Syro Malabar girl marry Marthomite guy with out converting! PLEASE ANSWER!

[Mariamkutty]

The Chaldean-Syrian Church is in Communion with the Assyrian Church of the East - they, about 50years ago - had some kind of limited Communion agreement with the Anglicans, but their Patriarch ended this when the Anglicans started ordaining women.

Chaldean Syrian Church of Thrissur with 30 parishes, was newly minted in the nineteenth century from the Latin Rite Catholic parishes of Diocese of Cochin. The effort was helped with CMS missionaries in Kottayam and Church of England.

The church has nothing whatever to do with the ancient Apostle Thomas tradition of Thrissur District or the See of Angamaly-Cranangore created in 1599.

Being a Latin Rite Catholic church of Diocese of Cochin set up by Portuguese Padroado since their arrival in 1500, it is ancient compared to other European dioceses in India. But that does not make it part of the Apostle Thomas tradition of native locals. It is to be remembered that Portuguese controlled many areas on Malabar Coast from 1500 to 1663, until the Dutch finally ousted them. Portuguese were known to intermarry with locals. (However as Latin Rite Catholics, it is unlikely they would have married the Syrian Rite Christians of the ancient community.) Mixed race Catholics of Goa and Brazil provide proof of intermarriage.

CMS missionaries, who arrived after the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan in 1806, instilled a love for learning in all they worked with. Establishment of the seminary, press and CMS College in Kottayam, along with instruction in Syriac, translation of Bible into Malayalam, and its distribution, including distribution of Syriac Bible to all churches who desired to have it, led to great religious scholarship. It made it easy for anyone from Malabar Coast to go to the Middle East to deepen their knowledge and learn of local Middle Eastern customs first hand. This is what happened with ALL churches with Middle Eastern affiliations in Malabar Coast in the nineteenth century.

The Apostle Thomas connection was thought up later by these churches and propagated as history. For the sake of political church unity, nobody has ever challenged the claims and looked for verification in history. The political power wielded by these groups as a result of being part of colonial traders either directly or indirectly, and the connection to Hindu kings they had control over, their version of fabricated connection to Apostle Thomas tradition of locals, has never been questioned.

Since many regions of Malabar Coast was under the control of Portuguese and Dutch for three hundred years, with the consent of Hindu kings, it has been easy for any group with political clout to push any idea they wanted, even if there was little history to back it. When the British took complete control for one and half centuries, of all of Kerala (1795 - 1947) , the situation only worsened, because it followed the recommendation of Rev Dr Buchanan and CMS missionaries. Since the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan, who actively supported all non-Catholics and wanted to create a proper church for them, with Syriac Liturgy with the assistance of Church of England, a local church that would remain in communion with CoE, followed by CMS and Basel Mission which actively supported all schismatics, profuse literature has been produced, by non-Catholics and schismatic groups, with a wishful version of history of Christianity in Kerala.

The real history is simple and sad. The local ancient community was not allowed to have their own bishops and was forcibly brought under the communion of RCC in 1599, where they remained with no need to break away. They had little say or control over which new group would claim to be members of their ancient community. Thus many European settler/mixed/local new convert groups have claimed membership in the nineteenth century.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Will you please stop hijacking every thread with your Trisshurian theory? Whether or not that theory is true, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

 

[EagleWatch]

My mother is Catholic and my father is Methodist. The two were married in the Catholic Church with a dispensation from form because my father refused to convert. He did, however, agree to raise his children Catholic (which my parents did) and I think he even made the profession of faith during the wedding…I know that he did not receive communion, however, as in the 19 years I spent attending Mass with both my parents (prior to me moving out and into a new parish) he never once received.

Does this mean that they share the same tradition? Absolutely not. A dispensation was all that was needed to marry them. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Well it seems that your father loved your mother very much and did a great sacrifice for the sake of it out of love. But he is bold enough to hold on to his traditional belief personally.

We the Indian Christians traditionally have arranged marriages mostly. Love marriages are very few comparing to western countries.

I was speaking of arraged marriages by both families of different Churches. Then traditionally, wife join the husband’s church.

What shows in your case is that your father had the greater love than your mother because he sacrificed his rights to lead the family spiritually.
(I am not saying that you were not spiritually guided by your parents - but he relinquished his traditional right to lead and take dicisions on spiritual matters as the head of the family).

 

[Mariamkutty]

Will you please stop hijacking every thread with your Trisshurian theory? Whether or not that theory is true, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Mr SyroMalankara, I notice you posted your response even before actually reading my post. Tut…tut… There was no discussion about Thrissurian theory at all. It was just a recap of how all the new churches were minted in the nineteenth century post visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan, with loads of help from CMS education and political power of Church of England and Church of Scotland when India was part of British Raj. Your church was minted in the 20th century, however since it was part of other non-Catholic churches until then, there is no particular need to highlight it, except to mention that Malabar Coast was never known as Malankara or Melienkera, Malienkaria etc at any time. Unless of course the Dutch used such an expression in their internal correspondence that the locals knew nothing about. But I very much doubt that because the Dutch would have listed the local names along with any name change they may have undertaken.

Btw, when I did a search of your posts, I found that you were in the habit of discussing YOUR church on a thread discussing only the Syro Malabar Church. This discussion involves a person from a Syro Malabar Church and Mar Thoma Church. So my post describing the common history of all the non-Catholic churches of Kerala in the nineteenth century is at least not so completely off topic as you imply.

So it would be great if you could follow your own advice while posting on this forum.

 

[EagleWatch]

Mr SyroMalankara, I notice you posted your response even before actually reading my post. Tut…tut… There was no discussion about Thrissurian theory at all. It was just a recap of how all the new churches were minted in the nineteenth century post visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan, with loads of help from CMS education and political power of Church of England and Church of Scotland when India was part of British Raj. Your church was minted in the 20th century, however since it was part of other non-Catholic churches until then, there is no particular need to highlight it, except to mention that Malabar Coast was never known as Malankara or Melienkera, Malienkaria etc at any time. Unless of course the Dutch used such an expression in their internal correspondence that the locals knew nothing about. But I very much doubt that because the Dutch would have listed the local names along with any name change they may have undertaken.

Btw, when I did a search of your posts, I found that you were in the habit of discussing YOUR church on a thread discussing only the Syro Malabar Church. This discussion involves a person from a Syro Malabar Church and Mar Thoma Church. So my post describing the common history of all the non-Catholic churches of Kerala in the nineteenth century is at least not so completely off topic as you imply.

So it would be great if you could follow your own advice while posting on this forum.

Leaving out the political and religious hijackings happened to St. Thomas and doctrinal differences of the various denomination, do you find and recognise the appostolic lineage of Mar Thoma Church from my posts? I asked this because it may help the person who posted the original querry.

Should I ask aren’t we one in Christ?

 

[EagleWatch]

If a bishop is consecrated by a bishop of sister church, Is it ok for the later to subjugate the other? cease the right to exist as independent Church?
If there was only one Catholic Church, why they do not ordain a Pope from the eastern Catholics who were once part of eastern Orthodox Churches say for example Syro Malankara Church?
If the Orthodox & Jacobite churches of Kerala are part of Greater Orthodox Church why don’t the Antiocan’s ordain their Patriarch from any of these Indian churches?
Can any one answer these?

I appologise if anyone find these questions irrelevant to the original topic. But I raised these only to help see there are more politics rather than love of God in the formation of Denominations. Hope it will help seeing lesser denomination with due respect.

 

[EagleWatch]

Which is a breakaway group less than 300 years old.

Does that church have communion with any Orthodox Church?

Independant Orthodox Churches usually are not considered Orthodox anyway to the best of my knowledge.

Like calling yourself an Independant Roman Catholic. Without the communion with Rome you’re pretty much sunk.

How you say it is a break away group?

Hope anyone from Thozhiyoor Church is reading this to answer in the case of communion with other Orthodox denominations.

There is no independant Roman Catholic ofcourse. That is not the case with Orthodox churches. There are Russian, Romanian, Antiocan, Coptic, Ethiopian, Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches to name a few which are independant but common to their Orthodox Tradition.

 

[EagleWatch]

The Chaldean-Syrian Church is in Communion with the Assyrian Church of the East - they, about 50years ago - had some kind of limited Communion agreement with the Anglicans, but their Patriarch ended this when the Anglicans started ordaining women.

The Marthoma Church is in communion with the MISC (Malankara Independent Syrian Church) of Thoozhiyor and the worldwide Anglican Communion - including the CNI (Church of North India) and CSI. MISC is no longer Orthodox, although it did originate in Orthodox roots and has retained much more of Orthodox tradition than the Marthoma church. Unfortunately, MISC stopped being orthodox when its head bishop, Mar Philexinos, converted to Catholic, joined the Syro-Malankara Church in 1977. They were left with no hierarchy and the Marthoma church “ordained” a bishop for them - unfortunately the Marthoma church’s apostolic succession is only recognized by the Anglican communion and NOT recognized by the Orthodox Churches or by the Catholic Church.

May I ask you if the Pope decides to join Mar Thoma church would the Catholic Church cease to exist?

So I don’t think your judgement is fair?

 

[Mariamkutty]

Will you please stop hijacking every thread with your Trisshurian theory?

Fact 1: The vicariate of Thrissur created in 1887.

Fact 2: It was the continuation of See of Angamaly created at Synod of Diamper, 1599, and converted to See of Cranganore a year later, 1600. It remained until 1886 under Portuguese Padroado.

**Fact 3: Eleven ancient churches of Vicariate of Thrissur (including the church at Angamaly) was taken to form part of Ernakulam diocese newly created in 1896. ** (The names of the eleven churches were listed on another thread.) Cochin was chosen as the power center of the Catholic Church in Kerala, since it had been the Portuguese Latin Rite Catholic center since 1500 and Veropoly had been the seat of the Papal Congregation of Propaganda Fide representatives from the Carmelite Order (OCD), after the Portuguese were ousted by the Dutch.

 

[Mariamkutty]

**Fact 4: Palakkad (Palghat) diocese bifurcated from Thrissur Archdiocese in 1974.

Fact 5: Irinjalakuda diocese bifurcated from Thrissur Archdiocese in 1978.

Any reference to 1887 Vicariate of Thrissur includes not just the present Thrissur Archdiocese but also the eleven ancient churches which were taken in the formation of Ernakulam diocese in 1896, and the two suffragan dioceses - Palakkad and Irinjalakuda - which were created by bifurcating Thrissur Archdiocese in 1974 and 1978 respectively.
**

 

[SyroMalankara]

Leaving out the political and religious hijackings happened to St. Thomas and doctrinal differences of the various denomination, do you find and recognise the appostolic lineage of Mar Thoma Church from my posts? I asked this because it may help the person who posted the original querry.

Should I ask aren’t we one in Christ?

Being “one in Christ” and in full Communion are different things. The term “One in Christ” has no exact meaning, it means whatever the parties involved want it to mean. Per the Catholic Church, the Apostolic succession of the Marthoma Church is in SERIOUS question - as they have done exactly what the Anglicans did in the 16th Cent. regarding removal of prayers of sacrifice in regards to Eucharist and removal of the Sacrificial nature of the priest in ordination prayers. (The Catholic Church authoritatively and firmly finds Anglican orders null and void.)

As to the Orthodox Churches - generally, they hold the apostolic orders of any outside the faith to be in question. I would think that in every instance that you can look into, any Marthoma priest who converted to Orthodox (Malankara or Syriac) would be received as a layman and later ordained (not received with orders recognized).

 

[SyroMalankara]

May I ask you if the Pope decides to join Mar Thoma church would the Catholic Church cease to exist?

So I don’t think your judgement is fair?

It would if he was the only remaining bishop in the Catholic Church, as was the case with MISC, and the marthoma church was still protestant. Of course, this is an impossibility, as Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Mariamkutty,

What does your posts have to do with these two people who wish to get married? Did any of them claim to be Trisshurian Malabar? For all you know the boy is Changanasserry Malabar or Pathanamthitta Malabar or Chicago Malabar. Give it a break.

If you think that Malabar - a word FIRST used by Persian and Arab merchants - was the original name for the Kerala region, you’d better start learning some Tamil - as Tamil was the language spoken there prior to Malayalam developing.

 

[EagleWatch]

It would if he (Pope) was the only remaining bishop in the Catholic Church, as was the case with MISC, and the marthoma church was still protestant. Of course, this is an impossibility, as Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church.

This is where you are getting wrong.

For an analysis pupose only I put forward this question. Suppose if Pope being the only bishop of Catholics, he decides to join hypothetically any other church. How Catholic church can loose their identity and cease to exist.

You are forgetting church is the group of believers not the Bishop. Bishop’s decision can be personnal some may even accompany him too. But the Church never cease to exist. They only need of Ordain another Bishop by laying of hand by another Bishop of apostolic line even from a sister church.

Does it mean Syro Malankara & Syro Malabar also having dubious apostolic line owing to their common east orthodox tradion? Did they get their apostolic line after communing with Catholic Church?

 

[EagleWatch]

Being “one in Christ” and in full Communion are different things. The term “One in Christ” has no exact meaning, it means whatever the parties involved want it to mean.

Yes I agree with you. To be saved you only need to receive Jesus Christ as your saviour. Believe in your heart and profess it by your mouth.

Rest of all the doctrines of the churches are useful and for more of community needs.

The thief on the cross did not make sure that he joined the Catholic Church. He did not receive baptism. Yet he was saved because he believed in Jesus and clung on to him.

Basic doctrines of all the apostolic churches are same. The differences are minute if we compare with the agreement. Most of these differnces came while trying to explaining theology and by culture. Let us not dwell on those mistakes.

So the acceptance of communion is thus tend to be more political than that of spiritual. How come Catholic church accepting Orthodox churches to their fold? Is it because of 'Hail Mary prayer"? Is it because of intercessary prayers to Saints? in thier rites.

In my opinion the intercessary prayers are facts among believers - Still it is of personal choice that for whom I should pray, or to whom I should ask for prayers or I choose to pray directly to Jesus only etc.

So belief in Christ as our saviour is the real determining factor if any one want to commune each other in Jesus Christ.

****Per the Catholic Church, the Apostolic succession of the Marthoma Church is in SERIOUS question ****- as they have done exactly what the Anglicans did in the 16th Cent.

Naturally they always think that way. But we have our history to back our position.

We don’t really expect your recognition of our apostolic tradition as amatter of fact. It doesn’t really affect us. We are happy with our Jesus Christ. But we would accept all the apostolic Churches despite the doctrinal differences and despite anyones misconception about us, not because of our weakness but under the strong conviction of what Jesus is expecting from us if we are ever to be called as disciples of Jesus.

**

As to the Orthodox Churches - generally, they hold the apostolic orders of any outside the faith to be in question. I would think that in every instance that you can look into, any Marthoma priest who converted to Orthodox (Malankara or Syriac) would be received as a layman and later ordained (not received with orders recognized).**

Do you not agree with their apostolic tradition? Theirs may be more original doctrines than of Catholic Church.

Question of Marthoma priest converting to Orthodox (Malankara or Syriac) - Can i expect any thing better to happen (if at all it happen) with your way of thinking?

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is where you are getting wrong.

For an analysis pupose only I put forward this question. Suppose if Pope being the only bishop of Catholics, he decides to join hypothetically any other church. How Catholic church can loose their identity and cease to exist.

Youi have a protestant ecclesiology. Catholic and Orthodox follow the faith of the Fathers, mainly "“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

You are forgetting church is the group of believers not the Bishop.

Church is a communion of people, headed by one ordained in the faith and teachings of Christ, in the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Apostles.

Bishop’s decision can be personnal some may even accompany him too. But the Church never cease to exist.

The Church will never cease to exist, but various denominations come and go.

They only need of Ordain another Bishop by laying of hand by another Bishop of apostolic line even from a sister church.

Do you believe the “laying on of hands” is some kind of magic? That is exactly the mentality of certain Anglicans, who despite having a different faith and disagreements, go after the “Dutch touch” (ordination by/with Old Catholic bishops) because they think doing this automatically reverses Rome’s ruling on Anglican orders being “null and utterly void”. Unfortunately for them, Latin theological understanding is that matter, form, and intent are necessary for validity. Generally for Orthodox, any ordination outside the Church is considered without Grace - Apostolic faith within the Communion of the Church is prerequisite.

Does it mean Syro Malankara & Syro Malabar also having dubious apostolic line owing to their common east orthodox tradion? Did they get their apostolic line after communing with Catholic Church?

Perhaps you misunderstand. It isn’t Eastern Tradition which makes Marthoma succession invalid — in fact, the Catholic Church authoritatively UPHOLDS the validity of Orthodox priesthood and Eucharist. It is that Marthoma church, when it protestantized, removed the faith of the sacrificial priesthood, as well as the orthodox faith of the reality of the Eucharist. (If you look at what Abraham malpan and his reformist successors did to the Syrian Orthodox prayers – he specifically conformed them to low-church Anglican beliefs.*

 

[Mariamkutty]

Mariamkutty,

What does your posts have to do with these two people who wish to get married? Did any of them claim to be Trisshurian Malabar? For all you know the boy is Changanasserry Malabar or Pathanamthitta Malabar or Chicago Malabar. Give it a break.

If you think that Malabar - a word FIRST used by Persian and Arab merchants - was the original name for the Kerala region, you’d better start learning some Tamil - as Tamil was the language spoken there prior to Malayalam developing.

Mr SyroMalankara, I suggest you go back and read my posts again and try to figure out to what comment I was responding. But then, that is too much to ask of you I guess…to really read my posts.

Only the New Age churches created in the nineteenth century alone, yours included, has been trying to sell the theory that Kerala used to be known as Malinakara, Malienkra, Malankara and what not. All this fictional history created by colonial trader groups since the nineteenth century should be classified as fairy tale. It is a terrible insult to the natives.

As to Tamil being the mother of Malayalam, is just another of those stories. Tamil and Malayalam are two separate languages, with different script, Malayalam being much closer to Sanskrit than Tamil. You need to read books that were not written by propagandists starting in the nineteenth century. South Kerala Malayalam has a lot of Tamil influence, but not in central Kerala, and definitely not in Thrissur. Because of the CMS influence and academic work undertaken in CMS College since 1817, south Kerala Malayalam was standardized, but that does not mean Malayalam spoken in central and north Kerala is not Malayalam. It is also true that Tamil has a lot more literature, and it was studied as a language more intensely by European missionaries much earlier. British set up their trade base in Chennai (Madras) in 1639 and built the cosmopolitan port city and started to set up centers of learning not long after that. But all that still does not make Tamil the mother of Malayalam.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Mr SyroMalankara, I suggest you go back and read my posts again and try to figure out to what comment I was responding. But then, that is too much to ask of you I guess…to really read my posts.

Only the New Age churches created in the nineteenth century alone, yours included, has been trying to sell the theory that Kerala used to be known as Malinakara, Malienkra, Malankara and what not. All this fictional history created by colonial trader groups since the nineteenth century should be classified as fairy tale. It is a terrible insult to the natives.

As to Tamil being the mother of Malayalam, is just another of those stories. Tamil and Malayalam are two separate languages, with different script, Malayalam being much closer to Sanskrit than Tamil. You need to read books that were not written by propagandists starting in the nineteenth century. South Kerala Malayalam has a lot of Tamil influence, but not in central Kerala, and definitely not in Thrissur. Because of the CMS influence and academic work undertaken in CMS College since 1817, south Kerala Malayalam was standardized, but that does not mean Malayalam spoken in central and north Kerala is not Malayalam. It is also true that Tamil has a lot more literature, and it was studied as a language more intensely by European missionaries much earlier. British set up their trade base in Chennai (Madras) in 1639 and built the cosmopolitan port city and started to set up centers of learning not long after that. But all that still does not make Tamil the mother of Malayalam.

Maliankara is a town, it still exists outside Cochi - hows that for fiction?? Yeah, yeah, Trisshur trisshur thrissur - they were isolated in a bubble and allowed to exist without influence by anyone other than its own - I wonder how St. Thomas was able to come there to convert them to Christianity in the first place - your theories being so wild… is it also fiction that “Malabar” is a persianized/arabacized word??

 

[EagleWatch]

Youi have a protestant ecclesiology. Catholic and Orthodox follow the faith of the Fathers, mainly "“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Church is a communion of people, headed by one ordained in the faith and teachings of Christ, in the Sacred Tradition of the Holy Apostles. The Church will never cease to exist, but various denominations come and go. Do you believe the “laying on of hands” is some kind of magic? That is exactly the mentality of certain Anglicans, who despite having a different faith and disagreements, go after the “Dutch touch” (ordination by/with Old Catholic bishops) because they think doing this automatically reverses Rome’s ruling on Anglican orders being “null and utterly void”. Unfortunately for them, Latin theological understanding is that matter, form, and intent are necessary for validity. Generally for Orthodox, any ordination outside the Church is considered without Grace - Apostolic faith within the Communion of the Church is prerequisite.

Perhaps you misunderstand. It isn’t Eastern Tradition which makes Marthoma succession invalid — in fact, the Catholic Church authoritatively UPHOLDS the validity of Orthodox priesthood and Eucharist. It is that Marthoma church, when it protestantized, removed the faith of the sacrificial priesthood, as well as the orthodox faith of the reality of the Eucharist. (If you look at what Abraham malpan and his reformist successors did to the Syrian Orthodox prayers – he specifically conformed them to low-church Anglican beliefs.*

What does it mean sacrificial priesthood? I am ignorant of that term. Can you explain?

Our faith about the Holy Qurbana is that It is equivalent to the blood and body of Christ after blessing it during the Holy Qurbana it is a divine mystery. If you are referring to transubstantiation, then that is not the teaching of Orthodox and Mar Thomites. If Cathoilic Church can accept Orthodox Qurbana then It shouldn’t be a problem with Mar Thoma Qurbana which uses the same St. James liturgy excluding the intercession of saints.

Do you have any different opinion about Mar Thoma Qurbana? If you have please substantiate it - how it is against the apostolic teaching? As I have suggested you try to attend Mar Thoma Qurbana and see it for yourself.

Yes Abraham Malpan omitted the intercessory prayers to the Saints. That was not the original tradition of St. Thomas Christians prior to synod of Udayamperoor, as far as I understand. What it is got to do with the salvation through Jesus Christ.

We of course respect and hold Mother Mary with very high esteem as mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. We also do have such respect of all the Saints went ahead of us. We do not have any objection to those who seek the intercessions of Mother Mary or Saints as they find it beneficial in their walk with the Lord. We are just not opting for it to practice in our rite. We have a different view of it than the many of the new age churches.

I have explained these to clear your mind if want to listen and understand.
Moreover being a Mar Thomite my explanation on our position should not be discarded to hold on to your one way perception and conclusions about us. It will be as silly like muslims accisinging the christians for worshipping 3 different Gods while Christians try to explain them that it is the one and only Almighty God manifested in Holy Trinity - for an example.

It is not magic ‘the laying of hand’. You certainly need to peer through the line of Marthomites with more open mind. You will definitely find it if you really want to see it. Prejudice doesn’t help. Mar Thomites apostolic line has been discussed in my previous posts. So it does not need to be explained again. You can refer to it or do a fresh research on it.

The whole purpose of my write up was only to help the person who had posted the original query – So that she can listen to the other side of the story from a Mar Thomite.

I have advised that it is better to marry from the same church and to avoid possible conflicts. If the church is of greater importance to the her, then she should have opted for a boy of her own church. But not date a Mar Thomite boy and try to change the boy to her church by converting him to catholic faith as if we are not Christians.

Any self respecting Marthomite boy would resist it, unless he want to sacrifice his dignity for his love to the girl.

Let see who does the sacrifice here in this case to show the greater love. Hope by this time she might have made up her mind. Will we hear from her at least what happened in the end!

I don’t know what you mean by ‘low-church Anglicans’. Is it a derogatory term? May be you can give me an insight to that.

I don’t wish to create a disharmony among Christians, because there are many other serious evil issues engulfing our Christianity by the devices of the devil. As the time is fast approaching for Lord’s second coming, it time for us to unite for the cause of Salvation of mankind. Better to leave aside the differences made through centuries unnecessarily by the leaders of the Churches.

Are we (all Christians - irrespective of denominations) not ashamed of our past records of shedding of innocent blood in the name of Jesus, Mother Mary, Saints and dogmas. Are we to show the world our love for each other or the bad feeling for each other and belittle Jesus by it?

It is important for each Christians to try to understand, respect each other and find the areas of agreement to nullify the rifts

.

God Bless

 

[SyroMalankara]

What does it mean sacrificial priesthood? I am ignorant of that term. Can you explain?

From a Marthoma site:

The changes made by Abraham Malpan in the liturgy of the Holy Communion were as follows:
All invocations to the saints were removed.
All prayers for the dead were removed.
In the prayer of consecration of the bread in Holy communion the prayer, “Thee who holdest the extremities of the universe, I hold in my hand; Thee, who rulest the depths, I grasp with my hand”, and the statement at the time of partaking of the bread, “Thee, who are God, I put into my mouth”, were deleted.
Instead of the prayer: “We offer into Thee, O Lord, this bloodless sacrifice (referring to the Eucharist) on behalf of Thy Holy Church which is in all the world”, the following prayer was inserted: “We offer into Thee, O Lord, this prayer on behalf of Thy Holy Church which is in all the world”, leaving out the words “bloodless sacrifice” and inserting instead “this prayer”.
The declaration that “Living Sacrifice is offered” (the reference is again to the Eucharist), was changed into: “living sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of grace, peace, and praise”.
The declaration: “this Eucharist is sacrifice and praise” was deleted.
The declaration that “the Holy Spirit is the sanctifier of the censor” was deleted.
The note that the censor should be sanctified was taken away.
The prayer: “Let Him (Holy Spirit) make this bread the life-giving and saving body of Jesus Christ”, was replaced by: “Let Him (Holy Spirit) come upon and make this bread to those who partake of it, the body of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and life everlasting”. (This clearly teaches the Receptionist Theory.)
The prayer: “Thou are the hard rock which was set against the tomb of our Redeemer” (referring to the Eucharist bread), was replaced by: “Thou art that tested and precious hard rock rejected by the builders” (converted it into a reference to Christ).

The following changes were made to the practices of the Church:

It was decided that the Eucharist should be administered in both kinds.
The practice of auricular confession and obtaining absolution from the priests was abolished.
The practice of celebrating the Eucharist when there was nobody to partake of it was abolished

Our faith about the Holy Qurbana is that It is equivalent to the blood and body of Christ after blessing it during the Holy Qurbana it is a divine mystery. If you are referring to transubstantiation, then that is not the teaching of Orthodox and Mar Thomites.

Speak for the marthomites, the Orthodox teaching is equivalent to the Catholic, they just don’t use the term Transubstantiation - the marthomites outright deny it.

If Cathoilic Church can accept Orthodox Qurbana then It shouldn’t be a problem with Mar Thoma Qurbana which uses the same St. James liturgy excluding the intercession of saints.

I suggest you do a side-by-side study of the Orthodox and marthoma Qurbono - there is a lot more missing in the latter - especially the priestly prayers.

Do you have any different opinion about Mar Thoma Qurbana? If you have please substantiate it - how it is against the apostolic teaching? As I have suggested you try to attend Mar Thoma Qurbana and see it for yourself.

I have attended, in fact I have spoken to various bishops and priests regarding the Marthoma theology - it is basically dependent on whoever you speak to - there is no coherent theology.

Yes Abraham Malpan omitted the intercessory prayers to the Saints. That was not the original tradition of St. Thomas Christians prior to synod of Udayamperoor, as far as I understand. What it is got to do with the salvation through Jesus Christ.

It has everything to do with what Christ taught - you say the “original” tradition is the way Marthoma practices - how then, logically, is it that NO OTHER Orthodox or Catholic or Apostolic Church holds the same view - only lowchurch protestants hold the marthoma view? Did Christ teach conflicting and opposing teaching to his Apostles?

We of course respect and hold Mother Mary with very high esteem as mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. We also do have such respect of all the Saints went ahead of us. We do not have any objection to those who seek the intercessions of Mother Mary or Saints as they find it beneficial in their walk with the Lord. We are just not opting for it to practice in our rite. We have a different view of it than the many of the new age churches.

In fact you oppose it, and do in fact object - why else start a different church?

I have explained these to clear your mind if want to listen and understand.

I understand perfectly, however I completely disagree.

Moreover being a Mar Thomite my explanation on our position should not be discarded to hold on to your one way perception and conclusions about us. It will be as silly like if I argue with you that you are not catholic while you try to tell me that you are a Catholic - for an example.

I don’t simply accept your version of the story simply because you are marthoma