Assyrian Bishop, Five Priests and Thousands of Faithful Celebrate Reception into the Catholic Church

[ronyodish]

Read the following:

catholicose.org/PauloseII/Catholicate.htm

josethomas2005,

I came across this diagram in a pamphlet called: A Brief Explanation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, published by the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma:



This diagram shows the perspective of our Churches of the East, Chaldean/Assyrian/Ancient/Malabarese, which shows that our apostolic succession, origin, and tradition comes directly from the mother and apostolic Church in Jerusalem, by way of the Persian Empire and the See of Celeusia Ctesiphon, and not by way of the Roman Empire and the See of Antioch.

I realize that the Antiochene perspective is a little different from us, and that’s fine, but with respect to our Antiochene brethren, we must insist that the above is how we view ourselves. We do not consider Antioch as our mother Church, rather, Jerusalem is our mother and the origin of our Churches of the East.

God bless,

Rony

 

[SyroMalankara]

Rony,

The Churches of the East do recognize that their Catholicate was at one time hierarchically dependant on the Patriarch at Antioch, do they not?

It wasn’t until relatively recently that the Catholicos became Catholicos-Patriarch and then dropped the Catholicos title altogether and simply began calling itself a Patriarchal Church…

Interestingly, this would lend some support to some Malankara claims that state that the Syriac supported Catholicate was moved to Kerala…

Also, that chart should show the historical dependency that the Malankara Catholic/Orthodox Churches had on the Assyrian/Chaldean Church, possibly with dashes, similar to the Melkite bubble.

 

[mardukm]

Rony,

The Churches of the East do recognize that their Catholicate was at one time hierarchically dependant on the Patriarch at Antioch, do they not?

It wasn’t until relatively recently that the Catholicos became Catholicos-Patriarch and then dropped the Catholicos title altogether and simply began calling itself a Patriarchal Church…

Interestingly, this would lend some support to some Malankara claims that state that the Syriac supported Catholicate was moved to Kerala…

Also, that chart should show the historical dependency that the Malankara Catholic/Orthodox Churches had on the Assyrian/Chaldean Church, possibly with dashes, similar to the Melkite bubble.

Is being “in communion” equivalent to being “hierarchically dependent?”

After reading through the thread (though rather quickely, I must admit), it seems there is historic proof that the Assyrian/Chaldean Church broke communion from the See of Antioch at some time, but I don’t see any proof that they were “hierarchically dependent.”

Or perhaps I missed it?

Blessings

 

[malphono]

Is being “in communion” equivalent to being “hierarchically dependent?”

After reading through the thread (though rather quickely, I must admit), it seems there is historic proof that the Assyrian/Chaldean Church broke communion from the See of Antioch at some time, but I don’t see any proof that they were “hierarchically dependent.”

The term “hierarchical dependence” here is a bit of a sticky-wicket, and I tend to agree that there is little (if anything) to suggest that Selucia-Ctesiphon was “dependent” on Antioch for anything. Taking the political reality of the time into consideration, it would actually make more sense that it was not. Plus, while they spring from a common source and while there remain common elements, the East and West Syriac Traditions developed in parallel and, I might add, quite differently. I suppose would could say they are co-lateral branches of the same family.

If there was any “hierarchical dependence” it would seem to have been no more than a technical matter, (something along the lines of, but more so than, the Armenians). And even that ceased to exist, (if it ever did exist), quite early on. Taken all together, it seems fair to put de jure speculations aside and look at the de facto situation.

Just my :twocents:

 

[ronyodish]

The Churches of the East do recognize that their Catholicate was at one time hierarchically dependant on the Patriarch at Antioch, do they not?

SyroMalankara,

In another thread, I brought up what H.G. Mar Bawai has written in his book:

“Since the Church of the East was closer to Antioch than to the other Metropolitan Sees, it came to be as if the church in Persia had no prerogative of its own, that it branched out from and was dependent upon Antioch.” (pg. 14). This is the premise that he tries to argue against, that is, the premise which gave our church no prerogative of her own, that it branched out of Antioch, and was dependent upon Antioch.

So, I would answer your question in the negative, if by the term dependent, you mean the same thing as what Mar Bawai means by it. Basically, our position is that since we never branched out of Antioch, then we were never dependent upon Antioch. Our existence and history was not depended upon the existence and history of Antioch. We originated from Jerusalem, and Antioch originated from Jerusalem. We were autonomous from Antioch.

However, if by the term dependent, you mean a bond of communion and peace, then yes, in the early centuries, the bishops and later Catholicos of the Church of the East were in a bond of communion and peace with Antioch (and the rest of the West). Likewise, if by the term dependent, you mean the “right of appeal”, then yes, we do have the example of Mar Papa bar Gaggai, when he appealed to the “Western” bishops for support and intervention during his own crisis with the bishops of the East. Mar Papa did this because he recognized that he was not cut off from the rest of the body of the universal Church.

For us in the Persian East, the major See of Antioch and the other smaller bishoprics in the Eastern Roman Empire served as a bridge (for lack of a better term) with the rest of the Western Sees in the Roman Empire. The major events of the West were communicated to us by way of the representatives of Antioch (like the event of Nicaea), and we then made our official decisions upon those events, often years after the fact (For example, we officially accepted Nicaea 85 years after the fact).

It was not until the Synod of Dadisho in 424, that this right of appeal to the West was suspended. I believe that this synod is the point of the beginning of the departure and isolation of the Church of the East from the bond of ecclesial communion with the Churches in the Roman Empire. This is a widely accepted position, though not by all scholars. Lack of an appeal to the other Patriarchates isolates one from the rest of his brethren in the universal Church.

It wasn’t until relatively recently that the Catholicos became Catholicos-Patriarch and then dropped the Catholicos title altogether and simply began calling itself a Patriarchal Church…

The title of Patriarch was used early on in the history of our Church of the East. In the 6th century, the historian Mshikha-zkha describes the letter that the Western bishops sent to Mar Papa after he appealed to them, and in their reply to him, they mentioned that just as there were many patriarchs in the West (Roman Empire), so there ought to be a patriarch in the East (Persian Empire). Currently, each of the three patriarchal Churches of the East (the Chaldean Church, the Assyrian Church, and the Ancient Church), continues to use the full title of Catholicos-Patriarch for its respective chief hierarch.

Interestingly, this would lend some support to some Malankara claims that state that the Syriac supported Catholicate was moved to Kerala…

For the Antiochene perspective, these claims would be consistent, I guess, though I would say it would be more consistent for the perspective to consider the Syriac Orthodox Catholicate in Iraq (Tikrit/Mosul) from 559 (Which began with Ahudemmeh) to 1859 (which ended with Behnam VI). After this period, the claims for India can then make more sense for the perspective.

Also, that chart should show the historical dependency that the Malankara Catholic/Orthodox Churches had on the Assyrian/Chaldean Church, possibly with dashes, similar to the Melkite bubble.

Like all diagrams, this one can be further improved. Perhaps, the Malankara bubble should say something like: Malankarese of the Assyrian-Chaldean tradition, but now follow the Antiochene tradition.

God bless,

Rony

 

[ronyodish]

1859 (which ended with Behnam VI)

The above should say: Behnam IV, sorry for the typo.

God bless,

Rony

 

[josethomas2005]

SyroMalankara,

In another thread, I brought up what H.G. Mar Bawai has written in his book:

“Since the Church of the East was closer to Antioch than to the other Metropolitan Sees, it came to be as if the church in Persia had no prerogative of its own, that it branched out from and was dependent upon Antioch.” (pg. 14). This is the premise that he tries to argue against, that is, the premise which gave our church no prerogative of her own, that it branched out of Antioch, and was dependent upon Antioch.

So, I would answer your question in the negative, if by the term dependent, you mean the same thing as what Mar Bawai means by it. Basically, our position is that since we never branched out of Antioch, then we were never dependent upon Antioch. Our existence and history was not depended upon the existence and history of Antioch. We originated from Jerusalem, and Antioch originated from Jerusalem. We were autonomous from Antioch.

However, if by the term dependent, you mean a bond of communion and peace, then yes, in the early centuries, the bishops and later Catholicos of the Church of the East were in a bond of communion and peace with Antioch (and the rest of the West). Likewise, if by the term dependent, you mean the “right of appeal”, then yes, we do have the example of Mar Papa bar Gaggai, when he appealed to the “Western” bishops for support and intervention during his own crisis with the bishops of the East. Mar Papa did this because he recognized that he was not cut off from the rest of the body of the universal Church.

For us in the Persian East, the major See of Antioch and the other smaller bishoprics in the Eastern Roman Empire served as a bridge (for lack of a better term) with the rest of the Western Sees in the Roman Empire. The major events of the West were communicated to us by way of the representatives of Antioch (like the event of Nicaea), and we then made our official decisions upon those events, often years after the fact (For example, we officially accepted Nicaea 85 years after the fact).

It was not until the Synod of Dadisho in 424, that this right of appeal to the West was suspended. I believe that this synod is the point of the beginning of the departure and isolation of the Church of the East from the bond of ecclesial communion with the Churches in the Roman Empire. This is a widely accepted position, though not by all scholars. Lack of an appeal to the other Patriarchates isolates one from the rest of his brethren in the universal Church.

The title of Patriarch was used early on in the history of our Church of the East. In the 6th century, the historian Mshikha-zkha describes the letter that the Western bishops sent to Mar Papa after he appealed to them, and in their reply to him, they mentioned that just as there were many patriarchs in the West (Roman Empire), so there ought to be a patriarch in the East (Persian Empire). Currently, each of the three patriarchal Churches of the East (the Chaldean Church, the Assyrian Church, and the Ancient Church), continues to use the full title of Catholicos-Patriarch for its respective chief hierarch.

For the Antiochene perspective, these claims would be consistent, I guess, though I would say it would be more consistent for the perspective to consider the Syriac Orthodox Catholicate in Iraq (Tikrit/Mosul) from 559 (Which began with Ahudemmeh) to 1859 (which ended with Behnam VI). After this period, the claims for India can then make more sense for the perspective.

Like all diagrams, this one can be further improved. Perhaps, the Malankara bubble should say something like: Malankarese of the Assyrian-Chaldean tradition, but now follow the Antiochene tradition.

God bless,

Rony

I found there were a lot of quarrels between assyrian and syriac orthodox until the beginning of the last century. That may be the reason why assyrians do not accept that once they were under Antioch.
Also I may want to know when Patriarchate of antioch began using syriac as their language. I think the language used in the Patriarchate of antioch was Greek at least until 5th century till the time of Patriarch, St Severus. Then how it changed to Syriac. From Syro malankara’s post, it is found that both Greek and Syriac were used in the Patriarchate of Antioch. At the time of Jacob burdana what was the language used for liturgies. I want to know whether the Syriac orthodox adopted syriac from Persian church or Syriac was also a language used in the Patriarchate.
Also I found that the Antiochean liturgy or West syriac liturgy are very similar to East syriac liturgy. It is revealed from Syro malankara’s post. Then how Persian church can claim that they were independent? If we think of Addai and Mari, they were in the generation of our Lord or next generation. It cannot be believed for East syriac. If I thell that East syriac liturgy or liturgy of Persian church was just adopted from Antiochean liturgy, is it correct?
I said that greek was the language of antiochian patriarhate up to 5th century. Then what was the liturgy used? If patriarchate used both syriac and greek, then what about the liturgy. Were they same even if 2 languages were used?
Also I found in your post that Jerusalem is the mother of all churches. But I read that church of Antioch is the mother and head of all churches as per Antiochean tradition. Which one is right?
I found that all the churches in the east of the world was under Antioch in first centuries. Then Persian church can be under Antioch.
The syriac orthodox church says that it was their missionaries who went to China, India and Korea. But Persian church says that they had gone to India, China and Korea. Which claim is right?

 

[malphono]

Also I may want to know when Patriarchate of antioch began using syriac as their language. I think the language used in the Patriarchate of antioch was Greek at least until 5th century till the time of Patriarch, St Severus. Then how it changed to Syriac. From Syro malankara’s post, it is found that both Greek and Syriac were used in the Patriarchate of Antioch. At the time of Jacob burdana what was the language used for liturgies. I want to know whether the Syriac orthodox adopted syriac from Persian church or Syriac was also a language used in the Patriarchate.

Antioch was bi-lingual, so the answer is both. The “elite” were almost all city folk who, of course, used Greek. The rest were the non-elite who used Aramaic (Syriac).

 

[ronyodish]

josethomas2005,

Before I attempt some answers, I want to say that it is best to ask the Antiochenes themselves (Catholic and/or Orthodox) for their understanding of their own early history and tradition in the great See of Antioch. I am not an Antiochene, I am an Assyro-Chaldean, therefore my perspective is colored by the particular tradition which we inherited from the Church of the East. Having said that, here is my attempted answers:

I found there were a lot of quarrels between assyrian and syriac orthodox until the beginning of the last century. That may be the reason why assyrians do not accept that once they were under Antioch.

We do not accept that we were once under Antioch, because we accept our particular Church of the East as being from Jerusalem, established by the missionary activity of St. Thomas (and others) in the Parthian Empire. Antioch was in the Roman Empire, founded and physically served by St. Peter, before he eventually went on to Rome itself, and died there. There is no convincing demonstrative evidence that St. Peter ever physically served with us (like how some people maintain, based on 1 Peter 5:13, referencing Babylon). However, we do include his name in honor of his foundational role among the other Apostles, not because he has any dates of physical ministry in our apostolic succession list, but because he serves as a link of communion with the rest of the Apostles and their Churches to the West.

Also I may want to know when Patriarchate of antioch began using syriac as their language. I think the language used in the Patriarchate of antioch was Greek at least until 5th century till the time of Patriarch, St Severus. Then how it changed to Syriac. From Syro malankara’s post, it is found that both Greek and Syriac were used in the Patriarchate of Antioch. At the time of Jacob burdana what was the language used for liturgies. I want to know whether the Syriac orthodox adopted syriac from Persian church or Syriac was also a language used in the Patriarchate.

Malphono responded to this paragraph.

Also I found that the Antiochean liturgy or West syriac liturgy are very similar to East syriac liturgy. It is revealed from Syro malankara’s post. Then how Persian church can claim that they were independent? If we think of Addai and Mari, they were in the generation of our Lord or next generation. It cannot be believed for East syriac. If I thell that East syriac liturgy or liturgy of Persian church was just adopted from Antiochean liturgy, is it correct?

Yes, there are similarities between the two liturgies, but then again, there are similarities between all liturgies! Bishop Mar Sarhad wrote on the structure and historical background of the anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari, and made a comparison with the Antiochene Maronite anaphora of Peter III (or Sharrar). In the conclusion, the third paragraph says the following: “This conclusion is not only of relevance to the Chaldean liturgy, especially in the prospect of a liturgical reform, but also to the history of the Assyro-Chaldean Church of the East as a whole, where this eucharistic prayer is still very much in use, because it adds a liturgical argument in favor of the apostolicity of the Mesopotamian Church, the Assyro-Chaldean Church of the East. It shows as well the originality of its liturgical usages as being in direct connection with Jerusalem, independently of Antioch. Therefore, the attribution to Addai and Mari, the Apostles of the East, is not to be considered a mere honorary title.”

So, our liturgy has a direct connection with Jerusalem, and is independent of Antioch. The attribution of this liturgy to Sts. Addai and Mari is not to be understood in a merely honorary way. Mar Mari was sent to missionarize in Mesopotamia, and brought us the liturgy. Christianity in Mesopotamia began in the first century, and our liturgy has its roots there at that time. We don’t agree that our liturgy was adopted from the liturgy in Antioch.

I said that greek was the language of antiochian patriarhate up to 5th century. Then what was the liturgy used? If patriarchate used both syriac and greek, then what about the liturgy. Were they same even if 2 languages were used?

Again, the Antiochenes themselves would know more about their own liturgical history, but for a short answer, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, this is what it says: “The family of liturgies originally used in the Patriarchate of Antioch begins with that of the Apostolic Constitutions; then follow that of St. James in Greek, the Syrian Liturgy of St. James, and the other Syrian Anaphorus”.

 

[ronyodish]

Continued…

Also I found in your post that Jerusalem is the mother of all churches. But I read that church of Antioch is the mother and head of all churches as per Antiochean tradition. Which one is right?I found that all the churches in the east of the world was under Antioch in first centuries. Then Persian church can be under Antioch.

Yes, we would say that Jerusalem is the mother of our particular Church of the East, and also the origin and mother of Christianity in general, because Jesus and the Apostles came from Jerusalem. Without Jerusalem and Israel, there would be no Christianity. As for Antioch, we consider her as our sister, not our mother. So, I would respectively disagree with the position that says that Antioch is the mother and head of all the Churches, and consequently, with the position that says that all the Churches in the east of the world were under Antioch in the first centuries (including, and especially, the Church in the Parthian or Persian Empire).

The syriac orthodox church says that it was their missionaries who went to China, India and Korea. But Persian church says that they had gone to India, China and Korea. Which claim is right?

The Church of the East, located in the Persian Empire, missionarized the far East (India, China, etc.), beginning with the foundational apostolic missions of St. Thomas. Before the divisions that occurred among the St. Thomas Christians, the tradition that they inherited was the tradition of the Church of the East. The Church of the East grew to a huge extent in numbers. Mar Bawai explains in his book: “by the fifth Century it had outnumbered (and out sized) the Patriarchate of Antioch. By the dawn of the tenth Century, the Church of Mesopotamia had already spread beyond Western Persia and India all the way to China and Japan, outgrowing the total combined area in which the Byzantine and the Latin traditions both existed” (pg. 15).

Having said that, there was also a small presence of Jewish Christians in India, known as the Knanaya Christians. They were descendants of 72 families who migrated from Edessa, Israel, and Syria, to Malabar India in 345, under the leadership of Knai Thomman. They had with them a Syriac bishop named Mar Joseph and deacons, and were instructed by the Patriarch of Antioch.

So, in the early centuries, there was also some presence of Antiochenes (or of Antiochene origin) there in the far east, but the overwhelming majority of the Christians there over the centuries were those of the Church of the East, with its Catholicate-Patriarchal See at Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

God bless,

Rony

 

[SyroMalankara]

Rony,

It should be noted that there is disagreement within the Knanaya Community whether Knai Thoma was from the East Syriac or West Syriac Church.

indianchristianity.org/knanaya.html

On the other hand, the following account makes it seem as though the Patriarch of Antioch recognizes the Persian Catholicate as autocephalous, and directs Knai Thoma to India:

drsusanjacob.jesusanswers.com/photo2.html

 

[ronyodish]

SyroMalankara,

Thanks for the note and the two links.

God bless,

Rony

 

[marymol]

If I may add some musings to the above scholarly (name removed by moderator)uts , even as someone who is not at all in the above league …and this , in case there are others who too may be misunderstood as anti tradition , for the wrong reasons …

And these are just musings , since unlikely that the real history may not come to light yet on the history to Chaldean related St.Thomas Malabar Church …

What is puzzling is why the Malabar Church had to resort to get Bishops from Persia ,may be at a much later date , even though there seems to be enough history to support the fact that St.Thomas had possibly consecrated Bishop for the Malabar Church …hence , would her real tradition not be all local …

And the use of Liturgical langauge …it is in all likelihood that St.Thomas had used the local dialect for the Liturgy …

Hence, how could Syriac be claimed as an authentic tradition …the reason for the discomfort with Syriac has been , for the laity it has been such an unfamiliar , alien tongue (thank God it is not used much anymore except for the many phrases for the rubrics etc and use of Syriac also seems to have introduced some disrespectful terms - ( 'avan , nee ’ etc :for those who follow the native Malayalam , to address our Lord ! ) …this is justified as based on Syriac tradition which seems so farfetched since Syriac, also as an Arabic tongue has very respectful terms for their major religious figure !

Could it have been the later arrivals and Syriac connectiona that swayed things in that direction …and compounded , possibly by lack of celibate men, in the midst of a very hindu culture that also possibly influenced the lack of conversions ( priests having to care for families possibly meant not much time left for other duties …and ? had to passivly accept Syriac ! )

The sympathies for Latin Church is often from latter being blamed for all or most problems of Malabar Church…and that seems unfair …and there are many who are all for reverntial practices , such as priests facing the Altar …and keeping good devotions …
Well , we do have a very good and wise ArchBishop to lead us , who seems not afraid of labels zenit.org/article-21743?l=english and would be helping this Eastern most Eastern Church and hopefully others to follow , to all that is good and true !

Peace !

 

[SyroMalankara]

What is puzzling is why the Malabar Church had to resort to get Bishops from Persia ,may be at a much later date , even though there seems to be enough history to support the fact that St.Thomas had possibly consecrated Bishop for the Malabar Church …hence , would her real tradition not be all local …

There is no record of any Bishop having been consecrated by St. Thomas in India - there is historical proof that the Indian Church was administered by an Archdeacon.

And the use of Liturgical langauge …it is in all likelihood that St.Thomas had used the local dialect for the Liturgy …

? - where is proof that St. Thomas spoke Malayalam? Infact, none of the Indian Churches used Malayalam until fairly recently… so?

Hence, how could Syriac be claimed as an authentic tradition …the reason for the discomfort with Syriac has been , for the laity it has been such an unfamiliar , alien tongue (thank God it is not used much anymore except for the many phrases for the rubrics etc

The Malankara Church uses Syriac almost every Sunday, as does the Syro-Malabar Archdiocese of Changanacherry, and the Orthodox Churches and the Chaldean-Syrian Church.

and use of Syriac also seems to have introduced some disrespectful terms - ( 'avan , nee ’ etc :for those who follow the native Malayalam , to address our Lord ! ) …this is justified as based on Syriac tradition which seems so farfetched since Syriac, also as an Arabic tongue has very respectful terms for their major religious figure !

How is avan, nee, etc based on Syriac tradition? Our Lord is title Moran Mor or Maran Mar in Syriac -

Check out this link:
journalost.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/malayalam-of-you/

“Nee” in Malayalam is from ‘Nee’ in Tamil - in Tamil the word is quite respectful!

Could it have been the later arrivals and Syriac connectiona that swayed things in that direction …and compounded , possibly by lack of celibate men, in the midst of a very hindu culture that also possibly influenced the lack of conversions ( priests having to care for families possibly meant not much time left for other duties …and ? had to passivly accept Syriac ! )

That is quite a stretch, with no proof of anything… Wasn’t Knai Thoma married? Were not most of the priests that Mar Joseph of Urfa ordained also married? They converted many Hindus and Jews to Christianity…

The sympathies for Latin Church is often from latter being blamed for all or most problems of Malabar Church…and that seems unfair …and there are many who are all for reverntial practices , such as priests facing the Altar …and keeping good devotions …

I don’t see why complimenting one Church has to result in the denigration of another… The Latin Church did succeed in converting many people who were not reached by the Malabar Church, but canonically they should have given the administrative role to the local Malabar Church. But in any case, why should be blame the legitimate customs of the Malabar or Syriac Churches and put them in opposition to the Latin Church??

Well , we do have a very good and wise ArchBishop to lead us , who seems not afraid of labels zenit.org/article-21743?l=english and would be helping this Eastern most Eastern Church and hopefully others to follow , to all that is good and true !

Fortunately our Pope is also wise and knows that agreeing to that title at this point in history, without proper catechesis for all, will result in unnecessary scandal and many being led astray.

 

[marymol]

Thank you for taking time to respond in detail.
True , there is controversy and 'lack of proof ’ other than certain oral traditions in much of our history .
ayrookuzhiyil.org/pakalomattam.html

Thr above may be one such tradition regarding the Bishops being from the Pakalomattam Family line.
As to Syriac being sited as the reason for our use of Nee etc ; such was the explanation given by an authority and proponent of Syriac in Liturgy ;
even so, it is hard to see how such terms could not be rather an occasion of scandal or disrespect esp. for nonChristians and may be it is time that we heed to that verse - ‘if your eye causes you to …’
Would St.Thomas have been blessed with the ( not uncommon even in these days !) miraculous charism of knowing our dialect ! Very likely …’ My yoke is light …’ and all that time learning Syriac spent on better grasp of scripture …preaching The Word …

As to the other points - well, let it rest for now , in favor of your opinions ,if so needed …

Peace !

 

[SyroMalankara]

As to Syriac being sited as the reason for our use of Nee etc ; such was the explanation given by an authority and proponent of Syriac in Liturgy ;
even so, it is hard to see how such terms could not be rather an occasion of scandal or disrespect esp. for nonChristians and may be it is time that we heed to that verse - ‘if your eye causes you to …’

Who is this authority, and what context are they saying this?

‘Nee’ is not a Syriac word, neither is ‘avan’ … both are Malayalam words that came out of Tamil.

In addition, it has been stated that the term “nee”, for example, has respectful connotations in one region of Kerala, while not as respectful in others. Why should we change the word in the Liturgy, before even deciding among ourselves what term to use as respectful? In addition, using the Syriac word instead of Malayalam would have alleviated the problem altogether, as Syriac is not a spoken language in Kerala - the meaning does not change. Malayalam will change as time passes - should we change the words of the Holy Qurbana every few years to update the latest trends?

We should modernize the language to some extent, but not until the word’s meaning have settled - otherwise we will be playing catchup every few years to fit the fad.

Would St.Thomas have been blessed with the ( not uncommon even in these days !) miraculous charism of knowing our dialect ! Very likely …’ My yoke is light …’ and all that time learning Syriac spent on better grasp of scripture …preaching The Word …

Maybe he did, but perhaps God blessed him with the miraculous charism of being understood even when speaking Aramaic/Hebrew! A miracle so amazing, the local Christians were so enthralled with his language so much so that they learned it themselves - using it regularly up to the 18th Century (even to this day)! He was even able to convert the local Jews, who spoke his mother tongue, to Christianity!

A historical point should be noted, the ancient Bibles in Kerala are Peshitho – the Syriac Bible. They exist to this very day. The Malayalam Bible - translated from the Syriac - only came into existence in the last 2 centuries.

 

[marymol]

Thank you again , esp. for bringing up the historyand use of the Peshitho ; as to the connection of use of ’ Nee’ etc:, it was explained as the East Syriac custom , related to the intimacy with our Lord ! ( does not seem necessary to reveal the identity of the person , esp. since his authority in same may not be much better than yours !)

True, Syriac, as a Liturgical language and more so as a derivative of Aramaic - our Lord’s own langauge , is to be respected .

Yet, if such strict literal affinity to its traditions can be issues in our culture , seems that would get more attention !

’ My Lord and my God ’ - our true patrimony of reverence for the Holy Name !

As to what language was used by St.Thomas , again , would not want to argue about either possibilties other than being grateful that it is good to be able to participate in our beautiful liturgy in our langauge and to remember all the traditions that have formulated same , all the time and thoughtful efforts that have gone into trying to ensure fidelity …as participation in the worship of Heaven …and as taught to the disciples by our Lord Himself , after the Resurrection ,as per ( ? T ) tradition …

God Bless !

 

[josethomas2005]

First we must find out when this language malayalam came in to existence. I think the language used in Kerala was Tamil or Pahlavi centuries ago. In my knowledge the letters of malayalam came only 2 or 3 centuries before. I want to know what was the language used here when Portuguese came? Then a large number of ancient documents were burned by the Portuguese including Peshito bible. This bible belonged to whom?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think the language used when the Portugese arrived in India - 15th Century - was somewhere between Middle Malayalam and Modern Malayalam.

One thing to keep in mind is that Malayalam was influenced not only by the Portuguese, but by Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, Latin, French, English and possible others. And let’s not forget about Manipravalam, created by Malayalam and Sanskrit mixing.

Then a large number of ancient documents were burned by the Portuguese including Peshito bible. This bible belonged to whom?

The Pesheeto belongs to all Syrian Christians, those of us who look to our father St. Thomas.

 

[antgaria]

Rony… I go away for a little while and in that short time, you pick up and say what I, given a long while, could not say. Thank you. Are you down south yet?

Thank you SyroMalankara as well, not just for your sensitivity to our tradition but also for your contribution of knowledge.