In the first diptych of the Syriac Liturgy, while remembering the rulers of the Church, we remember the patriarchs of our church in their order of honor.� First we remember Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch, then the Catholicos of the East, and then the titular Patriarch of Jerusalem where there is none at present.� This is how it is given in the liturgical books printed in India . This is an ancient tradition, and the Catholicos is definitely a patriarch according to the authoritative books of liturgy. However, in the books currently used in the Middle East and in the Syriac Orthodox Churches in America the plural �patriarchs� is deliberately avoided.� These books read �Our Patriarch Aboun Mor Ignatios, Mor Basilios�� with a footnote for Mor Basilios suggesting that he is the Catholicos or Mafriano of the East.
In the current crisis within the Orthodox Church of India most of the leaders of the Patriarchal dissident group tend to deny that the Catholicos of the East is a patriarch.� Some say he is only a Mafriano, a primate of another country under the Patriarch of Antioch, and this is also the version of the Patriarch and his synod in the Middle East .� In other words, the Catholicos is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch, and therefore, is a suffragan of the Patriarch.� Let us get into the background of this theory very briefly.
As this author is struggling to find historical legitimacy to prove the Catholicose being an independent head of the Church like a Patriarch based on the first diptych.
Can anyone from this forum explaine and clarify it more?