Agreed, but please explain what happened to these Bishops and priests? They all passed away without ordaining their successor? Or they all deserted to some other faith?
Thank you for at last agreeing to one thing. The fact the church survived 2000 years in India is enough proof that Indian church had bishops. i.e. without Bishop there is no Church. To learn the names of bishops we need to learn the history of the Church of the East, history by Mar Ishoyab etc.
But in the history of Antiochian church is there a single bishop ordained by Antioch for Indian church before 17th century? I am sure if Antiochian church had such a tradition, their historians would definitely record it. But Scholars prroved that they helped us the first time only when we requested help. Why they were not able to enquire and find out about our difficulties, if our church was under Antioch? Why they did not help us when the church was part of Assyrian church and later for few years as part of Roman Church?
Also, only very recent Patriarchs like Mar Abdulla and Mar Yakub 111 tried to establish universal supremacy. Before them, it was possible to co-exist as two churches in a peaceful way. For example, in history we know head of Indian Church (Mar Thoma Metropolitans) ordaining their successors with out any external help. This further proves the free nature of the Eastern Church. i.e. even with out the help of Antioch, there can be valid ordination. And help offered by a Church should not lead to subordinating the church receiving the help. If subordination is true, then Antiochian Church is subordinate to Alexandrian church, because current non-Chalcedonian lineage of Antiochian church is with the help of Alexandrian church. So, ordination does not lead to 'subordination'.
It did not happen in the case of Antiochian church, so it should not happen in the case of indian church also.
What I learned is, “Archdeacon or Arckadyakon: Hudaya canon insists that every bishop should have one arkadyakon, who shall be intelligent, skillful and interested in the welfare of poor and foreigners. He shall be the head of deacons. His job shall be to offer comfortable seats to priests, to give books to koruyo and direct the affairs of the altar. Arkadyakon should be in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Madbaho. Arkadyakon is empowered to punish the clergy in default in case they quarrel each other. He shall be the spokesman and assistant to the bishop. Arkadyakon is not ordained but so confirmed by Susthathikon, chapter 7 div. VI.”Please name at lest one person he ordained as priest or bishops from Malankara
Hudaya canon is relevant in India only after our links with churches following it. Before that Hudaya canon was not followed. If you go through the Canons of Synod of Diamper, there is a canon which says that the Church should severe ties with the Church of the East to enter in to unity with Rome. No mention of Hudaya in the canons of Diamper. And Archdeaons in Eastern understanding are ordained people, their rank just below a Bishop.
"Accompanied by Prince Kepha of Muziris, who was consecrated as the Bishop of Cranganore and Malabar, St. Thomas left Cranganore to preach the Gospel elsewhere." [Thoma Parvom]
Antiochian succession was broken after Chalcedon, correct? How they established a new lineage against the Chalcedonian one?
Please check the lineage in the East:http://www.chaldeansonline.net/church/bedaweed.html
Same is the list followed by Assyrian church of the East and Orthodox Syrian church of the East (Indian Orthodox). Same list is also found in the history of Bar Ebraya. According to Bar Ebraya, history begins with St. Thomas, who was the first Patriarch of the East. There was only one church in the East with Catholicos as the head. Now it is divided in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Assyrian churches.