The Pope s original statement given out at St.

Peter s, before it was amended on the Vatican website, was factually correct and reflected the geography of the Acts of Thomas, i.e. Syria, Parthia (Persia/Iran) and Gandhara (North-West Pakistan). There is no historical evidence to support the tradition that St. Thomas came t o South India, and on 13 November 1952 Vatican officials sent a message to Keral a Christians stating that the landing of St. Thomas at Muziris (Cranganore now K odungallur) on 21 November 52 AD was unverified . When this writer sought confirmat ion of the 1952 Vatican statement in 1996, the Vatican s reply was disingenuous an d non-committal. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints said t hat he needed more information and that the life of St. Thomas was the object of historical research and not within his Congregation s competence.[2] Earlier, in 1729, the Bishop of Madras-Mylapore had doubted whether the tomb in San Thome Cathedral was that of St. Thomas and wrote to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Rome for clarification. Rome s reply was never published and we may as sume it was a negative reply. Again, in 1871 the Roman Catholic authorities at M adras were strong in disparagement of the special sanctity of the localities [viz . San Thome, Little Mount, and Big Mount identified by the Portuguese after 1517 ] and the whole story connecting St. Thomas with Mailapur. However, in 1886 Pope Leo XIII stated in an apostolic letter that St. Thomas travelled to Ethiopia, Per sia, Hyrcania and finally to the Peninsula beyond the Indus , and in 1923 Pope Piu s XI quoted Pope Leo s letter and identified St. Thomas with India . These papal stat ements also reflect the geography of the Acts of Thomas, as does Pope Benedict s s tatement, and make no reference to South India. In fact, the India they refer to is now Pakistan. Pope John Paul II visited India twice in 1986 and 1999 and prayed at the alleged tomb of St. Thomas in San Thome Cathedral, but, like St. Francis Xavier before him, he had nothing to say about St. Thomas s visit to South India or Mylapore in the first century. This is a curious omission on the Pope s part in that he was an ardent missionary who openly promoted the evangelising of India and Asia, and a statement from him confirming a visit by St. Thomas to South India would have c ertainly supported his agenda and that of his Indian bishops. Notes As quoted in Deccan Chronicle, Chennai, of 23 November 2006, under the title Pope angers Christians in Kerala . Our letter to the Prefect, Sacred Congregation of Rites, Vatican City, dated 26 August 1996, read: I am doing research on St. Thomas in India and have learne d that your office issued a letter on November 13, 1952 which stated that the la nding of St. Thomas at Cranganore in 53 AD is unverified. I would like to know i f in fact the said letter was issued and, if that is not the case, whether you c an confirm that St. Thomas was martyred and buried in Madras. I would be most gr ateful if you could direct me to any authentic evidence supporting the story of St. Thomas in India. The reply from the Prefect, Sacred Congregation for the Caus es of Saints, Rome, dated 11 September 1996, read: This Congregation for the Caus es of Saints has received your letter of 26th August last in which you have aske d for information regarding Saint Thomas presence in India. We have not found in our Archives the letter supposedly written by this Congregation on 13th November 1952, of which you speak, because of a lack of more precise data (Diocese, dest ination, etc.). Nor do we have other data regarding Saint Thomas since this Arch ive was begun in 1588. His life is the object of the research of historians whic h is not the particular competence of this Congregation. This reply was a brush o ff. The Prefect knew what we were asking for and could have located the 1952 Vat ican letter in a few minutes if he wished to.