Should this be permitted? Your opinions please

[Thomas48]

can you please reply to my previous post.

i dont understand why your saying your not segregating when you dont let your own family follow your tradition just because they are not kna. its so clear your trying to make yourselves different from other christians and not trying to bond with them. i understand you have traditions and customs but that dont mean you should exclude anyone from following your traditions and customs. we indians christians dont exclude anyone and say go take memebership in different parish because your not one of us. if we are christians we should let any christians follow any tradition and customs. dont you think there will be more love then?.

Dear Friend

I’ve probably said it a hundred times in this 24 page thread but we do not segregate, the members who marry Non - Knanaya still attend Knanaya Qurbana every week and are entitled to every right of the parish as Knanaya members. These same entitlements are available to people who are not Knanaya at all. The only thing these people are missing is membership in written form, which by tradition we cannot administer. Whats the problem with not having membership in writ? I attend a Latin Parish some weekends and I take part in everything but I am not a parishioner and I don’t have a problem. My membership maybe elsewhere but I feel no different than the full members of the Latin Parish.

 

[beingchristian]

Dear Friend

I’ve probably said it a hundred times in this 24 page thread but we do not segregate, the members who marry Non - Knanaya still attend Knanaya Qurbana every week and are entitled to every right of the parish as Knanaya members. These same entitlements are available to people who are not Knanaya at all. The only thing these people are missing is membership in written form, which by tradition we cannot administer. Whats the problem with not having membership in writ? I attend a Latin Parish some weekends and I take part in everything but I am not a parishioner and I don’t have a problem. My membership maybe elsewhere but I feel no different than the full members of the Latin Parish.

brother you are not answering my questions properly. i am asking why cant kna’s who marry non-kna’s not able to follow the knanaya tradition? why cant the children not? why do you have membership for only kna’s in a church? maybe you might not have problem with not having membership in latin church but everyone doesnt feel the same way as you do when they dont have membership in knanaya church. i would understand if this was for an association or something but why in church?

 

[puntervina9x]

hi,free download tai game fruit ninja|tai game angry birds|tai game plants and zombie|game android
tai game ban ga|tai game pikachu
tai game kim cuong
tai game contra
tai game dao vang

 

[LilyM]

Dear Friend

I’ve probably said it a hundred times in this 24 page thread but we do not segregate, the members who marry Non - Knanaya still attend Knanaya Qurbana every week and are entitled to every right of the parish as Knanaya members. These same entitlements are available to people who are not Knanaya at all. The only thing these people are missing is membership in written form, which by tradition we cannot administer. Whats the problem with not having membership in writ? I attend a Latin Parish some weekends and I take part in everything but I am not a parishioner and I don’t have a problem. My membership maybe elsewhere but I feel no different than the full members of the Latin Parish.

The difference is that you only attend sometimes - if you attended that parish every single week without fail because you love it there it would probably start to bother you that you couldn’t, for example, be on the finance committee and therefore have a say as to where the money you put into the parish every week goes. Or teach religion classes to the kids, or be married in the same place you’ve been worshipping every week and grown to love. Or have your kids baptised there. And so on.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The difference is that you only attend sometimes - if you attended that parish every single week without fail because you love it there it would probably start to bother you that you couldn’t, for example, be on the finance committee and therefore have a say as to where the money you put into the parish every week goes. Or teach religion classes to the kids, or be married in the same place you’ve been worshipping every week and grown to love. Or have your kids baptised there. And so on.

I believe you may have misunderstood this bit here. Being on the finance committee is a responsibility that is delegated by the priest to individuals to provide their expertise and independent oversight. It’s not a right of representation. No individual can simply walk up to a parish and demand to be appointed to the finance committee, member or not.

Otherwise, your other arguments are fine.

 

[Thomas48]

brother you are not answering my questions properly. i am asking why cant kna’s who marry non-kna’s not able to follow the knanaya tradition? why cant the children not? why do you have membership for only kna’s in a church? maybe you might not have problem with not having membership in latin church but everyone doesnt feel the same way as you do when they dont have membership in knanaya church. i would understand if this was for an association or something but why in church?

Like I have explained many times, this custom of marrying within the Knanaya Community is only a way to protect the identity of the Knanaya Community and its heritage. The Community has such a strong belief that in some way or form we are originated from those 72 original families. You don’t understand how much of a deep rooted history that of the Knanayas is. We feel that it is our duty to maintain our lineage and our ancestry. There is a saying among Knanayas within our oral history that the then Patriarch of Antioch addressed to Uraha Mar Yoseph, Knai Thoma, and their followers that upon reaching the shores of Kerala you and your children should never fall to Hinduism or other foreign faiths. The Knananites were already and endogamous group before leaving the Middle East and the message of the Patriarch only added to this. I know there are many on this forum who do not believe in the history of Knanaya Christians but to us it is authentic and essential.

Knanaya endogamy is not a slap in the face to other Christians saying “your not good enough to be Knanaya” but only a way to maintain heritage. That itself is the only reason why those who marry Non-Knanaya are made to abandon there membership but it is done in a light fashion where said person can still attend the Knanaya Parish.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thomas, that story of Knanaya endogamy is a nice legend as far as legends go, but do we rest our faith on legends? Why not look at the reality and base your practices on the Truth instead of almost-certainly untrue stories?

 

[beingchristian]

Like I have explained many times, this custom of marrying within the Knanaya Community is only a way to protect the identity of the Knanaya Community and its heritage. The Community has such a strong belief that in some way or form we are originated from those 72 original families. You don’t understand how much of a deep rooted history that of the Knanayas is. We feel that it is our duty to maintain our lineage and our ancestry. There is a saying among Knanayas within our oral history that the then Patriarch of Antioch addressed to Uraha Mar Yoseph, Knai Thoma, and their followers that upon reaching the shores of Kerala you and your children should never fall to Hinduism or other foreign faiths. The Knananites were already and endogamous group before leaving the Middle East and the message of the Patriarch only added to this. I know there are many on this forum who do not believe in the history of Knanaya Christians but to us it is authentic and essential.

Knanaya endogamy is not a slap in the face to other Christians saying “your not good enough to be Knanaya” but only a way to maintain heritage. That itself is the only reason why those who marry Non-Knanaya are made to abandon there membership but it is done in a light fashion where said person can still attend the Knanaya Parish.

identity? the only identity you should have is being a ‘‘christian’’ my brother. you may feel its your duty to keep lineage and your ancestory because you still havent understood christianity and still into judaism practice. why is it that you put your traditions and customs above christianity itself. it seems you people are lost. im sure you can carryon your tradition even if you include people. but endogamy is wrong.
i think its obvious that you had this saying ‘‘followers that upon reaching the shores of Kerala you and your children should never fall to Hinduism or other foreign faiths’’ only because you were entering a foreign land and didnt know anyone there so you kept hanging with your own people, but now its so obvious that we have same religion and same pope and wouldnt you think it will be better if you include others?

 

[LilyM]

I believe you may have misunderstood this bit here. Being on the finance committee is a responsibility that is delegated by the priest to individuals to provide their expertise and independent oversight. It’s not a right of representation. No individual can simply walk up to a parish and demand to be appointed to the finance committee, member or not.

Otherwise, your other arguments are fine.

True, but I’ve never known someone who is not a member be appointed. So without membership, unless I’m mistaken, you don’t have any possibility even.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I’m sorry. I’ve read through the first 8 pages of this thread and can’t stomach anymore, so forgive me if my rhetorical question has already been asked and answered:

Imagine a group of Latin Catholics in the Southern United States that had a tradition of excluding non-Whites from their Church. Imagine further that the Holy See, in tolerating this egregious tradition for the sake of a better good, allowed such Catholics to have their own special diocese within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. In this (let’s call it “Dixie Diocese”) one can only be a member if both parents are White. As soon as a member of this Dixie Diocese marries a non-White (s)he is expelled from the diocese and (s)he and his/her spouse must take up membership in another Roman Catholic diocese separate from the Dixie Diocese (Latin Catholic, nevertheless).

The advocates of such might say that it isn’t racism, but only their way of preserving their culture. They will point out that they still evangelize non-Whites, except that such individuals will then join the Church through the “regular” Roman Catholic dioceses in the US (and not the Dixie Diocese), therefore it isn’t racism!

They want purebred White Catholics for their Dixie Diocese, and any intermingling makes an individual unsuitable for membership in the Dixie Diocese. But don’t worry! We’re not saying they’re any less Catholic!

Seriously, who here would say to this: “Oh! You’re only preserving your traditions! Kudos to you!” I suspect most here would be (rightfully) appalled that anything even remotely like this was being tolerated in Catholicism.

For all those out there advocating for the Knanaya Catholics, please tell me specifically how my hypothetical situation differs from the situation at hand?

I’m a long time lurker who has spent a number of years studying Catholicism in hopes of conversion, and to be perfectly frank, the fact that such a “diocese” exists is truly revolting to me and is cause for me to wonder how I could ever join such a church.

How could the Holy See just allow this to happen? Why can’t the Holy See (which has taught definitively in its Catechism that racism is a grave sin) just flat out tell these Indian Christians that what they are doing is WRONG, and contrary to Christian Virtue? Why can’t the Pope simply say “End this tradition of endogamy or anathema sit”?

 

[Filii_Dei]

I’m sorry. I’ve read through the first 8 pages of this thread and can’t stomach anymore, so forgive me if my rhetorical question has already been asked and answered:

Imagine a group of Latin Catholics in the Southern United States that had a tradition of excluding non-Whites from their Church. Imagine further that the Holy See, in tolerating this egregious tradition for the sake of a better good, allowed such Catholics to have their own special diocese within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. In this (let’s call it “Dixie Diocese”) one can only be a member if both parents are White. As soon as a member of this Dixie Diocese marries a non-White (s)he is expelled from the diocese and (s)he and his/her spouse must take up membership in another Roman Catholic diocese separate from the Dixie Diocese (Latin Catholic, nevertheless).

The advocates of such might say that it isn’t racism, but only their way of preserving their culture. They will point out that they still evangelize non-Whites, except that such individuals will then join the Church through the “regular” Roman Catholic dioceses in the US (and not the Dixie Diocese), therefore it isn’t racism!

They want purebred White Catholics for their Dixie Diocese, and any intermingling makes an individual unsuitable for membership in the Dixie Diocese. But don’t worry! We’re not saying they’re any less Catholic!

Seriously, who here would say to this: “Oh! You’re only preserving your traditions! Kudos to you!” I suspect most here would be (rightfully) appalled that anything even remotely like this was being tolerated in Catholicism.

For all those out there advocating for the Knanaya Catholics, please tell me specifically how my hypothetical situation differs from the situation at hand?

I’m a long time lurker who has spent a number of years studying Catholicism in hopes of conversion, and to be perfectly frank, the fact that such a “diocese” exists is truly revolting to me and is cause for me to wonder how I could ever join such a church.

I just wish to deconstruct your argument a bit. I understand you wish to use the example of White Southerners as something that readers on a predominantly American forum can easily relate to (even though many of the contributors here are Indian). However, when one speaks of “purebred White” in the “Southern United States”, one invariably dredges up all the not-so-subtle undertones of white supremacy and the KKK, which every good Catholic rightly detests. It is precisely this kind of connotation that at least partly influences people to be appalled such a proposal.

However, the problem with this is that the Knanaya have never regarded themselves as a superior race, and do not have a history of enslaving other races, nor of instituting state-level segregation. Indeed, when we move away from the White Southerners analogy and instead use “Indian American Catholics” or “Inuit Catholics” as a benchmark, I’m pretty sure people would be simply opposed rather than appalled, if at all.

Therefore, by using an example of White Southern Americans, you have inevitably tainted the people’s ability to impartially judge the matter on just the principles that should be applied to the Knanaya, such as Christian love and community.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I just wish to deconstruct your argument a bit. I understand you wish to use the example of White Southerners as something that readers on a predominantly American forum can easily relate to (even though many of the contributors here are Indian). However, when one speaks of “purebred White” in the “Southern United States”, one invariably dredges up all the not-so-subtle undertones of white supremacy and the KKK, which every good Catholic rightly detests. It is precisely this kind of connotation that at least partly influences people to be appalled such a proposal.

However, the problem with this is that the Knanaya have never regarded themselves as a superior race, and do not have a history of enslaving other races, nor of instituting state-level segregation. Indeed, when we move away from the White Southerners analogy and instead use “Indian American Catholics” or “Inuit Catholics” as a benchmark, I’m pretty sure people would be simply opposed rather than appalled, if at all.

Therefore, by using an example of White Southern Americans, you have inevitably tainted the people’s ability to impartially judge the matter on just the principles that should be applied to the Knanaya, such as Christian love and community.

This is a fair criticism of my analogy. Thank you.

Now I guess all what’s left is for advocates of endogamy to show how endogamy is necessary for keeping traditions and culture alive. Maybe I am too biased by my modern Western ethos of race not mattering, but I cannot for the life of me understand how a genetic relationship is necessary for this.

Let’s imagine two Knanayas, in India, adopting a non-Knanaya child. Presumably this child would not be permitted membership in the Knanaya diocese, correct?

Despite the fact that this child would be raised by Knanayas, taught the ways of Knanayas, and knows absolutely nothing about his or her “genetic traditions”, so to speak, in what way would this child be deficient in passing on the traditions of the Knanaya?

 

[Thomas48]

Thomas, that story of Knanaya endogamy is a nice legend as far as legends go, but do we rest our faith on legends? Why not look at the reality and base your practices on the Truth instead of almost-certainly untrue stories?

How can you say it is “almost-certainly untrue”? I have provided DNA evidence that proves and provides strength to Knanaya endogamy with some mixing of the local population. The Knanaya history that is well known and taught in the Syro Malabar Church can never be disproved unless one were to return to the date of 345 A.D.

identity? the only identity you should have is being a ‘‘christian’’ my brother. you may feel its your duty to keep lineage and your ancestory because you still havent understood christianity and still into judaism practice. why is it that you put your traditions and customs above christianity itself. it seems you people are lost. im sure you can carryon your tradition even if you include people. but endogamy is wrong.
i think its obvious that you had this saying ‘‘followers that upon reaching the shores of Kerala you and your children should never fall to Hinduism or other foreign faiths’’ only because you were entering a foreign land and didnt know anyone there so you kept hanging with your own people, but now its so obvious that we have same religion and same pope and wouldnt you think it will be better if you include others?

Well that’s just it right there, the Knanaya Diocese is for this community of Christians who follow both Judeo(Middle Eastern)-Christian practice. The Holy See with proper study of the Knananites has allowed us to follow both custom of the Old Testament and the New. Also other Christian Communities have been allowed to maintain their separate identity, why all the changes when it comes to Knanayas? The best example of this being the twenty- two Sui Juris Churches, they have more than their identity as Christians but their identity as particular churches as well.

 

[beingchristian]

Well that’s just it right there, the Knanaya Diocese is for this community of Christians who follow both Judeo(Middle Eastern)-Christian practice. The Holy See with proper study of the Knananites has allowed us to follow both custom of the Old Testament and the New. Also other Christian Communities have been allowed to maintain their separate identity, why all the changes when it comes to Knanayas? The best example of this being the twenty- two Sui Juris Churches, they have more than their identity as Christians but their identity as particular churches as well.

yes i know what you practice but your meant to end that endogamy when you converted to christianity. remember Jesus told endogamous Jewish community at his time to end their practice of exclusion and to love Samaritans and Gentiles equally and unconditionally. The high priests of Judaism thought he was delusional and a demon possessed creep. Whatever he was saying did not make sense to them. Majority of them did not agree with him. But, he kept saying the same until they silenced him. as a christians you follow your traditions and customs as long as it make christianity undivided!.

well tell me any other group within catholic church who still do endogamy? and if there are then they are lost also. simple as that. if you cant bring people into your community then its unchristian.

 

[LilyM]

How can you say it is “almost-certainly untrue”? I have provided DNA evidence that proves and provides strength to Knanaya endogamy with some mixing of the local population. The Knanaya history that is well known and taught in the Syro Malabar Church can never be disproved unless one were to return to the date of 345 A.D.

Well that’s just it right there, the Knanaya Diocese is for this community of Christians who follow both Judeo(Middle Eastern)-Christian practice. The Holy See with proper study of the Knananites has allowed us to follow both custom of the Old Testament and the New. Also other Christian Communities have been allowed to maintain their separate identity, why all the changes when it comes to Knanayas? The best example of this being the twenty- two Sui Juris Churches, they have more than their identity as Christians but their identity as particular churches as well.

So I suppose you still refrain from pork and shellfish, circumcise your sons, sacrifice animals and stone adulterers to death since you are so enamoured of good old Jewish customs such as endogamy? Christ did away with such things, and at the least they should be no part of Church practice even if you still cling to them in your private lives.

 

[Filii_Dei]

So I suppose you still refrain from pork and shellfish, circumcise your sons, sacrifice animals and stone adulterers to death since you are so enamoured of good old Jewish customs such as endogamy? Christ did away with such things, and at the least they should be no part of Church practice even if you still cling to them in your private lives.

I’m not sure about this. If - for the sake of simplicity - we just assume that the Knanaya are truly and purely Jewish, and putting aside the argument of whether endogamy is Christian in virtue, is it wrong for Catholics of unbroken Jewish heritage to continue their customs where they do not conflict with Christ’s teachings? Of course the part about sacrificing animals and stoning adulterers conflicts with Christian teaching, but nobody practices it these days so it’s largely irrelevant. However, the Mosaic Law was not made illegal because of the New Covenant promised to us by Jesus Christ. That is an unchristian doctrine that was invented by the Protestants to demonise the Catholics because we have a strong and proud Jewish heritage in our Tradition. Rather, it has always been the teaching of the Church that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and illuminated by the New Covenant. This means that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding, but it is not wrong for Catholic Jews to continue abiding by it out of respect to their heritage and maintaining a spiritual connection to their ancestors who were graced by God.

In fact, the first Catholics were Jews, and they did not cease to be a Jew when they accepted Christ’s teachings. They continued their Jewish traditions while continuing to proclaim the Gospel to Jew and Gentile alike. They continued to go to the Temple and celebrate the Passover, and they didn’t keep it private. They did it with the same community and spirit as they proclaimed the Gospel, because they saw no conflict between being a Jew and being a Christian. In fact, they were Christian precisely because they were Jewish. The very fact that the Apostles had to debate over whether Gentile converts need to abide by the requirements of the Mosaic Law show that the Jewish converts were themselves already continuing these practices themselves, and were wondering if it was necessary to apply them to the Gentiles as well.

Today, many of our current Traditions of the Church trace themselves to the early Jewish customs themselves, so for us to say that Jewish customs have no place in the Church is a gross misunderstanding of our own heritage. They aren’t subtle things either. They are big things, like the Mass, which is a continuation of the very same services that were performed in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, or the Liturgy of the Hours, which developed from the old daily prayers of the Jews. Even minor details like liturgical vestments and the chanting of the psalms, have Jewish origins. Indeed, Brother JR, I am sure you understand, was himself a Jew who was received into the Catholic Church. Today this community is called the Hebrew Catholics, and they continue to follow key elements of Mosaic Law that are completely in continuity with Chruch teaching. In fact, Brother JR has written an interesting piece on the role of Hebrew Catholics in the Church and the Jewish cultural heritage of all Catholics. It may prove useful for you to consider.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not sure about this. If - for the sake of simplicity - we just assume that the Knanaya are truly and purely Jewish, and putting aside the argument of whether endogamy is Christian in virtue, is it wrong for Catholics of unbroken Jewish heritage to continue their customs where they do not conflict with Christ’s teachings? Of course the part about sacrificing animals and stoning adulterers conflicts with Christian teaching, but nobody practices it these days so it’s largely irrelevant. However, the Mosaic Law was not made illegal because of the New Covenant promised to us by Jesus Christ. That is an unchristian doctrine that was invented by the Protestants to demonise the Catholics because we have a strong and proud Jewish heritage in our Tradition. Rather, it has always been the teaching of the Church that the Old Covenant was fulfilled and illuminated by the New Covenant. This means that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding, but it is not wrong for Catholic Jews to continue abiding by it out of respect to their heritage and maintaining a spiritual connection to their ancestors who were graced by God.

In fact, the first Catholics were Jews, and they did not cease to be a Jew when they accepted Christ’s teachings. They continued their Jewish traditions while continuing to proclaim the Gospel to Jew and Gentile alike. They continued to go to the Temple and celebrate the Passover, and they didn’t keep it private. They did it with the same community and spirit as they proclaimed the Gospel, because they saw no conflict between being a Jew and being a Christian. In fact, they were Christian precisely because they were Jewish. The very fact that the Apostles had to debate over whether Gentile converts need to abide by the requirements of the Mosaic Law show that the Jewish converts were themselves already continuing these practices themselves, and were wondering if it was necessary to apply them to the Gentiles as well.

Today, many of our current Traditions of the Church trace themselves to the early Jewish customs themselves, so for us to say that Jewish customs have no place in the Church is a gross misunderstanding of our own heritage. They aren’t subtle things either. They are big things, like the Mass, which is a continuation of the very same services that were performed in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, or the Liturgy of the Hours, which developed from the old daily prayers of the Jews. Even minor details like liturgical vestments and the chanting of the psalms, have Jewish origins. Indeed, Brother JR, I am sure you understand, was himself a Jew who was received into the Catholic Church. Today this community is called the Hebrew Catholics, and they continue to follow key elements of Mosaic Law that are completely in continuity with Chruch teaching. In fact, Brother JR has written an interesting piece on the role of Hebrew Catholics in the Church and the Jewish cultural heritage of all Catholics. It may prove useful for you to consider.

Some Jewish customs, yes it is flat out wrong.

St Peter was doing no differently than our Knanaya friends when at Cornelius’ house he refused to kill and eat of the ritually unclean animals. Our Lord soundly rebuked him for daring to consider something wrong that which Our Lord had permitted. Our Lord most certainly permits exogamous marriage. Do the math.

I see a second community of Peters here - although apparently much slower than Peter to take a hint.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Holding onto Jewish religious customs are an allowance, and permitted as from our brothers with our common Father Abraham. Fine. What other customs are being followed within the Knanaya community? It seems to me that this custom is less Jewish and more similar to the local Hindu custom, as are similarities to some of the other customs. Are most of these customs found within middle Eastern Chaldean groups or Jews - not one or two isolated, but multiple - which are not also practiced by the local Syriac Christians (who also have Middle Eastern and Jewish roots, remember)?

 

[Thomas48]

yes i know what you practice but your meant to end that endogamy when you converted to christianity. remember Jesus told endogamous Jewish community at his time to end their practice of exclusion and to love Samaritans and Gentiles equally and unconditionally. The high priests of Judaism thought he was delusional and a demon possessed creep. Whatever he was saying did not make sense to them. Majority of them did not agree with him. But, he kept saying the same until they silenced him. as a christians you follow your traditions and customs as long as it make christianity undivided!.

well tell me any other group within catholic church who still do endogamy? and if there are then they are lost also. simple as that. if you cant bring people into your community then its unchristian.

Dear Brother,
The Christian groups that follow endogamous practices consist of the Mennonites, Mandeans, Knanaya Christians, Assyrian Christians and many Arabic Christian Communities. Note that all these Christian Communities have origins in or are found in the MIddle East and the comprising area. To my understanding these Christians are most likely like Knananites and followed the practices of Jews.

Putting that aside, you cannot call Knanaya Christians “Un-Christian” we may not bring followers into our community but we have been for the greater Christian Community. Knanaya priests and lay people have been evangelizing at great lengths for the Syro Malabar Church for decades. There are Knanaya priests on this sole duty all across India, Africa, and Asia. There are three Knanaya priests who became bishops of Missionary Latin Diocese because of there efforts in evangelization by so noted by the Vatican. These men being Archbishop Abraham Viruthakulangara of Nagapur, Bishop George Palliparambil of Miao, and Bishop James Thoppil of Kohima. So I say to you that you cannot by any level call the people of Kottayam Archdiocese, Un-Christian and those who do not spread the word of Christ because you will only find yourself at fault. We may be prideful and uphold Knanaya Traditions but Christianity and Catholicism is not a matter taken lightly within our Community.

Holding onto Jewish religious customs are an allowance, and permitted as from our brothers with our common Father Abraham. Fine. What other customs are being followed within the Knanaya community? It seems to me that this custom is less Jewish and more similar to the local Hindu custom, as are similarities to some of the other customs. Are most of these customs found within middle Eastern Chaldean groups or Jews - not one or two isolated, but multiple - which are not also practiced by the local Syriac Christians (who also have Middle Eastern and Jewish roots, remember)?

The customs and traditions of Knanaya Christians have been noted to be tied to that of Jews and the Middle East by many scholars who have studied and researched the Knanaya people. The only people who have compared Knanaya traditions to that of Hindus is Knanaya bashing St. Thomas Christians. I do not think the Catholic Church would allow Knananites to build shrines of Knai Thoma or allow the crozier of Mar Mathew Moolakattu to consist of ships if our history were inaccurate.

Knanaya Publications by Scholars

1. “The wedding songs of Cochin Jews and of the Knanite Christians of Kerala”, by Prof. P.M. Jussay, a paper submitted at the 39th session of Indian History congress in Hyderabad , 1978.
2. “Jewish Contributions to Indian Society” Volume 16, No.2, 1982 by Dr. Shalva Weil, Professor at Hebrew University , Jerusalem
3. “ India ’s Jewish Heritage” by Dr. Shalva Weil, Volume 54, No.2, 2002
4. “A History of the Jews of Cochin” by Dr. J.B. Segal, a widely respected scholar of the Syriac and Aramaic languages and Professor of Semitic Languages at London University
5. “The Last Jew of Cochin ”, 1993 by Nathan Katz & Ellen S. Goldberg. Dr. Katz is Professor of Religious Studies at Florida International University and is an authority of Jewish history in India . Ms. Goldberg has done extensive research and written several books about Jews in India.

View attachment 17690 View attachment 17689

 

[Brandon_Cal]

This is a fair criticism of my analogy. Thank you.

Now I guess all what’s left is for advocates of endogamy to show how endogamy is necessary for keeping traditions and culture alive. Maybe I am too biased by my modern Western ethos of race not mattering, but I cannot for the life of me understand how a genetic relationship is necessary for this.

Let’s imagine two Knanayas, in India, adopting a non-Knanaya child. Presumably this child would not be permitted membership in the Knanaya diocese, correct?

Despite the fact that this child would be raised by Knanayas, taught the ways of Knanayas, and knows absolutely nothing about his or her “genetic traditions”, so to speak, in what way would this child be deficient in passing on the traditions of the Knanaya?

No takers?