.

3.2.1. Pathyopadesa Samithy

The radical Reformists in the Church argued that Abraham Malpan had only

started a movement of reform and it was the duty of later generations to carry on. The

leader of this movement was Mr. K. N. Daniel who was a remarkable character in the

Mar Thoma Church. He criticized the Church as not sufficiently evangelical and the

Metropolitan Yuhanon Mar Thoma as one who is leading the Church to Jacobite faith.

So he began a pamphleteering campaign, and also organized a party in the Church

36

called Pathyopadesa Samithy.1 He published a book “Thaksa Sasthra Velichathil

Naveekaranam” in 1938. In this book his arguments for the revision of the thaksa are

very clear, which as follows:

1) There are seventy three variant orders based on St. James Liturgy. So the

Church can change the thaksa in accordance with their reformed faith.2

2) The primitive form of the liturgy contained only the remembrance of the

saints. The prayer to the Saints was formed only after the 12th century.3

3) There were no words that justified the mediatory priesthood. The primitive

blessings were not in the form of “to you” but in the form of “with us”.4

4) Sanctifying the elements and doctrine of transubstantiation were later

additions in the liturgy only after the 5th century. Thanksgiving and praising

the God for the bread and wine was the first form of the “words of

institution”.5

5) The earliest form of the epiclesis was not to come upon the bread or wine but

to the congregation.6

6) Word of institution which is used now is not Biblical. In Bible, the given body

and blood is for the memory of Jesus, not for the remission of sin.7

7) There was no common practice of using incense in any kind of specific

manner or blessing the censor in the liturgies.8

1 Juhanon Mar Thoma, Christianity in India and a Brief History of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church 1952 (Madras: K. M. Cherian, 1968), 40.2 K. N. Daniel, Thaksa Sasthra Velichathil Naveekaranam (Tiruvalla: Author, 1938), 27.3 Ibid., 122, 124.4 Ibid., 141-144.5 Ibid., 182-185.6 Ibid., 232.7 Ibid., 245.8 Ibid., 250-259.

37

8) The doctrine of Redemption by Holy Baptism, the Prayer for the invocation of

Holy Spirit into water and the exorcism from the water which was prevalent in

the Jacobite baptism rite were criticized.9

9) Above mentioned revisions of the Thaksa is actually a turning back to the

Jacobite Thaksa of Moosa Ber Keepa of 10th century and of Dionysios Ber

Sleebi of 12th century with an exemption of the prayers for the dead.10

10) The Church cannot accept any kind of traditions which is against the Apostolic

traditions and teachings in the Bible. We can add on to the traditions which

have no objection to the Biblical facts.11

11) There is no need of a prayer for the bread and wine in the Holy Qurbana.12

K. N. Daniel and the Samithy claimed that they alone were loyal to the

Reformation and appealed everyone to join them. They did not accept the committee

Thaksa published by Titus II in 1942. Rev. P. John Varghese was the President of this

movement.13

3.2.2. Sathya Viswasa Samithy

To face the activities of the Pathyopadesa Samithy, some other members of

the Mar Thoma Church organized themselves to prevent innocent people from being

misled. This new organization was known as “Sathya Viswasa Samithy”.14 Mr. K. K.

Kuruvilla and Prof. C. P. Mathew were the prominent leaders of this Samithy.15 They

9 Ibid., 261-278.10 Ibid., 279.11 Ibid., 280.12 Ibid., 284.13 N. M. Mathew, op. cit., 250.14 Ibid., 41. 15 N. M. Mathew, op. cit., 250-251.

38

had very intimate friendship with Yuhanon Mar Thoma from his high school

education. For them, the decision of Alochana Sabha in 1927 and revised Thaksa

published in 1942 did not need any kind of revision again. Prof. C. P. Mathew

published a book Thaksa Niroopanam in 1946 against the argument for the revision of

Thaksa. C. P. Mathew raised counter arguments against the fourteen resolutions of K.

N. Daniel for changing Thaksa.16

3.2.3. Official Responses

The debates between the “Pathyopadesha Samithy” and the “Sathya Viswasa

Samithy” created doubts among the laity and clergy mainly about a definite opinion of

the Church. To bring unity between the divided groups and to brief on the matter to

the members of the Church the Metropolitan, the Episcopal Synod, the Sabha council

and the Prathinidhi Mandalam took immediate steps.

3.2.3.1. Synod Thaksa (1954)

Mr. Daniel and his group argued that the ‘Thaksa’ published in 1942 by Titus

IInd Metropolitan did not follow the reformation principles and they wanted a revised

Thaksa to be published. In order to meet this need a 14 member committee called the

“Prayer Book Revision Committee” was formed during the period of Abraham Mar

Thoma Metropolitan and they presented revised Thaksa in 1952 after the six years of

study. This Thaksa was accepted with some amendments by the Episcopal Synod and

it was published in 1954. This is known as the Synod Thaksa.17

16 C. P. Mathew, Thaksa Niroopanam 1946 (New Delhi: Dharma Jyoti Vidya Peeth, 2008), 11-16.17 “Thaksa Committee Report” cited in Mar Thoma Sabhayude Viswasacharangal Sambandichu Chila Supradhana Rekhakal (Tiruvalla: Sabha Tharaka Editorial Board, n.d.), 18-23.

39

The main changes brought in this thaksa are.18

(1) Approved the alternative forms of epiclesis. One form is to sanctify the bread

and wine to be the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The alternative

form which was added is to sanctify the bread and wine to be the communion

of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(2) Synod Thaksa permitted the freedom to alter the statement “for the forgiveness

of our debts and remission of our sins is given to you” in the last declaration of

the priest before serving the Qurbana to the congregation, by using appropriate

words like ‘rememberance’ etc.

3.2.3.2. Joint Circular 195319

K. N. Daniel and Pathyopadesa Samithy argued that Mar Thoma Church had

lost its reformed identity. At the same time Sathya Viswasa Samithy expressed their

anxiety about the Eastern Episcopal identity of the Mar Thoma Church. So

Metropolitan, Yuhanon Mar Thoma called a meeting of thirty members representing

both groups and prepared an “agreed statement”. On the basis of this statement,

Yuhanon Mar Thoma Metropolitan and Mathews Mar Athanasius jointly published a

circular in 1953. This circular re-affirmed the reformation principles suggested by the

Committee of 1927 and the Prayer Book Revision Committee report of 1953. It

underlined the Episcopal nature, representative priesthood of the Church and the

practices of using symbols, signs, eastern style of vestments etc. This circular allowed

exemptions to some Churches from these common practices. It denied the doctrines of

18 P. M. Thomas, ed. Mar Thoma Sabha Directory (Tiruvalla: Mar Thoma Publication Board, 1999), 63.19 Yuhanon Mar Thoma and Mathews Mar Athanasios, Samyuktha Kalpana, 21 March, 1953, cited in C. E. Abraham, ed. Mar Thoma Syrian Church Directory (Tiruvalla: Managing Board, 1969), 81-85.

40

transubstantiation, con-substantiation, localization and any kind of magical effects of

sacraments. Generally this circular recognized the diversity of faith and practices

within the Church.

3.2.3.3. Statement of the Sabha Council (1955)

Mandalam appointed a “Special Committee” for studying the fourteen

resolutions20 of K. N. Daniel for the Thaksa revision. But the Committee could not

submit a report unanimously. Before submitting these two reports in the Mandalam,

Sabha Council presented a statement at the Mandalam in 1955. It explained the

meanings of infant baptism, dominical feasts, remembering the departed in worship

etc.21 It helped to distinguish the faith of the Mar Thoma Church from the Jacobites.

3.2.3.4. Nava Vatsara Sandesam 1958

Following the report of the majority of the special committee which suggested

that revising the Thaksa was disapproved by the Mandalam in 1955, K. N. Daniel

propagated that the Mar Thoma Church has been misguided away from the Gospel

and the Bible. In this context, with the permission of Sabha Council, Yuhanon Mar

Thoma circulated a New Year message (Nava Vatsara Sandesam) in 1958, December

29. Along with reminding the decisions of Thaksa Revision Committee of 1927 and

Joint Circular, it affirmed the salvation through the grace and faith, authority of the

Bible for all theological subjects and the missionary nature of the Church.22

3.3. K. N. Daniel Case

20 Sabha Secretary, Statement of the Sabha Council, 7th May 1955, cited in Mar Thoma Sabhayude Viswasacharangal Sambandichu Chila Supradhana Rekhakal, op. cit., 34-36.21 His fourteen resolutions and responses were cited in C. P. Mathew, op. cit., 29-44.22 Yuhanon Mar Thoma Metropolitan, Nava Vatsara Sandesam, Circular No. 126, 29th December 1958, cited in Ibid., 29-32.

41

After the rejection of the Special Committee Report in the Mandalam of 1955,

Mr.K.N. Daniel moved a petition in the District Court praying for an injection order

against Yuhanon Mar Thoma Metropolitan who was charged with professing not the

Mar Thoma faith but the Jacobite faith. This suit was instituted in 1955 and was

terminated by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India on January 7, 1965. This

civil case between Yuhanon Mar Thoma and K. N. Daniel is known as K. N. Daniel

Case. It has led to findings by courts on doctrinal questions of vital significance in

relation to the faith of the Mar Thoma Church.

3.3.1. Plaint of K. N. Daniel23

In this plaint for dethroning Yuhanon Mar Thoma from the position of

Metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Church, K. N. Daniel argued that the faith of

Yuhanon Mar Thoma was not of the Mar Thoma Church. For that purpose, he raised a

few doctrinal issues.

3.3.1.1. Interpreting the Reformed Identity

K. N. Daniel stated that his understanding about the faith of the Mar Thoma

Church differed from the Jacobite faith in the 6th paragraph of the plaint.

Eucharist

23 Ninan Daniel, Easow Yohannan etc. Plaint in the District Court of Kottyam, O.S.No.116 of 1955, 29th July 1955, cited in K. T. Thomas and T. N. Koshy (Very Rev.), Faith on Trial (Ernakulam: Mar Themotheus Memorial Printing and Publishing House Ltd., 1965), 1-11.

42

The Jacobites believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are the body and

blood of Jesus Christ. But the Reformists (Marthomites) believe that the bread and

wine are merely the symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Jacobites believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, but the Reformists do

not believe so.

Practices

The Jacobites believe that prayers to the saints is necessary, but the Reformists

do not believe so.

The Jacobites believe that prayers for the dead are necessary, but the

Reformists believe that they are opposed to the Bible.

Scripture

The Jacobites believe that it is not only the Bible alone that should be treated

as the basis of the faith and teachings of the Church, but also the traditions, creed and

patristic writings should be considered as the basis. The Reformists on the other hand

believed that it is only the Bible consisting of the sixty six books that should be the

basis of all theological (ecclesiastical) subjects.

In the 7th paragraph of the plaint, he continued that Abraham Malpan who was

the first leader of the Reformists party, the above said doctrines came to be accepted

by them and became a separate Church with the name Mar Thoma Syrian Church.

3.3.1.2. Response to the Synod Thaksa

43

He argued that the Synod Thaksa of 1954 expressed the Jacobite faith of the

Yuhanon Metropolitan. The Bible verse “I am the living bread which came down

from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever” shown on page xvii is

believed by the Jacobites to be in respect of the Bread administered in the Eucharist.

But the Marthomites believe that this verse does not relate to it. Yuhanon

Metropolitan gave the direction in the said liturgy to use this verse at the

Administration of the Eucharist.

3.3.2. Defense of Yuhanon Mar Thoma

As first defendant in this case, the written statement24 of the Metropolitan and

his latter explanations expressed the faith and practices of the Mar Thoma Church,

because, it was the official position of the Church about its faith and meaning of

reformation. It pointed out all the possible areas relevant to this suit and the decisive

factors in the identity of the Mar Thoma Church.

3.3.2.1. Apostolic Origin and Autonomy

Metropolitan confronted the statement of K. N. Daniel concerning the origin

of the Church as a result of the division due to the reformation movement by

Abraham Malpan. Metropolitan corrected it in the 8th paragraph of the statement that

this Church is believed to be the old Malankara Church ‘established by Saint Thomas,

one of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the World”. This was quoted

from the preamble of the constitution. Paragraph 12 stated its original autonomy

before the arrival of Portuguese and its retrieved freedom through the reformation.

24 In this section, the word ‘statement’ is cited to refer the“Written statement of Defendant 1 in the district court of Kottayam, O.S. No. 116 of 1955” cited in Ibid., 12-25.

44

3.3.2.2. Reformation Means

Paragraph 12 and 13 stated that the Reformation of Abraham Malpan and

Geevarghese Malpan was an attempt to restore the Church to its original purity, by

casting away the prevailing erroneous teachings and corrupt practices, which had

crept in by its association with other Churches of Rome and Antioch. The Reformists

party shook off the Antiochan yoke and brought the Church into freedom. According

to the statement, Mar Thoma Church does not accept any other reform as having been

described by the Alochana Sabha of 1927. This resolution consists of ten reforms

affected in Thaksa and three alterations effected in rituals.25 The sixth paragraph of

the Trial court Judgement cleared that “Abraham Malpan decided to remain in the old

tradition of the Syrian Church and bring out reforms in the Syrian Church in the light

of the new emphasis and vision he had received”.26

3.3.2.3. Democratic and Episcopal Administration

Even though it was not a debated issue in this case, Metropolitan stated about

the administration of the Mar Thoma Church. Paragraph 6, 8, 11 and 12 declared that

the Church administrated in accordance with a written constitution. The Assembly

called the Pradhinithi Mandalam is the final authority for taking decisions in respect

of all matters, spiritual and temporal. Metropolitan is the President of this Assembly.

Again he stated that the Church is hierarchical in its nature and the Metropolitan is the

supreme ecclesiastical head.

25 Refer Appendix.26 “Judgement of the Trial Court dated 04.10.58 in the subordinate judge’s court of Kottayam” cited in K. T. Thomas and T. N. Koshy, op. cit., 41.

45

3.3.2.4. Eastern Missionary Church

In the 18th paragraph of the statement, Metropolitan occasionally pointed out

that the Mar Thoma Church is a part of Eastern Churches. He stated in the Supreme

Court that the Church is Eastern in its traditions and forms of worship.27 Based on the

statement given by the second defendant Rev. C. V. John, the Trial Court Judgement

states that the Mar Thoma Church, the eastern one is Catholic in doctrine and

Evangelical in Mission. The only codification of faith which the Eastern Church has

effected is the Nicene Creed.28

3.3.2.5. Bible and Tradition in the Church

By confronting the ‘Bible alone’ concept of K. N. Daniel, Metropolitan stated

Mar Thoma Church does not believe that the Bible is the sole basis for all ecclesiastical subjects. The Church has accepted the Bible, and Nicene creed, the several offices for the celebration of the different sacraments and rituals too as the bases for ecclesiastical subject.29

In the statement before the Supreme Court, he explained that the Holy Bible is

the touchstone on which the doctrines of the Mar Thoma Church are tested.30

Metropolitan interpreted the constitutional statement “The Bible… is the basis

for or authoritative document concerning all ‘Vaidika’ (Theological) matters…” in

accordance with the pledge which everyone who is to become a priest has to take.

There it is said that the Holy Bible contains “all the doctrines which are essential for

salvation of mankind”.

27 “Statement of the case before the civil appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court special leave on 23 of 1963” cited in Ibid., 141.28 “Judgement of the Trial Court…” cited Ibid., 42-43.29 See the 17th paragraph of the written statement of the Metropolitan, in Ibid., 16-17.30 “Statement of the case…” cited in Ibid., 149.

46

3.3.2.6. Diversity in Biblical Interpretations

As a response to the problem raised by K. N. Daniel in the interpretation of the

text St. John, chapter 6, Yuhanon Mar Thoma said in 20 th paragraph of the statement

that “The Mar Thoma Church has not given any official interpretation to them. There

are two views among theologians as to whether the discourse in that chapter relates to

the Holy Eucharist or not”. This gives a hint that there have not been any official

interpretations on the Biblical text for the Church. It provides the freedom to the

readers to read the text in many ways.

3.3.2.7. Salvation

According to the statement of the Metropolitan submitted in Supreme Court,

paragraph 34, the position of the Church regarding salvation is

Salvation through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the free gift of God. Through faith, we appropriate this salvation through grace. It is the Holy Bible consisting of the sixty six books alone that our Church has accepted as the basis for all the teachings concerning this salvation.31

3.3.2.8. Eucharist

It was the central issue of the debate. Metropolitan confronted the radical

protestant position, specifically Zwinglian understanding of Eucharist which was

argued by K. N. Daniel. Metropolitan recorded the faith of the Church in the written

statement submitted before the district court, paragraph 18.

1. It stated that, “Mar Thoma Church does not believe that the Bread and Wine in

the Holy Eucharist are mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It

31 Ibid., 150.

47

is permissible for the members of the Church to believe, either that while they

are symbols, the Body and Blood of Christ become present in the company of

the worshippers through the media of Bread and Wine, in a manner

incomprehensible to human senses and beyond the reach of analytical tests, or

that they do not so become present.” His explanation quoted in the Judgment

of the Trial Court that according to the faith of the liturgy of the Mar Thoma

Church it is more reasonable to believe that there is a spiritual presence of

Christ in the Eucharistic elements.32

2. The Judgment of the Trial Court quoted the Metropolitan’s explanation that

“What the Mar Thoma Church believed is that the Bread and Wine used in the

Holy Communion are effective signs of grace. Sacrament is the method by

which inward grace is attained through outward means.33

3. The written statement submitted before the district court, Metropolitan stated

that “In the Holy Communion, Christ is given himself to his believers and they

partake of Him. But we repudiate the doctrines of transubstantiation and

localization”. Again he explained before the Trial Court that “Beyond that, it

is a difficult question to assess the nature of relationship that exists between

Jesus Christ and the Bread and Wine and an answer to this question is

unnecessary for a believer to receive Christ”.34

4. It defined the different meanings of the Holy Communion as a reminder of

Christ’s redemptive action, a sacrificial feast, incorporation of believers in

Christ, a thank offering of the Church etc. paragraph 16 states ‘it is a living

32 “Judgment of the Trial Court”, cited in Ibid., 44.33 Ibid., 45.34 Ibid., 46.

48

sacrifice, the sacrifice of grace, peace and thanksgiving. But it is not believed

to be a sacrifice attended with shedding of blood’.

3.3.2.9. Liturgy of the Church

While considering the overall facts in this case, Church is not liable to any

kind of school of thought or liturgies. The Mandalam and the Episcopal Synod in

accordance with the constitution can construct the liturgies and permit them to be

practiced in the parishes. The 24th paragraph of the written statement before the

district court said that “The Episcopal Synod has an inherent power, to accord

freedom to permit the use of liturgical forms.”

In relation with the Thaksa published in 1954, he explained in the same

paragraph that “It had been published by the Episcopal Synod, under the constitution,

the power vests solely in the Mandalam to decide whether, in whole or part, it is

opposed to the faith and teachings of the Church”.

3.3.2.10. Rituals

The paragraph 15 of the statement explained the relativity of Church practices

in relation with the present context and the teachings of the Bible. Not only the Bible

but also the practicability should be taken seriously, while rejecting or accepting a

ritual. It is very clear in the statement, “The Mar Thoma Church does not believe that

invocation of saints is opposed to the Bible, but the Church does not enjoin the

practice of invocation of saints. Mar Thoma Church does not believe that prayers for

the dead are contrary to the Bible”.

49

It pointed out that these ten practices stopped by the Church were not based on

Bible but was based on practical life. It proved that for the Church, Bible is not a

blue-print of rituals and practices.

3.3.2.11. Ecumenical Nature

Based on the constitution, Metropolitan stated in paragraph 8, that the Church

is a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. Paragraph 27 explained

this statement as “The Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church is a part of the Church

universal and is bound like any other true and faithful Christians, to work for the unity

of the Church, which is the body of Jesus Christ, by the establishment of co-operation

and union amongst the Churches. That being so, the Mar Thoma Church is a member

of the World Council of Churches and the present Metropolitan has been elected as

one of its presidents. We wish that the Churches should unite on the basis of the

fundamental doctrines. The goal of the Church ought to be that an “Indian Church”

should evolve on the basis of the fundamental Christian doctrines accepting the

fundamental prized by the Mar Thoma Church. When that wish materializes there will

be no need for the Mar Thoma Syrian Church to exist as a separate entity. But we do

not wish that the Mar Thoma Church should merge in any other Church”.

It was the period of starting ecumenical relations and discussion with other

Churches and Yuhanon Mar Thoma was a pioneer in the way of ecumenical relations

of the Church.

3.3.3. Judgments35

35 The full script of the judgements were cited by K. T. Thomas & T. N. Koshy, Ibid., 26-95, 177-185.

50

Followed by the plaints and appeals of Mr. K. N. Daniel, the judgments were

announced by the Trial Court in 1958, High Court in 1961 and Supreme Court in

1965. Even though, the 47th paragraph of the judgment of the High Court elucidated

the judicial limitations, the above mentioned judgments helped to legalize some

factors.

1. It legalized the “Synod Thaksa” of 1954 along with the “Committee Thaksa”

of 1942.

2. By approving the Synod Thaksa, it allowed alternative forms of epiclesis,

words of institution, declaration about the purpose of Eucharist etc.

3. It approved the authority of the Episcopal Synod and Prathinidhi Mandalam

in accordance with the written constitution for all spiritual and ecclesiastical

matters.

4. It authorized the reformation principles settled in Alochana Sabha of 1926.

5. All the courts dismissed the suits filed by K. N. Daniel and approved the

official position as appropriate to the faith and constitution of the Mar Thoma

Church. High Court judged that the motive of the appellant was his animosity

to the Metropolitan.

3.4. Attitude of the Mar Thoma Church to the Case and Schism

The Sabha Council of the Mar Thoma Church published a booklet entitled

“Facts about a Schism” in 1962 as a replay to the booklet “It happened in the Mar

Thoma Church” distributed in the Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches

at New Delhi in 1961. In this booklet Sabha Council approved the matters which were

included in the written statement of the Metropolitan submitted in the court. It

51

declared that there were no theological factors in the case and schism.36 This

document expressed the attitude of the Mar Thoma Church towards the St. Thomas

Evangelical Church that, “The type of Episcopacy they have chosen and their violent

language against the Metropolitan, impose serious limitations on the degree of

cooperation possible with them.37

3.5. Conclusion

Mar Thoma Church struggled for determining its identity in between the pro-

eastern and pro-protestant notions within the Church. There were two notions of

interpretations about Reformation that happened in the Malankara Church. K. N.

Daniel’s position was very near to Radical Protestants especially to Zwingly and he

argued for the complete revision of the liturgy. On the other side, the leadership of K.

K. Kuruvilla and C. P. Mathew were against the revision of the liturgy. Yuhanon Mar

Thoma Metropolitan, the great ecumenist and the supreme head of the Mar Thoma

Church equipped the Church to maintain its diversity in non-fundamental doctrines

and its hybrid nature, by publishing revised Thaksa of 1954 and the Episcopal

Circulars. The suits filed against the Metropolitan helped the Church to settle and to

legalize its unique hybrid and flexible nature.

36 A. Cheriyan, Facts about a Schism (Tiruvalla: Sabha Council, 1962), 2.37 Ibid., 27.