Syro-Malabar Catholic Church always in union with Rome?

[AnthonyJ]

I never heard this before, but it is what this blog post claims:

thesyromalabarchurch.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-we-need-patriarchate.html

Some relevant excerpts:

“Regarding the union with the catholic community and obligation to pope, syro malabar church was tightly bound to the catholic community, ever since her birth. She is one among the three churches who didn’t break up the links with the catholic teachings, during the course of time. The other two churches are Maronite church and the Italo-Albanian church.”

“Regarding the number of faithful, none of these stands with the Syro malabar church. The Armanian church has about 6 lakh faithful, Chaldean church has about 5 lakh faithful, Coptic church has about 1.75 lakh faithful, Syrian church has about 1.6 lakh faithful, Melkite church has about 16 lakh faithful and the Maronite church has about 32.5 lakh faithful. All these churches have the patriarchal status. Yet our Syro malabar church with over 40 lakh faithful, and which was in full communion with the pope ever since her birth has no patriarchal status!!!”

Are these claims true? Thanks!

 

[Thomas48]

I never heard this before, but it is what this blog post claims:

thesyromalabarchurch.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-we-need-patriarchate.html

Some relevant excerpts:

“Regarding the union with the catholic community and obligation to pope, syro malabar church was tightly bound to the catholic community, ever since her birth. She is one among the three churches who didn’t break up the links with the catholic teachings, during the course of time. The other two churches are Maronite church and the Italo-Albanian church.”

“Regarding the number of faithful, none of these stands with the Syro malabar church. The Armanian church has about 6 lakh faithful, Chaldean church has about 5 lakh faithful, Coptic church has about 1.75 lakh faithful, Syrian church has about 1.6 lakh faithful, Melkite church has about 16 lakh faithful and the Maronite church has about 32.5 lakh faithful. All these churches have the patriarchal status. Yet our Syro malabar church with over 40 lakh faithful, and which was in full communion with the pope ever since her birth has no patriarchal status!!!”

Are these claims true? Thanks!

The question is, what do they mean by “since the birth of the Syro Malabar Church”? If they mean since St. Thomas arrived in Kerala and created a Christian Community, then this claim is false. Early records prove that the Malabar Christians were apart of the Church of the East not the Catholic Church, thus today being recognized as a church of East Syriac Practice. (A.D 52- 1599).

If the poster means “since the birth of the Syro Malabar Church”, by since the Portuguese arrived in Kerala and forcefully abolished numerous East Syriac practices from the Malabar Christians and took them under the Catholic Wing, than yes their statement is true. After the Portuguese arrived and latinized the Malabar Christians, whom they called the “Syrian Catholics” never once broke off communion with the Catholic Church. (1599-Today).

 

[malphono]

Further to what [post=11250009]Thomas48[/post] said, let me add a note about the “Patriarchate” business. As part of the ACoE it was historically under the Catholicos-Patriarch of Selucia-Ctesiphon, so there was no actually separate “Patriarch” for what became (from 1599) the Syro-Malabar Church. At most, it would have been considered a Catholicosate of the ACoE, at least until it (the ACoE) declined and essentially ignored the Church in what is now Kerala. That decline and neglect is really the reason why the latinizations that the Portuguese imposed were able to take hold so easily. I think (and Thomas, please correct or supplement my memory here) that the title of the Catholicos included “Gate of India” among other things. In any case, today, if anything, there might be claim to a Catholicosate, but certainly not a Patriarchate.

It’s interesting to note that, albeit they were essentially independent and self-governing from the time they were received by Rome in 1932, the Syro-Malankara were initially under the jurisdiction of the SCC Patriarchate. That is, until sometime in the late 1980s or early '90, when Rome unilaterally severed the bond and created a Major-Archepiscopal entity. The Major-Archbishop now uses the “unofficial” title of Catholicos, which is, IIRC, even in the Annuario Pontificio, so Rome at least tacitly accepts it.

To my view, it would be ideal if both the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches were formally recognized as Catholicosates of their respective “Mother Churches” but I doubt that Rome will do anything of the kind.

 

[HELLOTOALL]

ther is a new divine mercy syrio malabar catholic church in my parish.if youre familiar with this type of church,do they speak english during their service;do they have a Mass like RC.Im curious to attend their services.I dont know,if I will be welcome,as Im not from the Middle East.Any thoughts?

 

[Peter_J]

I dont know,if I will be welcome,as Im not from the Middle East.Any thoughts?

I think many Latin Catholics ask questions like that (in many cases, just asking them inside their own heads). But by way of comparison ask yourself this question: would a Middle-Eastern Catholic (or a Ukrainian Catholic, or a Romanian Catholic etc) be unwelcome at a Roman-Rite mass?

 

[Peter_J]

It’s interesting to note that, albeit they were essentially independent and self-governing from the time they were received by Rome in 1932, the Syro-Malankara were initially under the jurisdiction of the SCC Patriarchate. That is, until sometime in the late 1980s or early '90, when Rome unilaterally severed the bond and created a Major-Archepiscopal entity.

Not to get too nitty-gritty, but the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church didn’t become Major-Archepiscopal until 2005.

 

[kevin_barry]

I never heard this before, but it is what this blog post claims:

thesyromalabarchurch.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-we-need-patriarchate.html

Some relevant excerpts:

“Regarding the union with the catholic community and obligation to pope, syro malabar church was tightly bound to the catholic community, ever since her birth. She is one among the three churches who didn’t break up the links with the catholic teachings, during the course of time. The other two churches are Maronite church and the Italo-Albanian church.”

“Regarding the number of faithful, none of these stands with the Syro malabar church. The Armanian church has about 6 lakh faithful, Chaldean church has about 5 lakh faithful, Coptic church has about 1.75 lakh faithful, Syrian church has about 1.6 lakh faithful, Melkite church has about 16 lakh faithful and the Maronite church has about 32.5 lakh faithful. All these churches have the patriarchal status. Yet our Syro malabar church with over 40 lakh faithful, and which was in full communion with the pope ever since her birth has no patriarchal status!!!”

Are these claims true? Thanks!

What I can see in all these claims is thirst for more power. My question is why don’t all these churches teach the truth? My opinion is scholars and historians of all churches should proclaim the truth always. These are my points.

1. In the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in AD325, Eusthathius, bishop of Antioch presided. But all our catholic and byzantines teach that Alexander followed by Athanasius of Alexandria presided.
2. It can be seen that bishop of Antioch was the head of all bishops in the first centuries. Always now and then bishop of Antioch is accepted as the successor of Peter.
3. Up to 7th century, that is up to the reign of Emperor Charlemagne, church of Rome used Antiochian liturgy. During the reign of Charlemagne, everything changed.
4. During the reign of Charlemagne, church of Rome prepared the fake document, Donation of Constantine.

4 The practice of Peter’s pence began during the reign of Charlemagne.

1. During first Vatican Council, syrian catholic and Melkite patriarchs of Antioch opposed the theory of ‘papal infallibility’. As a result, later Pope Pius IX when he met melkite patriarch, placed his foot on the head of melkite patriarch after making him kneel before him forcefully by Swiss guards. We can see in our catechism texts, with how much vigour and enthusiasm, th theory of ‘papal infallibility’ is taught.

So what I can say is that, in this modern world, people know everything. Old games of cheating and teaching incorrect things is no longer possible. My opinion is that all the decisions are aiming at merely the economy and politics of Europe. The solution is that all the churches should assemble like the first council of Jerusalem and make a decision on who the head is and make steps for preaching the gospel al lover the world.

 

[malphono]

Not to get too nitty-gritty, but the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church didn’t become Major-Archepiscopal until 2005.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps **SyroMalankara **can fill in the details about exactly when the ties, (albeit that they were both minimal and loose, as they should have been), with the “Mother Church” (SCC in this case) were formally severed.

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

To my view, it would be ideal if both the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches were formally recognized as Catholicosates of their respective “Mother Churches” but I doubt that Rome will do anything of the kind.

I don’t think the churches themselves would want to be under the Syriac and Chaldean patriarchates anyway.

Which raises another question that has come up. Shouldn’t there be only one patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria etc…rather than the hierarchy that is present at the moment…

 

[abinjoy]

ther is a new divine mercy syrio malabar catholic church in my parish.if youre familiar with this type of church,do they speak english during their service;do they have a Mass like RC.Im curious to attend their services.I dont know,if I will be welcome,as Im not from the Middle East.Any thoughts?

The roots of Syro Malabar church can be traced to Middle East but it is based mostly at India (in the state of Kerala.In India the language they use is Malayalam but outside they may use English not sure though …Syro Malabar church has high rates of vocation and mass attendance.I imagine you will be welcomed but the cultural differences can be a bit of a barrier.May be worth going for Syro malabr mass with a company so that you may not feel isolated

 

[malphono]

I don’t think the churches themselves would want to be under the Syriac and Chaldean patriarchates anyway.

As Catholicosates, being “under” the “Mother Church” doesn’t really mean they would relinquish much of anything. The Patriarch consecrates Myroun once a year, and recognizes (but has no say in) the election of a Catholicos. That’s about the extent of it. Beyond that, a Catholicosate is fully self-governing and essentially independent. The concept is unique to the Oriental Churches and one thing in its favor is that it avoids the proliferation of non-traditional Patriarchates.

Which raises another question that has come up. Shouldn’t there be only one patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria etc…rather than the hierarchy that is present at the moment…

This one has been hashed around before in various threads here. Better, I think, we not derail this one.

 

[kevin_barry]

I don’t think the churches themselves would want to be under the Syriac and Chaldean patriarchates anyway.

Which raises another question that has come up. Shouldn’t there be only one patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria etc…rather than the hierarchy that is present at the moment…

Yes. Will it happen? I don’ know. But see the pictures:

The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch Cardinal Butros El Raii showing humbleness and love toward our Syriac oerth Ighnatius Zaodox patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius Zakka. (September 13, 2013).

 

[kevin_barry]

Yes. Will it happen? I don’ know. But see the pictures:

The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch Cardinal Butros El Raii showing humbleness and love toward our Syriac oerth Ighnatius Zaodox patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius Zakka. (September 13, 2013).

scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/59174_10151686949288786_605661561_n.jpg

 

[Peter_J]

As Catholicosates, being “under” the “Mother Church” doesn’t really mean they would relinquish much of anything. The Patriarch consecrates Myroun once a year, and recognizes (but has no say in) the election of a Catholicos. That’s about the extent of it. Beyond that, a Catholicosate is fully self-governing and essentially independent. **The concept is unique to the Oriental Churches **and one thing in its favor is that it avoids the proliferation of non-traditional Patriarchates.

I see it as fairly similar, however, to the concept of “Autonomous” (as distinct from “Autocephalous”) churches in Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[malphono]

I see it as fairly similar, however, to the concept of “Autonomous” (as distinct from “Autocephalous”) churches in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Perhaps it’s more of a combination of the two. In the Constantinopolitan model, (as opposed to the Slavic model), even Autocephalous Churches recognize the Patriarchate (i.e, Constantinople) and the Patriarch, in turn, recognizes them. IOW, communion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Syro-Malankara Church was never directly under the SCC Patriarch, only connected in a common Liturgical and historical way. When Mar Ivanios reunited with the Catholic Church, the Pope set up a parallel structure to the Malankara Orthodox, except for the establishment of the Catholicate - expecting the Malankara Orthodox Catholicos to become Catholic and keep his title/rank.

 

[malphono]

The Syro-Malankara Church was never directly under the SCC Patriarch, only connected in a common Liturgical and historical way. When Mar Ivanios reunited with the Catholic Church, the Pope set up a parallel structure to the Malankara Orthodox, except for the establishment of the Catholicate - expecting the Malankara Orthodox Catholicos to become Catholic and keep his title/rank.

No, not directly, but there was a connection which was broken by Rome. And that’s really the point.

 

[SyroMalankara]

No, not directly, but there was a connection which was broken by Rome. And that’s really the point.

I think even this is a stretch. One could make the case for a connection to the Assyrian/Chaldean Catholicate, or the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate, but not the Syriac Catholic Patriarchate.

 

[malphono]

I think even this is a stretch. One could make the case for a connection to the Assyrian/Chaldean Catholicate, or the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate, but not the Syriac Catholic Patriarchate.

The connection was simply because the SCC, which had split from the SOC, was in union with Rome, and the Syro-Malankara Church, likewise split from the Orthodox, also came into union with Rome. As you [post=11256696]yourself said[/post]

connected in a common Liturgical and historical way

.