Always in Communion with Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mardukm

Guest
I just read about an hierarch in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church claiming that his Church has had unbroken union with Rome since its founding 2000 years ago.

Aside from the Maronite Church, this is the first I have ever heard of another Church making such a prodigeous (and wonderful, IMHO) claim.

Any comments?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I just read about an hierarch in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church claiming that his Church has had unbroken union with Rome since its founding 2000 years ago.

Aside from the Maronite Church, this is the first I have ever heard of another Church making such a prodigeous (and wonderful, IMHO) claim.

Any comments?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I seem to recall having heard that claim made some years ago, but I don’t believe it’s technically accurate. If it were accurate, it seems to me there would have been no formal reunification, and would probably have been a simple “recognition” as was the case with the Maronites.

Its true, of course, that the Syro-Malabar Church (along with the Syro-Malankara Church as well) traces its origin to St Thomas. It’s also true, though, that the Syro-Malabar Church was part of what became the Assyrian Church of the East, (its liturgical tradition is testament to that), but then again the ACoE had little to do directly with Kerala, especially in later years. Nonetheless, it was a part of it so when the ACoE fell away from union, so did its daughter in Kerala.

On the other hand, it is true as well that the Portuguese met little or no resistance when the official unification came about in the 16th century. From that, perhaps the idea of “unbroken unity” comes from something like this: since Selucia-Ctesiphon was rather far removed in later days and the Syro-Malabars were left to their own devices, they interpreted their position to be in “union” with Rome since it was in union at the very beginning, and ignored what the “mother church” (ACoE) eventually did. If one looks at it that way, I suppose one could draw that conclusion, but I still contend it’s technically inaccurate.

Anyway, it’s just an observation.
 
The *Syro-Malankara Church and the Syro-Malabar Church have stated on numerous occasions that the Church in Malankara/Malabar has always been Catholic. As a Malankara Catholic, I’m not entirely sure if I believe those statements.

Basically every church in Malankara proclaims that they are the true descendants of the Ancient Church in Malankara. Unfortunately, widespread destruction of our historical documents had been destroyed by the Portuguese and the Jesuits in the 15th and 16th centuries.

The gist of the Catholic argument is that the Church in Malankara was united and undivided until 1653 when the forerunners of the Malankara Catholic and Malankara Orthodox (and Jacobites) protested Latin and Portuguese domination by re-exerting their independence. This is argubably true, but the Indians were put between a rock and a hard place. Eventually, the non-Catholic portion of the now divided Indian Church became associated with the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

The Catholics claim the Church was always Catholic (similar to how the Maronites were always in union with Rome), the Orthodox claim the Church always had ties w/ the West Syrian Church and historians currently say the Church was closer to the East Syrian Church and was probably Nestorian. The Catholics claim that the Malankara forefathers would have not welcomed Latin Portuguese under the Pope as brothers in Christ if it was not for the fact they viewed Malankara as an integral part of the undivided Catholic Church. So the argument goes if the Church welcomed the Latins with open arms and extended communion to them, they must have realized that they were in communion with the Church of Rome and thus always had been Catholic.

I can fill in more details about the Malankara Church for anyone that wishes to learn.

Thanks,
*
Georgee
 
My understanding is that the Syro-Malankar union dates only to 1930 and the initiative of Mar Ivanios.
 
bpbasilphx said:
My understanding is that the Syro-Malankar union dates only to 1930 and the initiative of Mar Ivanios.
Click to expand...
Yes, my understanding is exactly the same. The official Syro-Malabar union dates from the 16th century.
 
malphono said:
Yes, my understanding is exactly the same. The official Syro-Malabar union dates from the 16th century.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s correct. The Syro-Malankara Church reunited with Rome in 1930 in an attempt to preserve our traditions while preventing the overbearing influence of the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch on the Malankara Church.

The Indian Church was officially brought under the control of the Latins/Jesuits in 1599 through the local council of Diamper. The ones who claim the Ancient Indian Church was always Catholic say that the Church was unofficially(at the very least) in communion with Rome and thus Catholic. In other words, communion with Rome until 1599 and under Roman domination post-1599.
 
I believe that the Italo-Albanian Byzantine Church has always remained in communion with Rome.
 
JMJ_coder said:
I believe that the Italo-Albanian Byzantine Church has always remained in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Good catch. Yes that’s true, though I generally think of it by its other moniker (i.e., Italo-Greek). Either way, it’s the same thing. I suppose it often gets overlooked because of its small size.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top