Syro Malabar Church Phoenix Arizona

[SyroMalankara]

Sorry, I see no reason to believe a piece of fiction invented in the nineteenth century.

I have great respect for real academic work. It is just that I do not count propaganda as academic work. What I have learned, to my great dismay, since I started posting on this forum is that even priests can be spin doctors.

There is a lot of political gain to be made with the spin claiming that the ancient community that came in communion with RCC in 1599 broke away and accepted another Syriac Liturgy. Nobody has challenged that false claim because only priests and those supported by priests have been recruited to write on the topic.

Instead of repeating and re-repeating your unsupported THEORY, why not back it up with some facts - what academic work supports your theory? Your opinion that every single academician and scholar is spinning the truth it highly untenable and unlikely - especially when many of those same scholars are Roman and Malabar Catholic. Why has no other scholar, historian, or academic made this claim that your have just stated?

Some facts: Whether there were a minority or majority at Koonan Cross is irrelevant when almost all scholar agree that within the group that did schism, many returned to Communion with Rome when the Carmelites replaced the Jesuits.

Your statement that the West Syriac Liturgy is an invention of the Anglicans is laughable, not only is it unproven, it is highly offensive and borders on perverse - even the Holy See from the 15 Century to this day accepts that the origin of the West Syriac Liturgy is from antiquity. Instead of backing up your statement with ANY scholarly writing, you restate the ridiculous opinion as fact.

 

[Tradycja]

Hello, I read a little bit of this thread. I don’t really understand most of what is being discussed here. I am a Roman Catholic who frequently goes to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, therefore after my own tradition, I am most familiar with the Byzantine tradition… Does anyone have any links that will explain the Syro-Malabar Church for those of us who don’t know anything about it.

From reading this thread I understand there are some conflicts in this Church. Are these similar to the conflicts between Russian Orthodox and Greek Catholics in Ukraine?

 

[Mariamkutty]

Instead of repeating and re-repeating your unsupported THEORY, why not back it up with some facts - what academic work supports your theory? Your opinion that every single academician and scholar is spinning the truth it highly untenable and unlikely - especially when many of those same scholars are Roman and Malabar Catholic. Why has no other scholar, historian, or academic made this claim that your have just stated?

Some facts: Whether there were a minority or majority at Koonan Cross is irrelevant when almost all scholar agree that within the group that did schism, many returned to Communion with Rome when the Carmelites replaced the Jesuits.

Your statement that the West Syriac Liturgy is an invention of the Anglicans is laughable, not only is it unproven, it is highly offensive and borders on perverse - even the Holy See from the 15 Century to this day accepts that the origin of the West Syriac Liturgy is from antiquity. Instead of backing up your statement with ANY scholarly writing, you restate the ridiculous opinion as fact.

Mr SyroMalankara, there is plenty of material that gives weight to what I have written here.

This forum is however not the place for an academic discussion. Using veiled threats and intimidation is no way to carry on an academic discussion. Members LukaThomas, pjk123 and you have tried that tactic. That disqualifies all three of you as far as an academic discussion is concerned. Member pjk123 is even so skilled as to get a discussion closed when HE wants it. MathewJoseph posts what he has been taught, and what he has read that confirms what he has been taught. He is clearly upset when he reads other points of view and is probably unaware that history of Christianity in Kerala has been made extremely complex since the arrival of Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide, the conquest of Cochin by Dutch and colonial power passed into the hands of Britain in 1795. But at least MathewJoseph does not feel the need to issue veiled threats to those who disagree with him.

Besides, you don’t seem to be reading my posts.

Coonan Cross Oath is THE THEORY that was invented to give protection to Latin Rite Catholics in Cochin when Dutch took control from the Portuguese. The Latin Rite Catholics of Cochin and their priests were thus brought under Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide. Don’t forget Portuguese had been in Cochin for 160 years by the time Dutch took control. Portuguese Padroado had an army of missionaries who had been involved in converting locals with dedication and enthusiasm in all places where there was a Portuguese trading base.

Non Catholics merely borrowed that THEORY in the nineteenth century AFTER the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan.

Of course it makes a difference to the ancient Indian community when they are told they lived in Mattancherry, Cochin a Portuguese colony and broke with RCC because the Dutch were coming. Because they neither lived in Cochin nor broke with the RCC.

If you had really read my posts you would have known that I said the history of liturgical development in the CHURCH OF SCOTLAND has much to do with liturgical development of non-Catholics in erstwhile upper Travancore part of Malabar Coast (read: present Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Allepey districts). The development is directly related to the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan in 1806, the arrival of CMS missionaries following that visit, the joint training of non-Catholics in their seminary for 20 years, the CMS College started in 1817, which offered free education for ALL for over forty years, and thereafter charged only a nominal fee. In other words CMS missionaries did everything in their power to educate ALL the locals in upper Travancore where they were given charge by the British Resident (BR). Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan had been invited by the British Resident with the permission of the king of Travancore.

A lot of academic work was undertaken in the Middle East and British India with regard to Syriac Liturgies after the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan. There is nothing perverse about pointing to a well known fact. Britain was after a world colonial power for one a half centuries after the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan to Malabar and Coromandel coasts in 1806. Madras Christian College, which the two non-Catholics who initiated break up of the initial non-Catholic group in upper Travancore had attended, had been started by Scottish missionaries.

So there was a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut from European Protestants in the development of the Syriac Liturgy among non-Catholics on Malabar Coast post 1806. Kottayam, which included present Pathanamthitta district, and present Allepey (Alapuzha) district was the center for the developments. CMS College offered the study of Syriac to anyone who was interested. British scholars may even have invented the term “Western Syriac,” after they started to study the language.

The kingdom of Cochin at the time, which included most of present Thrissur district, was under Catholic control, Latin Rite Catholic Diocese of Cochin under Portuguese Padroado, Latin Rite Vicar Apostolate of Veropoly under Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide and Syrian Rite See of Cranganore under Portguese Padroado.

I did not imply that the Syriac Liturgy of any sort did not exist in the Middle East. The ancient Christian community of Malabar Coast after all did use a Syriac Liturgy and were under the Patriarch of Babylon until 1597. They continued to use the Syriac Liturgy, purged of allegiance to Patriarch of Babylon and what RCC considered heretical at the time, even after Synod of Diamper 1599, in their own churches with their own priests.

***The ancient Christian community of natives had no reason whatsoever to break with RCC. ***

 

[Mariamkutty]

Your statement that the West Syriac Liturgy is an invention of the Anglicans is laughable, not only is it unproven, it is highly offensive and borders on perverse - even the Holy See from the 15 Century to this day accepts that the origin of the West Syriac Liturgy is from antiquity. Instead of backing up your statement with ANY scholarly writing, you restate the ridiculous opinion as fact.

**At least three European Protestant Churches helped non-Catholics of Malabar Coast, (present Kerala, erstwhile upper Travancore and Latin Rite Diocese of Cochin).

Church of Scotland

Church of England

Lutheran Basel Mission and scholars belonging to the various groups within it

**

It is not by accident that all the thousands of converts of Lutheran Basel Mission in North Kerala (Malabar District of British Raj) and those belonging to Latin Rite Diocese of Cochin “disappeared” without a trace. They simply joined other churches. Basel Mission was suppressed when World War One broke out. Latin Rite Diocese of Cochin had to join the Latin Rite Archdiocese of Veropoly when Portuguese Padroado was suppressed. They schismed when that happened. As a measure of damage control, Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide later allowed Latin Rite Catholics to join the newly formed Syro Malabar Church. That is why the newly formed church of 1923, starting with two vicariates in 1887, is much larger than the community that came in communion with RCC in 1599, and extends even to areas where Portuguese Padroado was very active since 1500, and later followed by Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide who trained new local converts, even those belonging to Portuguese Padroado, (who by the old definition were actually Latin Rite) in Syriac Liturgy.

 

[Mariamkutty]

Hello, I read a little bit of this thread. I don’t really understand most of what is being discussed here. I am a Roman Catholic who frequently goes to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, therefore after my own tradition, I am most familiar with the Byzantine tradition… Does anyone have any links that will explain the Syro-Malabar Church for those of us who don’t know anything about it.

From reading this thread I understand there are some conflicts in this Church. Are these similar to the conflicts between Russian Orthodox and Greek Catholics in Ukraine?

There are two other threads discussing Syro Malabar Catholic Church:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=289346

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354795

 

[Mariamkutty]

Tradycja

The summary is very simple:

According to the tradition of the locals in Malabar Coast (as the state of Kerala was once known), Apostle Thomas came in 52 AD.

The Christians were local Hindus and according to some included some Black Jews, who had settled on Malabar Coast.

Sometime later the Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari were brought to them from the Middle East from the missionaries of Patriarch of Babylon.

This they followed, and the bishop who came from ME had his seat in Kodungallur (Cranganore) where Apostle Thomas is said to have landed.

Portuguese came to Malabar Coast in 1500 and set up trade base in Cochin and other places along the Malabar Coast - Kannur (Cannanore), Kollam (Quilon), Pallipuram…

They converted locals with an army of missionaries, in the areas where Portuguese had trade bases. Kerala consisted of several small independent kingdoms at that time. Portuguese had trade deals only with some of them - Kannur, Cochin, Kollam, Pallipuram.

St Francis Xavier came in 1542 and was also involved in mass conversions of locals.

All new converts were of Latin Rite. The ancient community did not proselytize. (They did however lose control over who would join the See of Cranganore created for them after Portuguese took over, although the Portuguese did respect their desire to worship in their own churches.)

The ancient community followed Syriac Liturgy of Addai and Mari in their own churches with their own priests.

Jesuits discovered that the ancient Christian community were Nestorians by their definition, so they tried to convert them to Roman Catholicism.

In the year 1597, after the death of their bishop Mar Abraham from Babylon, no more bishops were allowed to come. Portuguese controlled international waters and trade without any competition from other Europeans for a whole century 1498 - 1602.

In 1599, the ancient community of Christians on the Malabar Coast accepted Pope in Rome as their Patriarch on the condition they would be allowed to keep their Syriac Liturgy and worship in their own churches. Books considered heretical were burned, some others were purged of what was considered Nestorian heresy. The Syriac Liturgy was purged of allegiance to Patriarch of Babylon and Pope in Rome took his place.

A separate See was created for them under Portguese Padroado, See of Angamaly later changed to See of Crangangore. Portuguese had a colony in Goa from 1510 - 1961.

In 1663, after Dutch ousted Portuguse, Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide sent out Catholic priests to Malabar Coast to take care of Catholics. Now there were two Catholic jurisdictions - Portuguese Padroado and Papal Propaganda Fide.

In 1838, Portuguese Padroado was suppressed and Latin Rite Catholics under them were handed over to Papal Propaganda Fide. At this time some broke away.

See of Cranganore for Syrian Rite Catholics continued until 1886.

In 1887, two Vicariates were formed, Vicariate of Thrissur was the continuation of See of Cranganore, and a new Vicariate of Kottayam, which also had some who until then were non-Catholics who followed a different Syriac Liturgy. (History discussed at length on three threads.)

The conflict is because Vicariate of Thrissur became the Archdiocese of Thrissur, which had to give up eleven of its ancient churches when a new diocese of Ernakulam was formed in 1896, follows the Syriac Liturgy of the ancient Christian community as it was in 1599.

After the arrival of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan to Malabar Coast in 1806 (the Dutch were outsted from Kerala/Malabar Coast in 1795 and Britain took over) a lot of academic work was undertaken in the Middle East regarding Syriac Liturgies. The academic center on Malabar Coast was in Kottayam of erstwhile upper Travancore.

This academic work conducted in the Middle East in the nineteenth century has led to accusations of Latinizations in Archdiocese of Thrissur because they follow the Syriac Liturgy as it was in 1599, in keeping with the history of their origins.

 

[Mariamkutty]

**Tradycja, I suggest you read the three threads. It is too tedious to go through the same discussions over and over again. **

 

[Mariamkutty]

Your opinion that every single academician and scholar is spinning the truth it highly untenable and unlikely - especially when many of those same scholars are Roman and Malabar Catholic. Why has no other scholar, historian, or academic made this claim that your have just stated?

Anyone who ignores the political colonial nature of church history in Kerala (Malabar Coast) since the arrival of Portuguese in 1500, which became even more complex after they were ousted by Dutch and then take over of British and the arrival of Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide, is being simplistic.

The ancient native community had no political interests increasingly lost power to decide their own affairs within the Catholic church hierarchy after they came in communion with RCC in 1599.

When I refer to some priests as spin doctors, I mean only that priests are capable of developing political theories, based on their study of philosophy. The historical theories could have well been developed for political reasons in keeping with the colonial traders in Malabar Coast since 1500. When blind obedience to superiors remains the condition under which a priest is expected to think, no priest can ever question a political theory developed by anyone with power within the church hierarchy. Thus political theories have evolved to false history over time.

Portuguese were easy to vilify after they lost power. My guess is peace was made with them at a later stage by converting all their history into history of Apostle Thomas, which was added to the ancient authentic tradition of locals, who had no power or say in the church hierarchy. Similarly theories developed by non-Catholics in the nineteenth century were added as Apostle Thomas traditions. It creates political unity but has no basis in real history. After all, all the players were empire builders. Even the Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide had even more experience with politics of empire than even the Portuguese, Dutch and British. It is obvious that the mission of Papal Mission was to keep everyone happy and to include as many in the Catholic church as possible, prevent schisms, with whatever means was available to them. Hence the identity of being authentic ancient Christians of Malabar Coast was handed to anyone who asked for it. What difference does it make to the Pope if Catholics from Kerala prefer to identify themselves as Eastern Catholics, as long as they remained in communion with Rome? Considering the Christian community that call themselves Knanayi Catholics follow the same Syriac Rite as the Syro Malankara Church created in 1932, there had been no need for a separate church. The Syro Malabar Church already had two Syriac Rites within in 1887, the Syriac Rite followed by vicariate of Kottayam in 1887 being different to the one followed by vicariate of Thrissur.

Church properties and positions of power within each church hierarchy are all considerations that influence the creation of separate churches.

 

[potohar]

Hi ,
what is the history of syrian christians of thrissur district?is the history of christians in alappuzha and kottayam a invented thing?i’ve read that christians in kottayam claims as st.thomas converts.any eseence in the claims?ive seen cms high school in thrissur.where cms active in thrissur also?
history of syrian christians of kanjoor?are they also real st.thomas converts?

 

[Mariamkutty]

Hi ,
what is the history of syrian christians of thrissur district?is the history of christians in alappuzha and kottayam a invented thing?i’ve read that christians in kottayam claims as st.thomas converts.any eseence in the claims?ive seen cms high school in thrissur.where cms active in thrissur also?
history of syrian christians of kanjoor?are they also real st.thomas converts?

The word Syrian Christians for non-Catholics was not used until the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan. His trips in Malabar is the key to understanding non-Catholic Syrian development.

Kunnamkulangara, known as Kunnanmkulam, in Thrissur District, was one of many Nambudiri controlled feudal holdings, for which Thrissur was well known for. Hindu kings never attacked them. They never had armies. They came under the protection of Zamorin of Calicut at some point.

In 1693, thirty years after Dutch captured Cochin, they captured Kunamkulangara/Kunnamkulam. It became a Dutch settlement. There were some authentic St Thomas Christians. The non-Catholic, non-locals are migrants after Dutch capture. They are not “refugees” from Chavakkad Taluk as they falsely claim. Native Christians, Hindus and native Muslims have all lived at peace with one another. As in Kunnamkulam, the local feudal lords surrendered immediately to Tippu Sultan because they had no soldiers. Zamorin of Calicut, who was supposed to protect them had already been defeated before Tippu Sultan reached Chavakkad.

Almost all of Thrissur came under king of Cochin in the late 18th century. One needs to read in detail how it was done with support from Dutch forces.

The Latin Rite Catholics of Diocese of Cochin under Portuguese Padroado entered into schism after their diocese was handed over to Latin Rite Archdiocese of Veropoly of Propaganda Fide. Their priests were trained first in Kottayam under CMS and then in England. After that they went to the Middle East, Baghdad and Mosul and Quinchos, to learn the Syriac Liturgy of Assyrians. It is actually a brand new church formed with the help of Church of England, with only one single member taken from the Assyrians. The Chaldeans by then were already in communion with Rome. The first two bishops were consecrated in Church of England. One of them was from Thrissur! He was even the Patriarch or something. At any rate that group considers Thrissur as their church of origin, until a proper Patriarch was chosen from among the Assyrians, who is now in the US.

The little non-Catholic Syrian groups that pop up here, and usually have a migration story of some sort, are most likely settlers from the times of colonial trade. Remember there were three groups - Portuguese, Dutch and British, besides Jews, the ancient Jews who are known as Black Jews and European Jews who are known as white Jews. It is impossible to tell their origins because they have all adopted Malayali names. Only Jews can be identified because of their religion, not because of their names.

The ancient community of native Apostle Thomas Christians are part of the Indian community. The ancient community of Jews who were in Malabar Coast in those early days are likely to have merged with them with time. Only the social customs marked them out. They lived like Hindus, although they worshiped in Churches like Christians in their Syriac Liturgy after it was introduced to them, with no trace of any Hindu ritual in it. They were not targeted by any group, either Hindu kings or Muslim invaders. Portuguese Padroado had given them permission to worship in their own churches. But mixing started to take place only after non-St Thomas Christians of Latin Rite were given Syrian Rite priests and Latin Rite priests trained in Syriac Liturgy thus converting their parishes into Syrian Rite parishes. It must have started after the arrival of Dutch because being Latin Rite Catholic convert favoured by Portuguese was then no longer good for business.

The original list of ancient Churches is in the Synod of Diamper documents.

At no time did the ancient community stand to benefit in any way by breaking their communion with RCC. They already had their separate churches and their own priests and their own Syriac Liturgy.

They did not live in the Portguese town, Mattancherry, Cochin.

 

[mathewjoseph]

Dear Syro malankara

 As I have given previously the statements from 2 major arch bishops of our church and from one latin cardinal, I may present you with my doubts. As a scholar I wish you can clear my doubts. Also I request you to give answers with truth with no partiality towards any side. You may be holding any responsible position in the catholic church. But please forget all those and give the correct facts. 
I have found that church of antioch was/is regarded as the mother and head of all churches. Catholics may argue that church of jerusalem is the mother of all churches. Any way, I may ask you my doubts on what happened in first centuries? What was the status of the church from AD 100 to AD 300? Any evidence who acted as the head? I found that bishop of antioch was the superior and that he headed almost all the bishops in the then world, that is entire east.

What happened in Nichea on AD 325? From history it is found that 3 bishops, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch were declared patriarchs. Were they given equal status? Why? What was the position of Antioch there? If the above mentioned fact that Antioch rules almost, why it was not given the head title in Nichea? Or is it the fact that Rome was given the title first among the equals? We get records from the wrtings of Eusebius of Caesera. It is found that he was not in good terms with then bishop of antioch Eustatius. Is the records about Nichea true? If they are true, why the major arch bishops made such statements. Or whether the records on Nichea were framed later by Byzantine and Catholic churches later since both tried to destroy Antiochean (syriac) church or to destroy Antiochean traditions?
My question is what is the true history in first centuries? What happened actually? Since we have the fake document ‘Donation of Constantine’, what is the truth?
I request you to give answers in the light of the statements given by the major bishops previuosly.

 

[Mariamkutty]

The word Syrian Christians for non-Catholics was not used until the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan. His trips in Malabar is the key to understanding non-Catholic Syrian development.

Kunnamkulangara, known as Kunnanmkulam, in Thrissur District, was one of many Nambudiri controlled feudal holdings, for which Thrissur was well known for. Hindu kings never attacked them. They never had armies. They came under the protection of Zamorin of Calicut at some point.

In 1693, thirty years after Dutch captured Cochin, they captured Kunamkulangara/Kunnamkulam. It became a Dutch settlement. There were some authentic St Thomas Christians. The non-Catholic, non-locals are migrants after Dutch capture. They are not “refugees” from Chavakkad Taluk as they falsely claim. Native Christians, Hindus and native Muslims have all lived at peace with one another. As in Kunnamkulam, the local feudal lords surrendered immediately to Tippu Sultan because they had no soldiers. Zamorin of Calicut, who was supposed to protect them had already been defeated before Tippu Sultan reached Chavakkad.

Almost all of Thrissur came under king of Cochin in the late 18th century. One needs to read in detail how it was done with support from Dutch forces.

Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan did visit non-Catholics of Kunnamkulam in 1806. Visits by CMS missionaries followed. One group of non-Catholics became Mar Thoma Church. Hence the CMS schools. Non-Catholics in Thrissur are settlers from outside who came in different waves after Dutch started to annexe Thrissur using king of Cochin.

The other group of settlers were the Latin Rite Catholics of Diocese of Cochin under Portuguese Padroado. They entered into schism after Portguese Padroado was suppressed and their diocese was handed over to Latin Rite Archdiocese of Veropoly of Propaganda Fide in 1836. Their priests were trained first in Kottayam under CMS, in European Protestant seminaries in North India and then in England. After that they went to the Middle East, Baghdad and Mosul and Quinchos, to learn the Syriac Liturgy of Assyrians (the same one followed by the ancient community who came in communion with RCC in 1599) and learn the Christian culture among Assyrians. Theirs is actually a brand new church formed with the help of Church of England, with only one single member taken from the Assyrians. The Chaldeans by then were already in communion with Rome. The first two bishops were consecrated in Church of England. One of them was from Thrissur! He was even the Patriarch or something. At any rate that group considers Thrissur as their church of origin, until a proper Patriarch was chosen from among the Assyrians, who is now in the US. Other Assyrians from all over the Middle East joined the church after it was properly established with the help of Church of England.

The little non-Catholic Syrian groups that pop up here and there in Kerala, and usually have a migration story of some sort, are most likely settlers from the times of colonial trade. Remember there were three groups - Portuguese, Dutch and British, besides Jews, the ancient Jews who are known as Black Jews and European Jews who are known as white Jews. It is impossible to tell their origins because they have all adopted Malayali names. Only Jews can be identified because of their religion, not because of their names.

The ancient community of native Apostle Thomas Christians are part of the Indian community. They don’t need a story of migrations. They don’t have any. The ancient community of Jews who were in Malabar Coast in those early days are likely to have merged with them with time. Only the social customs marked them out. They lived like Hindus, although they worshiped in Churches like Christians in their Syriac Liturgy after it was introduced to them, with no trace of any Hindu ritual in it. They were not targeted by any group, either Hindu kings or Muslim invaders. Portuguese Padroado had given them permission to worship in their own churches. But mixing probably started to take place only after non-St Thomas Christians of Latin Rite were given Syrian Rite priests and Latin Rite priests trained in Syriac Liturgy thus converting their parishes into Syrian Rite parishes. It must have started after the arrival of Dutch because being Latin Rite Catholic convert favoured by Portuguese was then no longer good for business. Then there were intermarriages with those who came from Cochin to Thrissur in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Much like Muslims, much like Portuguese. There are far too many hybrids now to be able to pick them apart, especially because all adopted local names. But no Syrian Catholic would have married anyone who was attending any Latin Rite church, all marriages being arranged.

At no time did the ancient community stand to benefit in any way by breaking their communion with RCC. They already had their separate churches and their own priests and their own Syriac Liturgy. The fact that they were natives were known to all. None of the traders had come to persecute the ancient community of native Christians. They did not live in the Portguese town, Mattancherry, Cochin. The story of schism was invented only in the nineteenth century, to extend Apostle Thomas Christians status to the non-Catholic groups and all Latin Rite Catholics who wanted to join the fold. Rivalry between Syrian and Latin Rite clergy was about power politics. The ancient community clergy probably did not allow themselves to be dominated by colonial power backed Latin Rite Catholics. Just my speculation. But lay people had no problems because they did not associate with Latin Rite Catholics at all.

 

[potohar]

what is the migration you are talking about?explain openly.do you think syro malabar church needs to divide with ernakulam and thrissur district parts as a separate church t ? what migration are you talk about?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Latin Rite Catholics of Diocese of Cochin under Portuguese Padroado entered into schism after their diocese was handed over to Latin Rite Archdiocese of Veropoly of Propaganda Fide. Their priests were trained first in Kottayam under CMS and then in England. After that they went to the Middle East, Baghdad and Mosul and Quinchos, to learn the Syriac Liturgy of Assyrians.

Why would Latin Catholic priests be trained in a Protestant CMS seminary? Which year do you claim these events took place? CMS was not formed until 1799. Also, the Syriac Liturgy of the Assyrians is the SAME as the pre-Diamper Liturgy shared by both groups, yet the Syriac Liturgy used by the Malankara Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Syro-Malankara Catholic, and protestantized-version by the Marthomas IS NOT mainly used by the Assyrians, but by the majority Arameans.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Dear Syro malankara

 As I have given previously the statements from 2 major arch bishops of our church and from one latin cardinal, I may present you with my doubts. As a scholar I wish you can clear my doubts. Also I request you to give answers with truth with no partiality towards any side. You may be holding any responsible position in the catholic church. But please forget all those and give the correct facts. 
I have found that church of antioch was/is regarded as the mother and head of all churches. Catholics may argue that church of jerusalem is the mother of all churches. Any way, I may ask you my doubts on what happened in first centuries? What was the status of the church from AD 100 to AD 300? Any evidence who acted as the head? I found that bishop of antioch was the superior and that he headed almost all the bishops in the then world, that is entire east.

What happened in Nichea on AD 325? From history it is found that 3 bishops, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch were declared patriarchs. Were they given equal status? Why? What was the position of Antioch there? If the above mentioned fact that Antioch rules almost, why it was not given the head title in Nichea? Or is it the fact that Rome was given the title first among the equals? We get records from the wrtings of Eusebius of Caesera. It is found that he was not in good terms with then bishop of antioch Eustatius. Is the records about Nichea true? If they are true, why the major arch bishops made such statements. Or whether the records on Nichea were framed later by Byzantine and Catholic churches later since both tried to destroy Antiochean (syriac) church or to destroy Antiochean traditions?
My question is what is the true history in first centuries? What happened actually? Since we have the fake document ‘Donation of Constantine’, what is the truth?
I request you to give answers in the light of the statements given by the major bishops previuosly.

You should start a new thread to discuss this topic. The statement that you quote repeatedly has never been shown in its entirety. I DO NOT BELIEVE that the bishops you mention stated anything against the authority of the Holy Father. The statement is being taken out to context - please post the ENTIRE article before repeating that statement. NO Catholicos, NO Major-Archbishop, NO Cardinal would say what is being attributed to them in the context that it is being stated - I believe their quotes are being taken out of context.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Mr SyroMalankara, there is plenty of material that gives weight to what I have written here.

Name one! You refuse to name one single scholarly article or book or journal. Perhaps because it doesn’t exist.

This forum is however not the place for an academic discussion. Using veiled threats and intimidation is no way to carry on an academic discussion. Members LukaThomas, pjk123 and you have tried that tactic. That disqualifies all three of you as far as an academic discussion is concerned.

That’s hilarious!! Instead of showing where and how you get your information, you refuse to provide it and hide behind some conspiracy theory. You get on your high horse and decide who is WORTHY of being given information from your uncited and unproven theories??

NO academic would hide behind supposed “threats” - (the threat being a question of who this person’s priest is, and which parish she attends – some “threat”)

Member pjk123 is even so skilled as to get a discussion closed when HE wants it.

Another conspiracy theory. No one here has control over these boards. The moderator of this forum decides what is vile or obscene enough to be closed. You or another poster must have posted something which was not appropriate - don’t concoct and conspiracy theory for this.

Besides, you don’t seem to be reading my posts.

Of course I am reading them. I am shocked by the opinions and unsupported theories you keep posting as fact!! Perhaps it is time to disregard 99% of them, since like these conspiracy theories you mention above, these opinions that you post are figments of your imagination… you also refuse to provide any evidence other than your opinion.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I did not imply that the Syriac Liturgy of any sort did not exist in the Middle East. The ancient Christian community of Malabar Coast after all did use a Syriac Liturgy and were under the Patriarch of Babylon until 1597. They continued to use the Syriac Liturgy, purged of allegiance to Patriarch of Babylon and what RCC considered heretical at the time, even after Synod of Diamper 1599, in their own churches with their own priests.

***The ancient Christian community of natives had no reason whatsoever to break with RCC. ***

Here is where your theories fall apart. Which ancient See did the “Patriarch” of Babylon fall under?? The Patriarchate was originally a Catholicate under Antioch! It was NOT the only Catholicate under Antioch. When the Assyrians schismed in the 4thCentury, the Patriarchate re-established a Catholicate to replace the Nestorius-following one. Which Liturgy did this one use? Which Catholicate did the Indian Church have contact with? The Catholicos of the East in schism from Antioch? The Catholicos of the East in Communion with Antioch? The Catholicos of the East which reunited with Rome? The Catholicos of the East which schismed among itself and had it’s own Catholicos-Patriarchate? Which liturgy did each of these use and at which time/decade?

You state above:

they continued to use the Syriac Liturgy, purged of allegiance to Patriarch of Babylon and what RCC considered heretical at the time, even after Synod of Diamper 1599, in their own churches with their own priests.

What are the things “what the RCC considered heretical at the time”??? This is a majorly important question - this is what is cited as the REASON for the schism… Those Churches which schismed DID NOT follow all of what Diamper proclaimed - they continued the non-latinized practices of leavened bread, married clergy, Liturgy without explicit Institution Narrative, etc… THESE are the latinizations that are mentioned to this day, not some nonsense that you mentioned earlier – if these were irradicated, and the Malabar Church restored to it’s authentic Sacred Tradition, they would be considered non-latinized - they have no need to take on the Liturgy of the West Syriacs.

 

[mathewjoseph]

You should start a new thread to discuss this topic. The statement that you quote repeatedly has never been shown in its entirety. I DO NOT BELIEVE that the bishops you mention stated anything against the authority of the Holy Father. The statement is being taken out to context - please post the ENTIRE article before repeating that statement. NO Catholicos, NO Major-Archbishop, NO Cardinal would say what is being attributed to them in the context that it is being stated - I believe their quotes are being taken out of context.

Dear syro malankara
** If any of the words I quoted on major arch bishops, cardinal are not true, let the entire sky fall upon me, let thunder strikes at me, let lightning hits at me.** I think this is enough for you to believe the truth statements. What I have quoted are 100% correct. Next, please clarify my doubts.

 

[Mariamkutty]

What is the migration you are talking about? Explain openly. Do you think Syro Malabar Church needs to divide with Ernakulam and Thrissur district parts as a separate church? What migration are you talk about?

Pothar, I have read time and again on the discussion thread on this topic, Syro Malabar Catholic Church, that all authentic native St Thomas Christians from Thrissur District, migrated to the south (read: Kottayam, Pathanamthitta, Alapuzha districts)! They were supposedly persecuted by Muslims in the 3rd century (never mind Islam was non-existent at the time), and by Portuguese after their arrival. Never mind Portuguese had their base in Cochin where the ancient community didn’t live and Cochin was a small principality until Portuguese developed it. The regions between Cochin and the areas under the control of Zamorin of Calicut, in the north was a collection of independent feudal holdings. Zamorin of Calicut supposedly offered protection to all the feudal lords.

So historically there has never been any need for people from the areas of Thrissur District to migrate south. There has been reason for migrant traders from Cochin to have migrated south to principalities where Portuguese and Dutch had trade dealings and planted cash crops etc. People did migrate TO Thrissur from Cochin too. 1. When the Dutch conquered a small Nambudiri principality, Kunnamkulangera (now known as Kunnamkulam) in 1693, thirty years after they conquered Cochin. There is a posh exclusive residential area in Kunnamkulam that reflects the history of migration TO Kunnamkulam of non-Catholic prosperous traders from Cochin. From that vantage point within Thrissur it was easy for them to learn about the ancient local community of Apostle Thomas Christians. The Dutch were in control after all, and the Hindu king did whatever the Dutch expected of him. (The relationship between the king of Cochin and Dutch soured only after the Dutch entered into a trade treaty with the king of Travancore after their defeat at Colachel, and being bound by that treaty they could not help the less powerful king of Cochin when there was conflict between the king of Cochin and king of Travancore.)

The second wave of migrations from Cochin to Thrissur happened when Shakthan Thampuran, the king of Cochin, considered the architect of Thrissur town, built it in the late eighteenth century. He signed a treaty with the British in 1791. Before that the Muslim king of Mysore, Haider Ali (?Tippu Sultan), had annexed Cochin for a while around 1766. I’m not sure of the exact details, but the rough sequence of events. In any case by 1809, Cochin came fully under the British, and the descent of the king, the rightful heir, was restored to his throne by the British. The rightful heir had supposedly been ousted by some petty ruler south of Cochin with the help of Dutch in 1663. You need to verify these details from reliable primary sources.

The main point I wanted to make is with regard to your question of migrations. It happened twice, TO Thrissur, once in 1693 to Kunnamkulam when the Dutch captured it, and the second larger migration when Shakthan Thampuran built the town. He supposedly had a teak forest cleared, (hence the name Thekkideth-maidan), to build the town. The large circular area, where Thrissur Pooram is conducted, (hence also known as Poora-parambu), does give indication that it was artifically created, for no ancient village in Thrissur District could have had such a large free area. The commercial area around the Poora-parambu was likewise artificially created. The king invited traders from Cochin to come and develop the commercial area for internal trade for locals. It is possible that some locals from villages nearby also settled close to the newly built town. The area of Thrissur district consisted until then of independent villages with no central trading centre. Hence the migrations TO Thrissur. Cochin was after all a centre for international trade since 1500 built by two European colonial powers - Portuguese and Dutch. It is possible that Dutch helped in the planning of Thrissur town. I don’t know the details of who exactly planned the town.

*I did not even remotely imply that Thrissur and Ernakulam must become separate churches! I was discussing the history of migrations TO Thrissur, since it has been brought up so often in the discussion here and quite the opposite of what really happened is propagated as “history.” In that context I mentioned there was also some mixing of peoples, since some locals from villages did marry some living in the newly built Thrissur town. It might not have been possible in those instances to know if the newly migrated family was originally Latin Rite or not, as long as they attended Syrian Rite churches. But since there were many villages between Thrissur and Cochin which had plenty of Syrian Rite Catholics, many of them could have moved to the new Thrissur town. *

 

[Mariamkutty]

Name one! You refuse to name one single scholarly article or book or journal. Perhaps because it doesn’t exist.

That’s hilarious!! Instead of showing where and how you get your information, you refuse to provide it and hide behind some conspiracy theory. You get on your high horse and decide who is WORTHY of being given information from your uncited and unproven theories??

NO academic would hide behind supposed “threats” - (the threat being a question of who this person’s priest is, and which parish she attends – some “threat”)

Mr SyroMalankara, this is a discussion on a blog. The owner of the forums has the right to shut down any thread I start or delete anything I post at their discretion.

Just because I do not post references here doesn’t mean they don’t exist. You are free to call the points I make conspiracy theories if you like.

But you ask for contact details of my parish priest instead! The sort of thing one encounters in primary school. Even if I did choose to give you my contact details, I would need to know who I am giving it to. Cyberspace is not exactly where one posts contact details. So I would need to verify your contact details first. Never mind you post with the name of a church. You tell me which is more hilarious? Asking you to debate like an adult or you, who posts with the name of a church, asking me for the name of my parish priest because you don’t like what I write, even while you live in the US?!