Talk:Apostolic throne

Page Move

After a page move from Apostolic Throne to Apostolic throne, I have moved the talk page contents here.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Wgw2024 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The concept of an Apostolic Throne is an important concept in the Ecclesiology of the Christian Church. I would ideally like this page to develop into a list of the apostolic thrones, the saints they were originally associated with, and the current occupants thereof.

Table Request

It would be very nice if someone with a better command of wiki markup could edit this page and add a table, listing all of the generally established Apostolic Thrones, and their current (or last) occupant, along with the date of their establishment, and the date of the enthronement of the current occupant or the throne becoming vacant (such as the Throne of St. John, the Patriarchate of Ephesus).

Although I nominated this for CSD, and the article creator removed the CSD template (that's a no-no, just so you know), he has added references and I am willing to withdraw the CSD. Although the creator has been on Wikipedia for several years, he appears very inexperienced and I am inclined to give him a break. Consider the CSD withdrawn. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, tables and their markup also baffle me. I have listed this article at the Religion project in hope that someone there will help you out. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostolic Throne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714171711/http://armenianpatriarchateofjerusalem.com/news/enthronement-in-st-james.html to http://www.armenianpatriarchateofjerusalem.com/news/enthronement-in-st-james.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

apostolic throne of mar thoma church

an editor named @Sodacyanide is constantly removing the statement which talks about the metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church sitting on the throne of St Thomas. Even though the statement has been sourced but the editor seems to insist that such a thing doesn't exist and favoring only the hierarch of MOSC as sitting on the throne of St Thomas. A clear violation of WP:NPOV Livingbeta (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Throne of St. Thomas the apostle

The throne of St.Thomas the apostle has traditionally and historically been attributed to the Malankara Church of india. While many descendants of the Church including MTSC, MISC and MOSC claim the throne of St Thomas the apostle and all their claims are valid, the title of Malankara Metropolitan claimed by MOSC has been backed by the Apex court of India 1&2. In contrast, claim that The Maphrianate of Syriac Orthodox Church held the view of sitting in the throne of St.Thomas lacks backing, as the Patriarch of Antioch himself calling such throne as uncanonical and fictitious 3 And ironically the citation given for the maphrian is the reply given by Paulose Gregorios of MOSC.

I strongly disagree the edits that contradicts these facts unless additional valid claims or evidences are presented

Sodacyanide (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear, editor @Sodacyanide by constant reversion you may end up in edit warring. By citing the rulings of the apex court of India which involves the jacobsite's and the Malankara orthodox Syrian church and replacing the title of the Mar Thoma Syrian Churches hierarch could be viewed as a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The cited reference in the previous article still bears the name Malankara metropolitan of Mar Thoma church, by such a logic the title of the Syro-Malankara Catholics hierarch also ought to be replaced, but it is not removed because the said apex court verdict cannot compromise claims that are made, as the said above two churches still use the said title, also the apex court doesn't make a remark about who the Malankara metropolitan is in the Mar Thoma church. may i remind you that advocacy is not a good faith edit

as for the Maphrain occupying the see of St Thomas is a traditional one and not a canonical one." Mor Gregorius Bar Hebraeus states that St. Thomas is the “chief priest of east” and preached in Parthia, Media, Persia, Bactria and India. Bar Hebraeus listed the Maphriano of Tigrit as the custodians of St. Thomas traditions as St. Thomas preached in the region. However, Mor Gregorius never tagged the Maphriano with any such Throne of St. Thomas, instead he uses the word “seat of Tigrit”". removal of the earlier reference made to the maphrain occupying the see of St Thomas by some other editor could be seen as WP:ADVOCACY and purely vandalism to imply your beliefs

please revert to the older version by yourself or else this discussion will have to be brought up into WP:RFN Livingbeta (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:Livingbeta , do you even look into the claims? Your reply is purely biased, ignoring the facts I provided, and blatantly pushing a narrative without evidence. I warn you of WP:RFN escalation. Your history of intolerance and derogatory remarks against other editors is clear. Address this or face review. Sodacyanide (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sodacyanide I think its better to face a review because you seem to just write me off as bad, my arguments were given above, so do read it. Your argue of the of the apex court backing MOSC, but this article is not about whose right or wrong rather its a claim of the list of hierarchs sitting on which throne. if you take my statements at face value, WP:RFN is the best option, as you also have a history of advocating for the MOSC.

Please refrain from giving unwarranted warnings early on in the discussions, it should not be used as a tool of blind compliance Livingbeta (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

i am expecting a reply, as the current one isnt factually correct Livingbeta (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Livingbeta Provide references for your claim. Supreme court ruling clearly identifies rightful Malankara Metropolitan. You may edit Marthoma Metropolitans article too if your claims for these are valid Sodacyanide (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sodacyanide I thought I made myself clear when i said the Supreme court of India never identified any Malankara Metropolitan in the Mar Thoma Syrian church as righful, the court ruling you citied is about the JSC vs MOSC. It was you who claimed that the apex court backed the MOSC hierarch as being the rightful to that title even with regards to Mar Thoma church, so it is you who needs to provide me with sources which talk about the apex court ruling that Malankara metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is not rightful. I even gave you a logic statement to consider!

i am reminding you again this article is not about who got the backing from court, it is to list out churches who believe they're occupying an apostolic throne Livingbeta (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sodacyanide if you cannot substantiate to the above argument, the discussion is pointless, as seen in your earlier replies you seem to strongly advocate for the MOSC church and disregard other churches claims with irrelevant sources. hence it only makes sense to go back to the previous edit as your reversions can be considered as vandalism Livingbeta (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:Livingbeta Clearly, you haven't read the Court's ruling . It states "'The 1995 judgment arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as Res Judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to section 11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church." - K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orthodox Church, 2017. It confirms the decision made by the supreme court is applicable to MTSC as well.

About the claim throne of St.Thomas, all i did was reverting an edit which only included MTSC to its previous state while adding some clarity. It is you who removed MOSC’S claim to the throne and falsely accused me of removing a reference that didn't exist until you added it. Sodacyanide (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sodacyanide i guess you dint understand what i was stating from the start. the court ruling you cited is about the Malankara church involving the JSC and MOSC. The Mar Thoma Syrian church is not counted as one of those Malankara church in the ruling, hence their titles of that church is only limited to that church that's why they started officially calling it as the "Malankara""mar Thoma" metropolitan , they use two of these titles interchangeably. the citation is only valid to those claiming to the Malankara church of the OO faith, other churches have been recorded as excommunicated by the same court ruling. Hence only applicable to MOSC and JSC & any claimant to the Malankara church OO

again court rulings are subject to its jurisdiction and hence is not a universally accepted/applicable thing, but this point is irrelevant here though as the article is not about using the right terms based on who has recognition.

hope this clears your wrong interpretation of the verdict. do revert to the previous edit as no more points exist to be discussed that could be a point of contention. Livingbeta (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Livingbeta By the Court’s ruling, it’s evident that the office of Malankara Metropolitan is a legal ecclesiastical role governed strictly by the 1934 Constitution. The Court statement given above means any person or entity claiming authority over the Malankara Church or its offices, like Malankara Metropolitan, is bound by that judgment. The Mar Thoma Church is a separate denomination and does not function under the 1934 Constitution so it cannot claim the title in any legal sense.

'I won’t be reverting the edit and I stand by my position. At this point, continuing to challenge it seems less about engaging with the reliable sources and more about an unwillingness to accept what they clearly state. It feels like a resistance to sourced legal distinctions rather than a good-faith content discussion. I respect differing views, but trying to dismiss well established facts has become a futile effort at this stage'.Sodacyanide (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sodacyanide

1)Your making an argument loop by citing the same "apex court backing" argument and ignoring my arguments in the talk page. This can only be seen as WP:VAND of the article. I already stated (multiple times) that the Mar Thoma church is not mentioned as the Malankara church by the same court and the title used by the Mar Thoma church is only applicable to those of the Mar Thoma church as is believed by them, hence the apex court ruling in India is irrelevant and only remains to the jurisdiction of India. The official website of the Mar Thoma church refers their metropolitan as Malankara metropolitan which was citied in the article by my edits

FYR=" is headed by Most Rev. Dr. Theodosius Mar Thoma Metropolitan who is the 22nd Malankara Metropolitan"---------- Citing the backing of apex court & disregarding the fact that Mar Thoma church is not involved in the said court cases implies that your just WP:ADVOCACY for the MOSC church. Legality is not a norm in Wikipedia article AFAIK, rather its about reliable sources.

2)The removal of the belief that is long held and recognized by other churches even by that of the MOSC (Not disputed by the patriarchs of Antioch) that the Maphrain of the Syriac Orthodox church as successors of St Thomas(not sitting on throne of St Thomas) despite giving you a statement by Mor Gregorius Bar Hebraeus can be considered as WP:DE & Violation of WP:NPOV. With this regard i have notified for a WP:3O and will move to the ANI board when necessary. Livingbeta (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to express support for the points raised by @Livingbeta. Wikipedia’s purpose is not to enforce legal decisions or validate titles based on court rulings — especially when it comes to matters of religious identity, ecclesiastical tradition, or apostolic succession. These are fundamentally theological and historical issues that are often interpreted differently by various traditions.

Relying on a civil court ruling to determine how a church is referred to in an encyclopedia risks giving undue weight to a specific government’s legal framework, which may not be recognized or relevant in the wider ecclesiastical or global context. Throughout history, many secular governments — including colonial and modern states — have taken positions against certain Christian groups, or have interfered in internal church matters. We don’t cite those rulings as binding theological truth, and neither should we do so here.

Wikipedia articles must reflect how groups define themselves, as long as these claims are verifiable and sourced. The Mar Thoma Church refers to its primate as the “Malankara Metropolitan,” and that usage exists in reliable and official sources. Whether that title has legal standing under Indian constitutional law is a separate issue — and largely irrelevant for the purposes of a neutral encyclopedia entry.

In conclusion, asserting one group’s claim while dismissing others based on a national court’s interpretation undermines WP:NPOV. We should document each church’s self-understanding, provide context where needed, and let readers form their own conclusions — not enforce one side’s narrative via legalism. Halershes (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Halershes You made a fair point. All I asked the other editor was to provide enough references and if appropriate, update the Marthoma Metropolitans article as well. But as per WP:NOR and WP:V, editors can’t introduce the self claims of a specific church especially on contentious matters without reliable secondary or tertiary sources to support them. So I’m simply asking for those sources and make a proper edit. A legal document, such as a Supreme Court ruling, is a well-established and verifiable fact. Neutrality shouldn't mean avoiding it.

Also, here's an important info: on one official page of the Mar Thoma Church site (Overview), the primate is called the Malankara Metropolitan, on another (Bishop profile) , he’s referred to as the 22nd Mar Thoma Metropolitan. That concludes my point. Sodacyanide (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sodacyanide, I already gave you the source of the belief held by the Syriac Maphrain that they being the successors of St Thomas and not sitting in the throne of St Thomas on my reply dated 09:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

and with regards to the Mar Thoma churches prelate using two different titles as mentioned in your last para i have also given you the argument in my reply dated 18:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC), (they use Both titles inter changing)

Your refusal to accept this argument despite a third editors comment on the issue and to cite the same legal justification is deplorable and does not hold ground based on the Wikipedia policies that you cited as sources have been given and this is not a claim as they use it regularly

based on this discussion i will be rewriting the article on these two issues as a the discussions seems to be only advocacy by citing the legal documents and voicing for inclusion of only legal entities, reverting this edit again will lead me to leave a message in your talk page and move forward to the needed noticeboard. Livingbeta (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Independent sources also refer marthoma primate as 1 and 2 Marthoma Metropolitan. About maphrian, i suggest an edit with adding "previously" to the context as no references can be given for the current since the revival of maphrianate in 2002.

At this point, I feel the discussion isn’t progressing constructively. If you still disagree, feel free to take it to the relevant noticeboards so that others can help evaluate the issue with a broader perspective Sodacyanide (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)