Councils & Eastern Catholic Churches

[SyroMalankara]

I think I understand what you mean yet would it please be alright to ask you to clarify?

You said that you accept 3 Ecumenical Councils as the Oriental Orthodox (which makes sense seeing the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is of the West Syriac tradition). Does this mean you venerate St Dioscorus of Alexandria and St Severus of Antioch?
If so, how do you reconcile the fact that the Council of Chalcedon deposed St Dioscorus and later councils condemned him along with St Severus, while still accepting those later councils as “proper and authoritative” (to borrow your words)?

Both the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East are of the view that the Council of Chalcedon contradicted the Council of Ephesus. (This is one of the few things the pair seem to agree on.) If you hold to a miaphysic christological position, how do you reconcile this with the Council of Chalcedon and later councils?

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut also

I personally venerate both. Dioscorus is not publicly venerated on the Malankara Catholic calendar today, but private veneration remains, as does His Memory - bishops have been named “Mor Dioscorus” in his honor upon ordination.

As to to Severios, there’s no getting away from this Saint, at least in the Malankara Syriac or any Syriac Tradition really. St. Severios wrote much of our Liturgy, we sing many of his composed hymns. Even the Byzantine Churches sing the O Monogenes, which they incorrectly attribute to Justinian, was actually written by Severios.

Another interesting tidbit I wrote a few years ago:
When Pope John Paul II visited India in Feb 1986, the Syro-Malankara Church published an official text of the Holy Qurbono, with both the Anaphoro of Mar James the Apostle and the Anaphoro of the Twelve Apostles. One of the “thubden” (Great Intercession) - #5 - the Canon of the Holy Doctors of the Church is as follows:

Deacon: Barekmor. Again we commemorate those who have fallen asleep in holiness and are at rest and have kept undefiled the Apostolic Faith and delivered it to us. We proclaim the venerable and holy ecumenical Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon and others and the illustrious and God-fearing Fathers and orthodox teachers present there. And we remember James the Holy Apostle and martyr, first Bishop of Jerusalem and the saints Ignatius, Clement, Dionysius, Athanasius, Julius, Baselios, Gregorios, Ivanios, and the illustrious St. Cyril, who expounded the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that God the Word became flesh; and we commemorate Mar Severios, who always preached that Mary is undoubtedly the Mother of God; and our righteous and holy Father Mar Ephraim, who maintained the orthodox faith, and Mar Jacob, Mar Isaac, and Mar Simon the Stylite and Mar Abahai, the chosen one and all those before them, with them, and after them. May their prayers be a stronghold for us. Let us beseech the Lord.

Also see these:

coptic.net/articles/monophysitismreconsidered.txt

goo.gl/1regw7

I suppose one way to reconcile the seeming contradiction is to accept that condemnations and anathema of individuals need not be seen infallibly, especially do to recent lifting of anathemae. If we dig deep enough, we can see during occasional spats, Armenians can be seen condemning Copts, Copts condemning Syriacs, Russians condemning the Greeks, Bulgarians condemning the Russians, etc.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

You’re welcome. Thanks for the compliments. I consider myself knowledgeable on Church history. As for complexities of doctrines, it varies- there are many doctrines; but i believe in all of them.

You’re welcome. You mentioned that you believe all of the doctrines of the Church. In that case, would you please be able to explain how you reconcile the christologies of Mar Nestorius of Constantinople, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Dioscorus of Alexandria, and St Leo of Rome?
Cyril said that he disagreed with Nestorius.
Nestorius said he disagreed with Cyril but agreed with Leo.
Leo said that he agreed with Cyril but disagreed with Nestorius.
Dioscorus said that he agreed with Cyril but that Leo agreed with Nestorius, with whom he disagreed.

How can one hold both the christological doctrine of Mar Nestorius and St Cyril of Alexandria?

According to Wikipedia, Pope Pius XII requested that the Anaphora of Mar Nestorius be restored in the Syro-Malabar Church, however as yet only the Anaphora of Mar Theodore the Interpretter has been restored.

You see, 100% latinisation did not take place. Thomas48 might explain it better.

Would you please be able to invite him to reply here? It would be good to hear from him also.

We have preserved our customs and traditions. We have a separate list of Doctors of the Church. We have distinctive liturgical vestments.

Your distinctive vestments are splendid and gorgeous
If your list of Doctors of the Church is the same as that held traditionally by the Church of the East, then it would Mar Nestorius. Are you able to provide a link to this list in English please? Or perhaps another site where I may find them. For some reason, the Syro-Malabar Catholic websites which I’ve found so far have only included saints since the arrival of the Portugese, with the exception of St Thomas the Apostle. Surely for 1500 years your Church was not completely without saints was it
I’ve read that your Church still practices the kiss of peace as the Church of the East and the Copts do This is a beautiful tradition.

We use the East Syriac Rite.
If you want to know more about the SyroMalabar church divisions, vestments and qurbana, click here.

That link is fabulous! Thank you very much for it. Is it somehow possible to download this booklet please? It is very small on this screen. Alternatively, how might I obtain a copy of it please?

And what i am saying is-
take the council of constance. it ended the western schism. how does that affect the EC?

That makes sense. I agree that not all of the Councils are relevant to the Eastern Churches. However the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon have been a cause for much debate particularly among the Eastern Churches. As such, one would expect that a church of the East Syriac tradition would not accept either of those Councils, even as the Assyrians never have.

 

[SyroMalankara]

According to Wikipedia, Pope Pius XII requested that the Anaphora of Mar Nestorius be restored in the Syro-Malabar Church, however as yet only the Anaphora of Mar Theodore the Interpretter has been restored.

Restoring the anaphora attributed to Nestorius is not the same as holding Nestorian theology. Some theologians today say even Nestorius himself may not have held the Nestorian position of some of his latter supporters.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

SyroMalankara, glad to hear you venerate St Dioscorus and bishops are named after him, yet it’s a pity he’s not publicly venerated also.
I’m a little confused in that earlier you said you recognise 3 Councils, yet the text you quoted named 4 (including Chalceden which the OOs reject) and mentions others. Is this due to Latinisation of your tradition?
Thank you for the links also.

It seems as though what I am finding is that the Indian Churches are able to see that differing theological views are internally consistent and so their apparent contradictions with each other are not considered to be a problem. (If I may say, in my experience the Indian people in general seem to be very skilled in maintaining distinct systems of thought which are internally consistent even if other schools of thought view them as being incorrect.)
It seems as though the broader Catholic Church has also come to a similar conclusion, only it has taken a while longer seeing the West first needed to escape its historical roots of condemning anyone who differed. As yet, it appears as though the Orthodox have not yet been able to come to this form of thinking. The Assyrian Church of the East seems to have reached this point for the most part but is being held back from unity with Rome for other reasons.
Does this sound like a fair assessment or have I missed something?

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Restoring the anaphora attributed to Nestorius is not the same as holding Nestorian theology. Some theologians today say even Nestorius himself may not have held the Nestorian position of some of his latter supporters.

I am of the opinion that Mar Nestorius was misunderstood and mistreated. (This is partly what caused me to ask the original question.) It was not so much Mar Nestorius nor his supporters who held an incorrect view, but rather his detractors who held an incorrect view of what the view Nestorius was explaining meant.

The Assyrian Church of the East maintains that when it read the christology of Nestorius, it was the same as what they had always believed since the Apostles first delivered the Faith to them. One would expect that other churches of the East Syriac tradition should also continue to hold this view; that is, to be true to their roots, they should hold Nestorian christology, just as those of the West Syriac tradition should hold the miaphysic christology of Saints Cyril, Dioscorus and Severus.

 

[SyroMalankara]

To be completely fair, other than a general understanding of the teachings of Nestorius and the Assyrian Traditions, I am no expert on the matter. I’m more well educated on the West Syriac Tradition and there is much overlap in India, however, Nestorius’s latter supporters positions are not too well known in India.

As to the Orthodox, in India, the Indian Orthodox and Malankara Syriac Orthodox seem to have gotten over the distrust of the Assyrian Church. Mar Aprem of the Chaldean-Syrian Church in India is invited to many of the Events by all Apostolic Churches, and he’s regarded as a high ranking bishop should be.



http://malankaraorthodoxtv.in/gulf/Muscat/MarYuliosMarApremMeet/medium/0001.jpg

news.assyrianchurch.org/wp-content/gallery/bishop-mar-yohannan-yoseph-visits-oman-mission-parish-formed/8.jpg

http://news.assyrianchurch.org/wp-c...x-church-usa-2011/syrian-orthodox-visit-7.jpg

 

[fhansen]

you mean sui iuris churches?

As well as EO.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

To be completely fair, other than a general understanding of the teachings of Nestorius and the Assyrian Traditions, I am no expert on the matter. I’m more well educated on the West Syriac Tradition and there is much overlap in India, however, Nestorius’s latter supporters positions are not too well known in India.

That’s alright. Thank you for taking the time to discuss as much as you have.

As to the Orthodox, in India, the Indian Orthodox and Malankara Syriac Orthodox seem to have gotten over the distrust of the Assyrian Church. Mar Aprem of the Chaldean-Syrian Church in India is invited to many of the Events by all Apostolic Churches, and he’s regarded as a high ranking bishop should be.

This is very encouraging and thank you for the photos

 

[Peter_J]

I think I understand what you mean yet would it please be alright to ask you to clarify?

You said that you accept 3 Ecumenical Councils as the Oriental Orthodox (which makes sense seeing the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is of the West Syriac tradition). Does this mean you venerate St Dioscorus of Alexandria and St Severus of Antioch?
If so, how do you reconcile the fact that the Council of Chalcedon deposed St Dioscorus and later councils condemned him along with St Severus, while still accepting those later councils as “proper and authoritative” (to borrow your words)?

Both the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East are of the view that the Council of Chalcedon contradicted the Council of Ephesus. (This is one of the few things the pair seem to agree on.) If you hold to a miaphysic christological position, how do you reconcile this with the Council of Chalcedon and later councils?

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut also

Well, the third Ecumenical Council did condemn Nestorius for heresy, but it did not say that he was incapable of repenting and coming to orthodox christology.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Well, the third Ecumenical Council did condemn Nestorius for heresy, but it did not say that he was incapable of repenting and coming to orthodox christology.

Later councils condemned St Dioscorus and St Severus for heresy after they had died. Neither either of them nor Mar Nestorius ever taught anything heretical when properly understood. Both St Dioscorus (the sucessor of St Cyril) and Mar Nestorius said that the Tome of St Leo agreed with the teaching of Nestorius. This is a fairly strong indicator that somebody misunderstood something somewhere seeing Leo thought his Tome agreed with Cyril.

Also, put simply, the Council of Ephesus was a disaster. After Cyril closed the Council before the Syrian delegation and the Pope of Rome (who sent ahead to say he was coming) arrived, St John of Antioch convened a separate Council of Ephesus which exonerated Nestorius and condemned Cyril.

When the Church of the East received word of what happened at Cyril’s Council, they refused to accept it on that grounds that Nestorius had taught the same thing which they had received from the Apostles while Cyril had behaved inappropriately and taught something unknown to the tradition of their Church.

Seeing the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church venerates Mar Nestorius (at least according to what Wikipedia says) and Rome has signed an agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East that the simply expressed the same ideas in different words, it would appear as though Rome has recognised that Mar Nestorius was wrongly condemned by the Council of Ephesus.

 

[Yago]

How can one hold both the christological doctrine of Mar Nestorius and St Cyril of Alexandria?

Well, one cannot. We, iirc, hold to that of St.Cyril.

According to Wikipedia, Pope Pius XII requested that the Anaphora of Mar Nestorius be restored in the Syro-Malabar Church, however as yet only the Anaphora of Mar Theodore the Interpretter has been restored.

wikipedia is wrong there. see the booklet (see below).

Would you please be able to invite him to reply here? It would be good to hear from him also.

I will sent him a PM. He is very knowledgeable on these matters.

Your distinctive vestments are splendid and gorgeous

I’ve read that your Church still practices the kiss of peace as the Church of the East and the Copts do This is a beautiful tradition.

Thank you.

If your list of Doctors of the Church is the same as that held traditionally by the Church of the East, then it would Mar Nestorius.

It is not the one held by the coe. I will give the list in a later post.

Surely for 1500 years your Church was not completely without saints was it

Yes, but they were not canonised. The records are lost, you see, they lived in ancient times.
Later, it was the time of schisms and heresies, so it is not ecumenical to canonise saints from that time.

That link is fabulous! Thank you very much for it. Is it somehow possible to download this booklet please? It is very small on this screen. Alternatively, how might I obtain a copy of it please?

i don’t know where you can buy it, but you will have to pay for it. but you can download it free here. the 3rd one,

<image>Holy Qurbana of Syro Malabar Church-A pictorial description Click to Download
Author: Mar Joseph Perumthottam | On: 21-06-2012

This is the description.

. However the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon have been a cause for much debate particularly among the Eastern Churches. As such, one would expect that a church of the East Syriac tradition would not accept either of those Councils, even as the Assyrians never have.

Thomas48 will answer that better than me, I presume.

 

[Yago]

Doctors of the Church as accepted by the Syro Malabar Church

Ambrose
Jerome
Gregory
Augustine
Athanasius
Basil
Gregory of Nazianzus
John Chrysostom
Ephrem the Syrian
Isaac the Elder
Pope Leo I
John of Damascus
Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem
Epiphanius of Salamis
Gregory of Nyssa.

(All saints.)

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Thank you Yago The link to the booklet is especially useful and I’ll be sure to save it.

In regards to your other replies, it seems as though your Church has abandoned its East Syriac heritage (possibly due to the Latinising influence of the Portugese) at least to some extent.

There are plenty of saints among the Orthodox Churches which have never been canonised and yet many of them are also honoured by Eastern Catholic Churches, including St Mark of Ephesus who single-handedly caused the Union of Florence to fail. (He’s honoured in the Melkite Catholic Church at least.)

Your comment in regards to christology is interesting. I believe that one can hold both the christology of Mar Nestorius and of St Cyril. The two used the same words to mean different things. If the meanings each intended by their choice of words is confined to the explanations given by each, then they are not incompatible. Did not Rome recognise this in 1994 when the christological agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East was signed? If the Syro-Malabar Church holds the christology of St Cyril to the exclusion of that of Mar Nestorius, then it would seem that you have forfeited your spiritual heritage as the Church of the East which provided India with bishops for many centuries would have only taught the christology of Mar Nestorius.

 

[Yago]

Thank you Yago The link to the booklet is especially useful and I’ll be sure to save it.

Your’e welcome.

In regards to your other replies, it seems as though your Church has abandoned its East Syriac heritage (possibly due to the Latinising influence of the Portugese) at least to some extent.

:nope: My Church did not abandon anything. The portuguese destroyed them. A lot of this has been recovered. The only Latin custom I can think of that still exists is the altar boy’s vestments, but it is only in some places. it is more grand than our traditional one, used to remind laity that the Qurbana is a celebration.

There are plenty of saints among the Orthodox Churches which have never been canonised and yet many of them are also honoured by Eastern Catholic Churches, including St Mark of Ephesus who single-handedly caused the Union of Florence to fail. (He’s honoured in the Melkite Catholic Church at least.)

That is to be asked to the Byzantine Catholics.

Your comment in regards to christology is interesting. I believe that one can hold both the christology of Mar Nestorius and of St Cyril.

Actually, i was talking in the context that they were arguing.
also, historians debate whether nestorius was a nestorian. The two used the same words to mean different things.

If the meanings each intended by their choice of words is confined to the explanations given by each, then they are not incompatible. Did not Rome recognise this in 1994 when the christological agreement with the Assyrian Church of the East was signed?

Indeed.

If the Syro-Malabar Church holds the christology of St Cyril to the exclusion of that of Mar Nestorius, then it would seem that you have forfeited your spiritual heritage as the Church of the East which provided India with bishops for many centuries would have only taught the christology of Mar Nestorius.

No, we dont. Our Christology is this and this. I retract my previous statement as it is confusing and difficult to understand.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Sorry to upset you. You are correct that the Portugese forced your Church to let go of its traditions. It’s also very good that many have been recovered. Vestments are a small matter which can gradually change without folk even realising. (For example, in the Coptic Church, so I’ve been told, only priests are supposed to wear vestments with an image of a saint on them, yet it’s now quite common for sub-deacons to wear such also and nobody seems to mind.)

In regards to Mar Nestorius and St Cyril, glad we agree that the two used different words to mean the same thing.

I’m still a little confused as to why you seem to be arguing that you haven’t changed your traditions though. When asked of your christology, you provided a link about the Council of Ephesus, which the East Syriac tradition has historically rejected. As such, you show that you have indeed forsaken your tradition in favour of that held by Rome. The East Syriac tradition also holds the Three Greek Doctors to be Mar Diodore of Tarsus, Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia and Mar Nestorius, yet your list included none of these.

The reason I mentioned St Mark of Ephesus is that he is a saint recognised in the tradition of several Eastern Church who is not recognised by Rome, yet when an Eastern Church (i.e. the Melkites) that venerates him came into communion with Rome they retained veneration of him. However it would appear from what you said that all of your traditional saints (assuming you had some) have been expunged from the tradition of Church because they were never canonised by Rome. Please forgive me if this sounds insulting. It’s just the way things appear to an outsider looking on.

Might Thomas48 be able to say more about these things at all please?

 

[Yago]

Sorry to upset you

. You did not upset me in any way.

You are correct that the Portuguese forced your Church to let go of its traditions.

Yes.

It’s also very good that many have been recovered.

Actually, it is almost everything, and even more “everything important”. Just short of Patriarchal status and door-hood of India.

Vestments are a small matter which can gradually change without folk even realising.

I agree. And the Latin altar boy vestments are used only in certain places. vestments of everyone else has been restored, save the episcopal headwear.

In regards to Mar Nestorius and St Cyril, glad we agree that the two used different words to mean the same thing.

Likewise, earlier, we too did use different words to mean the same thing.

I’m still a little confused as to why you seem to be arguing that you haven’t changed your traditions though.

The key word is “we”. We did not change anything ourselves. They did. They burnt books. They burnt clothes. They ‘bishop-napped’ people.

When asked of your christology, you provided a link about the Council of Ephesus, which the East Syriac tradition has historically rejected. As such, you show that you have indeed forsaken your tradition in favour of that held by Rome. The East Syriac tradition also holds the Three Greek Doctors to be Mar Diodore of Tarsus, Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia and Mar Nestorius, yet your list included none of these.

I think you misunderstand my position. The fact that you believe that the list I gave you is wrong or incomplete or changed is mildly insulting.

The reason I mentioned St Mark of Ephesus is that he is a saint recognised in the tradition of several Eastern Church who is not recognised by Rome, yet when an Eastern Church (i.e. the Melkites) that venerates him came into communion with Rome they retained veneration of him.

As I said, this is for them to comment on.

However it would appear from what you said that all of your traditional saints (assuming you had some) have been expunged from the tradition of Church because they were never canonised by Rome

You bracketed-assuming you had some. We didn’t have any. I mean, there are holy people, in heaven now, worthy of imitation. But we face an extremely severe lack of documentation on this. Their memory is celebrated and their intercession sought in a special manner on all saints day.

Might Thomas48 be able to say more about these things at all please?

Thomas might be able to. I have already sent him a PM. He is very knowledgeable on Eastern catholicism, Syriac Church history and the Syro Malabar sui iuris Church.

 

[Thomas48]

Sorry to upset you. You are correct that the Portugese forced your Church to let go of its traditions. It’s also very good that many have been recovered. Vestments are a small matter which can gradually change without folk even realising. (For example, in the Coptic Church, so I’ve been told, only priests are supposed to wear vestments with an image of a saint on them, yet it’s now quite common for sub-deacons to wear such also and nobody seems to mind.)

In regards to Mar Nestorius and St Cyril, glad we agree that the two used different words to mean the same thing.

I’m still a little confused as to why you seem to be arguing that you haven’t changed your traditions though. When asked of your christology, you provided a link about the Council of Ephesus, which the East Syriac tradition has historically rejected. As such, you show that you have indeed forsaken your tradition in favour of that held by Rome. The East Syriac tradition also holds the Three Greek Doctors to be Mar Diodore of Tarsus, Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia and Mar Nestorius, yet your list included none of these.

The reason I mentioned St Mark of Ephesus is that he is a saint recognised in the tradition of several Eastern Church who is not recognised by Rome, yet when an Eastern Church (i.e. the Melkites) that venerates him came into communion with Rome they retained veneration of him. However it would appear from what you said that all of your traditional saints (assuming you had some) have been expunged from the tradition of Church because they were never canonised by Rome. Please forgive me if this sounds insulting. It’s just the way things appear to an outsider looking on.

Might Thomas48 be able to say more about these things at all please?

Hello Dear Friend,

I only noticed today that my name had been mentioned in this thread, I apologize for not commenting earlier. In the early centuries (before latinization) of the Syro Malabar Church, only the very old saints were venerated. For example Mary, Kuriakose, Thomas, other Apostles, the Angels, etc. Even so Portuguese recorded that the Thomas Christians had very limited veneration of the saints. I remember reading in the journal of Bishop Alexio Dom Menezes (Portuguese Bishop of India 1600’s), he had celebrated Latin Mass at the Knanaya Christian Church at Kaduthuruthy. It was the feast of St. Mary and he had raised an icon of Her in veneration, he writes that the Christians had turned away in disgust. Now this could be one of two things, that the Thomas Christians were not strong believers in veneration or simply because this was a Latin Mass. It should be noted that the first attempts of Latization by the Portuguese towards the Thomas Christians was a great failure that often resulted in events like previously mentioned. Slowly though, the Portuguese laid a greater hold and eventually brought many Thomas Christians to the Catholic Faith. It should not be forgotten though that their methods included burning East Syriac texts and manuscripts, rejecting anything related to Thomas Christian tradition, and refusing bishops of the Church of the East on Indian Soil.

After the Portuguese had a firm grasp on the new Syrian Catholics (Syro Malabar) among the Thomas Christians, they began strong Latinizations and introduced the Western Saints, theology, liturgy, etc. The only difference between Syro Malabar Catholics and Latin Catholics in Kerala during this time was that the Syro Malabar Catholics were permitted by Rome to chant the* Latin Mass* in Syriac. Our East Syrac Qurbana had been so diluted and Latinized that it was basically the Latin Mass in Syriac. This continued until the early 19th century when there was a strong push from Syro Malabar Catholics for the restoration of our rite and hierarchy. It should be noted that the Syro Malabar Hierarch has historically been known as the Metropolitan and Gate of All India. The See of Angamaly is the oldest and rightful seat of Christianity in India. These were the thoughts that ran through Syro Malabar priests in the early 19th century. Many priests began writing letters to the Holy Father and eventually our rite had been restored with the creation of the first apostolic vicariates.

To summarize, the Syro Malabar Church had Eastern Theology, Saints, Liturgy, etc until the 1600’s when the Portuguese arrived. After this from 1600-1961, our structure was basically Latin Catholicism with a hint of East Syriac Liturgy, i.e using the Syriac language and some East Syriac traditions. Finally in 1962, the Syro Malabar Liturgy was restored to its proper East Syriac state and since then we have been ever more returning our rites authenticity.

 

[spina1953]

Hello Dear Friend,

I only noticed today that my name had been mentioned in this thread, I apologize for not commenting earlier. In the early centuries (before latinization) of the Syro Malabar Church, only the very old saints were venerated. For example Mary, Kuriakose, Thomas, other Apostles, the Angels, etc. Even so Portuguese recorded that the Thomas Christians had very limited veneration of the saints. I remember reading in the journal of Bishop Alexio Dom Menezes (Portuguese Bishop of India 1600’s), he had celebrated Latin Mass at the Knanaya Christian Church at Kaduthuruthy. It was the feast of St. Mary and he had raised an icon of Her in veneration, he writes that the Christians had turned away in disgust. Now this could be one of two things, that the Thomas Christians were not strong believers in veneration or simply because this was a Latin Mass. It should be noted that the first attempts of Latization by the Portuguese towards the Thomas Christians was a great failure that often resulted in events like previously mentioned. Slowly though, the Portuguese laid a greater hold and eventually brought many Thomas Christians to the Catholic Faith. It should not be forgotten though that their methods included burning East Syriac texts and manuscripts, rejecting anything related to Thomas Christian tradition, and refusing bishops of the Church of the East on Indian Soil.

After the Portuguese had a firm grasp on the new Syrian Catholics (Syro Malabar) among the Thomas Christians, they began strong Latinizations and introduced the Western Saints, theology, liturgy, etc. The only difference between Syro Malabar Catholics and Latin Catholics in Kerala during this time was that the Syro Malabar Catholics were permitted by Rome to chant the* Latin Mass* in Syriac. Our East Syrac Qurbana had been so diluted and Latinized that it was basically the Latin Mass in Syriac. This continued until the early 19th century when there was a strong push from Syro Malabar Catholics for the restoration of our rite and hierarchy. It should be noted that the Syro Malabar Hierarch has historically been known as the Metropolitan and Gate of All India. The See of Angamaly is the oldest and rightful seat of Christianity in India. These were the thoughts that ran through Syro Malabar priests in the early 19th century. Many priests began writing letters to the Holy Father and eventually our rite had been restored with the creation of the first apostolic vicariates.

To summarize, the Syro Malabar Church had Eastern Theology, Saints, Liturgy, etc until the 1600’s when the Portuguese arrived. After this from 1600-1961, our structure was basically Latin Catholicism with a hint of East Syriac Liturgy, i.e using the Syriac language and some East Syriac traditions. Finally in 1962, the Syro Malabar Liturgy was restored to its proper East Syriac state and since then we have been ever more returning our rites authenticity.

Hi, I read some of this history a long time ago. Glad you helped us all to better understand this beautiful rite!

 

[Peter_J]

Please forgive me if this sounds insulting.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that you’re not trying to insult us. However, I have to wonder if Orthodox aren’t a little too quick to tell us what we ought to be. (This is just based on my personal experiences over the years.)

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that you’re not trying to insult us. However, I have to wonder if Orthodox aren’t a little too quick to tell us what we ought to be. (This is just based on my personal experiences over the years.)

Know what you’re talking about mate. Though I’m not trying to tell anybody what they ought to be. I’m only noticing where what people claim to be and what evidence shows that they are don’t match up, most probably due to lack of awareness.

Thomas48, thank you for your reply So basically what you’re saying is that your church has essentially been completely Latinised and it has indeed lost its authentic heritage almost completely, however there has been an attempt to restore it over the last half a century. Is that a correct understanding of what you meant?

Yago, thank you again and sorry to take so long getting back to you. Thank you also for bringing Thomas48 in to comment.
Sorry for insulting you and perhaps I have misunderstood your position. But from what you said, all I can conclude is that your church has abandoned its historical christology and adopted that of Rome. If you were intending to indicate that your church affirms the compatibility of the explanations of Mar Nestorius and St Cyril, then I could recognise that your own tradition exists in harmony with that of Rome.
Agreed that it was mainly due to the Portugese that your traditions were not continued, rather than due to any forsaking of tradition on the part of your church.