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

[EagleWatch]

Part - 2

Quote - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BVM(RC

The Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin has grown over time both in importance and manifestation.[1] Popes have encouraged this veneration but from time to time have also taken steps to reform it.[2]

Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is based on Holy Scripture: In the fullness of time, God sent his son, born of a woman.[3] The mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God through Mary thus signifies her honor as Mother of God.

From the Council of Ephesus in 431, which dogmatized this belief, to Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Mater encyclical the Virgin Mary has come to be seen, not only as the Mother of God but also as the Mother of the Church.

Early Christians did not celebrate the liturgy and liturgical feast in the same way as contemporaries.

The feasts of Easter and Christmas were not known, although the Eucharist was celebrated. Liturgical venerations of the saints are believed to have originated in the second century.

In the first three centuries, the emphasis was on the martyrs. Marian feasts are said to become popular in the fourth century.[19]

The living faith of early Christians (sensus fidelium) led to the genesis of Marian prayers, to the Blessed Virgin "We come to thee, Mother of God, do not reject our supplications in need, but liberate us from danger, you, our lady, our consolation, our mediatrix, our help. Mariology picked up these popular sentiments, analyzed and sometimes overstated them.[20]

Historically, Marian veneration went parallel in the Catholic Church with the veneration of saints.

…the Council of Ephesus in 431 formally sanctioned devotion to the Virgin as Theotokos, Mother of God, (more accurately translated as God bearer) allowing the creation of icons bearing the images of the Virgin and Child.

The overwhelming merit of Cyril of Alexandria is the cementation of the centre of dogmatic Mariology for all times. He created the basis for all other mariological developments through his teaching of the blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God.

Quote end

 

[EagleWatch]

Part - 3

The earliest documentary evidence of emphasizing the Blessed Virgin’s role as intercessor is from a papyrus in Egypt around 250AD. (Note that it is the seat of Alexandrian school of thought.)

The intercessory prayers have started to become an accepted practice after the Council of Ephesus in 431 after Mar Cyril of Alexandria ferociously advocated the veneration of Mother Mary and the term Theotokos (the God bearer).

But it was opposed by not just one Bishop Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople) but by all the bishops from Antiocan School of thought.

With the support of Pope (for obvious reasons of power struggle between Rome and Constantinople), Mar Cyril enjoyed a majority to defeat Nestorius as heretic. Refer the history – it tells the fall out of such an action on the successive councils.

It was the unfortunate explanation of his theology brought Nestorius to grilling. But the term Christotokos for Mother Mary was popular theology of the east. They never used the term Theotokos.

If doctrine of Theotokos were in effect from the time of apostles and was widely practiced all throughout Christendom why were there significant number of Bishops from east along with Patriarch Nestorius objected to it? Why we do not see a single usage of Thoetokos – Mother of God - in any of the Gospels and epistles.

So it can be fairly concluded that the term Theotokos and veneration of Mother Mary and Saints were a result of theological development propagated and championed by Mar Cyril of Alexandria and adapted to Catholic Church by Pope after his support for Mar Cyril during Council of Ephesus in AD 431. It had nothing to do with the original apostolic doctrines – as evident from the lack of scriptural evidence to support it.

It is true that St. Thomas Christians had the same apostolic tradition from St. Thomas, and continued unaltered faith without schisms of west, until the Portughese arrival to India. The minutes of Synod of Udaymperoor support that fact that the Ancient St. Thomas Christians had not used or venerated any icons, statues, etc. except for the use of Cross. They had no veneration of Saints in their worship.

Mar Thomites (reformists) wanted to reinstate those original tradition of St. Thomas by omitting such from their liturgy. Protestant exposure and British support have been of help for that. No body can think of Catholic or Antiocan support for the reformers. It is natural that the support came from Anglicans.

Thus Mar Thoma Church is indeed unique in comparison with her sister churches.

Pope had been making changes to the Latin liturgy all throughout Catholic Church’s history by modifying prayers, inventing new titles for Mother Mary - dogmas. Eastern Churches who came to commune with catholics were also not spared of forcing with Latin liturgy.

Hence no need to frown upon the modification in Mar Thoma liturgy, as the process of modification is already practiced by Catholics.

God Bless

 

[Mariamkutty]

***The non-Catholic group Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan met in 1806 were most likely Dutch Calvinists and Jewish Christians. The Dutch had been in Malabar Coast from 1658 - 1795.

ALL the non-Catholic groups were trained in the CMS seminary for twenty years. CMS are not Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

So neither Dutch Calvinists, Jewish Christians or CMS had any Marian dogmas that the break away group which formed the Mar Thoma Church, known first as Jacobite Reformed, had to shed.

The other groups merely had to adopt whatever belief their Middle Eastern churches of their choice had.

If the New Age churches of the nineteenth and twentieth century in Kerala were really of the ancient Christian community, what exactly were they doing from 1653, the supposed year of Coonan Cross Oath and 1806, when Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan visited them? Why did such a supposedly ancient church need the help and training of CMS missionaries in the nineteenth century if thousands of St Thomas Christians supposedly broke with RCC communion?

Answer: No such Coonan Cross Oath took place. This was a non-Catholic group which were Dutch Calvinists and Jewish Christians, who no longer had the special treatment of Dutch which they had enjoyed from 1658 - 1795. Being traders and plantation owners, they needed political protection when power changed hands, hence they were eager to be helped with building a proper church, which did not exist at the time of Rev Dr Buchanan’s visit. The group had asked specially for political protection.

During the Dutch period the king of Cochin had been merely a puppet. So one should not underestimate the political skills of a group that co-ruled during the Dutch period. Their exceptional business acumen and political skills are evident even now. The same goes for the Portuguese group although they lost out to the Dutch. Yet they managed to find a niche for themselves. Active support of British who held power in India for nearly a century and a half after these non-Catholic groups sought their help, went a long way. ***

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hail Mary
The early history of the Hail Mary is not clear, as the words are taken from Scripture and it is difficult to ascertain when the greeting/prayer was distinctly used. One source attributes the distinct use of the first half to St. Idlefonsus of Toledo in the** 7th century**. Its use as a salutation and prayer begin to appear from frequently in the 11th and 12th centuries, though the first half only was regarded as the ‘Hail Mary’. Here are the parts of the prayer:
• Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee (Luke 1:28 with ‘Mary’ gradually added by the Church)
• Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus ( Luke 1:42 with ‘Jesus’ being added by Pope Urban IV in 1261)
• Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen (based on the declaration of the Council of Ephesus in 431, this part of the prayer appeared in the mid-15th century, being codified by the Council of Trent in 1568) The Prayer originates in the time of Christ Himself, as the Holy Scriptures attest. The “additions” you point out are not additions at all, they simply clarify to whom the statements are addressed - they do not change the meaning nor intent of the spoken words. Since you agree that Ephesus declared and recognized Mary as Mother of God - and Marthoma church claims to commemorate Ephesus in its liturgy - why does Marthoma church object to the Ephesian formula? AS to Trent, that Council had to do with the Latin Church, it did not affect the Syriac or Greek Orthodox, for example, nor the Eastern Catholic Churches, which pray the SAME prayer.

The rest of your post is regard to Latin prayers - no one here is expecting the Marthoma church to become Latin. But if Marthoma church claims to be Syrian and/or Indian, it should retain the Syrian and Indian expression of the Christian faith - both these Churches pray the “Hail Mary”, venerate Mary and the other Saints, and pray for their deceased.

Nestorians preferred the title Christotokos meaning “Christ-bearer” or “Mother of the Messiah” not because they denied Jesus’ divinity, but because they believed that God the Son or Logos existed before time and before Mary, and that Mary was mother only of the human person of Jesus, so calling her “Mother of God” was confusing and potentially heretical. Both sides agreed that Jesus took divinity from God the Father and humanity from his mother.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Liturgical venerations of the saints are believed to have originated in the second century.

So is your belief, and the Marthoma church’s belief that Christianity fell away from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as early as the 2nd Century?

In the first three centuries, the emphasis was on the martyrs. Marian feasts are said to become popular in the fourth century.[19]

Popular. They were present from the beginning, as you wrote above. Reread the bolded section from your quote - which martyrs do the Marthoma church commemorate in the Liturgy and/or venerate?

The overwhelming merit of Cyril of Alexandria is the cementation of the centre of dogmatic Mariology for all times. He created the basis for all other mariological developments through his teaching of the blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God.

What is your beef with St. Cyril? You do realize that the Marthoma church actually names their bishops after him, and even uses a protestantized liturgy attributed to him - look it up - they call him by his Syriac name Mar Koorilos.

It was the unfortunate explanation of his theology brought Nestorius to grilling. But the term Christotokos for Mother Mary was popular theology of the east. They never used the term Theotokos.

The “east” is a huge place - the only Apostolic Church not commemorating Mary as Theotokos is the Church of the East - and they recently declared their Christological agreement with the Catholic Church, that they have no problem with the term Theotokos. (By the way, the original Church of the East became Catholic on and off, but finally remaining so in the 1500s. The non-Catholic wing was created to replace the majority who became the Chaldean Catholic Church).

If doctrine of Theotokos were in effect from the time of apostles and was widely practiced all throughout Christendom why were there significant number of Bishops from east along with Patriarch Nestorius objected to it?

Because Nestorius had a problem translating the Greek terminology into Syriac. When a question came up, the Church formed an Ecumenical Council to address it - the bishops from the world over convened - they came to a definitive understanding, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church and the Ecumenical Council have spoken.

Why we do not see a single usage of Thoetokos – Mother of God - in any of the Gospels and epistles.

Why should you revert to this naive, very protestant understanding of the purpose of Scripture? Is Scripture to address every heresy that would later arise, after Scripture was compiled?

In any case, Scripture does in fact show us the following, “Elizabeth said to St. Mary, ‘But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’” (Lk 1:43).

Using your view, logically, where in Scripture is “Christokos”, the Nestorian formula used?

So it can be fairly concluded that the term Theotokos and veneration of Mother Mary and Saints were a result of theological development propagated and championed by Mar Cyril of Alexandria and adapted to Catholic Church by Pope after his support for Mar Cyril during Council of Ephesus in AD 431. It had nothing to do with the original apostolic doctrines – as evident from the lack of scriptural evidence to support it.

What illogical and irrelevant conclusions you have reached. Scriptural evidence is there, as St. Cyril himself quoted the Scriptures, the teachings of the Apostles, and expressed philosophical and theological understanding. You have not read the debate between Cyril and Nestorius, yet you claim Cyril has introduced wrong teaching, against the conclusion of the entire Church.

The veneration of Mary and the Saints is separate from the Theotokos debate - the Church of the East [Nestorian as you call them] DO IN FACT venerate Mary and the Saints! They also pray for intercession to the Saints and pray for their deceased.

It is true that St. Thomas Christians had the same apostolic tradition from St. Thomas, and continued unaltered faith without schisms of west, until the Portughese arrival to India. The minutes of Synod of Udaymperoor support that fact that the Ancient St. Thomas Christians had not used or venerated any icons, statues, etc. except for the use of Cross. They had no veneration of Saints in their worship.

You haven’t produced any minutes, these are incorrect conclusions you’ve read from others. As to venerating the Cross - do Marthomites do that TODAY? We do in the Syriac and Chaldean/Assyrian Churches - Catholic, Orthodox, and Church of the East.

Pope had been making changes to the Latin liturgy all throughout Catholic Church’s history by modifying prayers, inventing new titles for Mother Mary - dogmas. Eastern Churches who came to commune with catholics were also not spared of forcing with Latin liturgy.

The Pope is Patriarch of the Latin Church. He can modify the Liturgy of his Church with his Synod. Abraham malpan was a single, individual priest - on who’s authority does he go about making any changes - even a single one?!

Hence no need to frown upon the modification in Mar Thoma liturgy, as the process of modification is already practiced by Catholics

Modifications are not being questioned, it is the protestantation that we are discussing, e.g. deviation from the teaching of the Apostles and the Catholic Orthodox Church. It is the schizophrenic theology of the Marthoma church - Syrian claims, yet rejecting Syrian theology; commemorating Ephesus, rejecting it’s teachings; citing Church of the East [Nestorian] teachings, yet celebrating the West Syran Liturgy… etc… it makes no sense and is completely arbitrary based on no solid understanding.

 

[Mariamkutty]

There are three other threads that need to be linked to this discussion:

Syro Malabar Church Phoenix Arizona

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395125&page=16

Syro Malabar Liturgy

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354795&page=5

Syro Malabar Catholic Church in the Thrissurian Tradition

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=289346&page=55

 

[Mariamkutty]

Your question is why didn’t Greek and Roman Christianity arrive in India in 118BC? - Let me point out the obvious answer…

., because BC is before Christ… The Greeks and Romans were pagan at the time. Greek and Roman Christianity started thriving AFTER St. Thomas came to India…

When Jews started leaving Palestine and becoming Hellenized, Greek speaking Jews came to Kerala as well. The descendants of these are most likely the Jews who St. Thomas met.

I have no doubt about the fiction writing abilities of the New Age church members of the nineteenth century. Being of European colonial trader stock, it is understandable everything in Malabar Coast has to be traced back to Europe. Right? Hence this latest fiction about Malabar having been a place where the Greeks traded and Kodungallur (Cranganore) having a Greek name, Muziris. The non-existent Roman connection in ancient times being peddled as history must be to keep The Vatican happy.

Giving the Arabs and Malayali Muslims any credit for any achievement in ancient times just doesn’t fit the picture, eh? It is commonly known that Europeans bought goods from Asia, China, including Malabar Coast from the Arabs, in the Middle East where the Roman Empire extended, before Portuguese as the first European explorers came to Asia themselves.

The only problem is that none of these stories about Greeks on Malabar Coast existed until recently. People with vested interests are clearly making things up as they go. Btw I did find the primary European source when the fiction about Kodungallur (Cranganore) being known to Pliny as Muziris was first invented.

So how long is it going to be before I read a “historical” account of Socrates having preached on the shores of Kottayam?

 

[lukathomas]

How can one shamelessly divert all the thread and spit her dubious venom everywhere.

May be education can help some homely locals who just started hearing about Thomas Christians !

There is not even a single family in Thrishur which can trace 7 generations but still all these stupid claims at its height !

 

[Mariamkutty]

How can one shamelessly divert all the thread and spit her dubious venom everywhere.

May be education can help some homely locals who just started hearing about Thomas Christians !

There is not even a single family in Thrishur which can trace 7 generations but still all these stupid claims at its height !

LukaThomas, I think you should get your genes tested for colonial trader Portuguese and Dutch ancestry. That explains your hatred and contempt for locals who won’t buy your theories in spite of you trying to force them with humiliation and veiled threats. The Portuguese were on Malabar Coast from 1500 - 1663, remember? The Dutch were on Malabar Coast from 1658 - 1795. As early as 1693, they set up a Dutch settlement in Kunnamkulangera aka Kunnamkulam. It was one of the first six missionary centers of CMS missionaries in 1808, two years after the visit of Rev Dr Claudius Buchanan to Malabar Coast, which included Kunnamkulam.

I suggest you get some help to participate in online discussions without feeling the need to insult fellow bloggers because you can’t tolerate a difference of opinion.

 

[lukathomas]

Are you going to copy and paste this everywhere ? You have not changed a bit !

It is you who need some extra help in learning how to behave yourself in a public forum. There should be a limit in diverting every thread with your stupid nonsense.

 

[EagleWatch]

The Prayer originates in the time of Christ Himself, as the Holy Scriptures attest.

Please clarify – except for the Mother Mary’s request during the feast at Cana.

The “additions” you point out are not additions at all, they simply clarify to whom the statements are addressed - they do not change the meaning nor intent of the spoken words.

What I was trying to say that it was not a popular dogma – not practiced by entire Christendom. Means the Church teaching certainly evolved after apostles’ time.

Since you agree that Ephesus declared and recognized Mary as Mother of God - and Marthoma church claims to commemorate Ephesus in its liturgy - why does Marthoma church object to the Ephesian formula?

We have a part of our history of being with Jacobites too. So it is natural we aknowledge the Ephesos Council. We understand that when it is said Mother Mary as Theotokos it is meant that She is mother of Christ – Christ is God – hence the deduction – Mather Mary is Mother of God. So then Theotokos term is ok in that way. However the trem Theotokos have a limitation also it cannot be taken literally as eternal Mother of Son thus the Mother of God – for God has no beginning and end. That is already being explained by Catholics too. So we understand the term well. So no problem for us in recognizing the Ephesian formula.
The only thing we Mar Thomites are not entering into is in the intercession of Mother Mary or Saints. What I said was it may be the result of the newly confirmed dogma at Ephesus that have lead to the heightened veneration of Mother Mary & Saints as existing in Catholic church, Orthox Churches do not go to that extend comparing with Catholics. That means over the time, as the theology evolved from basics with explanation of scripture, differences certainly occurred and caused for the creation of the Denominations.

AS to Trent, that Council had to do with the Latin Church, it did not affect the Syriac or Greek Orthodox, for example, nor the Eastern Catholic Churches, which pray the SAME prayer.

I agree with you. Catholics went ahead while Orthodox held their place.

The rest of your post is regard to Latin prayers - no one here is expecting the Marthoma church to become Latin.

I agree with you.

But if Marthoma church claims to be Syrian and/or Indian, it should retain the Syrian and Indian expression of the Christian faith - both these Churches pray the “Hail Mary”, venerate Mary and the other Saints, and pray for their deceased.

It has plenty of those Syrian and Indian expression in it along with the certain protestant expression which we believe common to our ancient past before Portuguese arrival.

 

[EagleWatch]

This is immaterial for two reasons 1) The Marthoma church recognizes and commemorates Ephesus (The Church of the East [Nestorians] does not).

You are right. It was only a glance back into History.

1. Theotokos has been recognized as the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

You want to put it that way. Which apostle taught it so in scriptures? It is not even used once in the Scripture. Only Mother of my Lord, or Jesus’ Mother. Not as Mother of God explicitly. It is a term concluded by Church fathers.

So are you then affirming that the Marthoma church IS really protestant? Not even the reformers in the Lutheran and Anglican protestant churches would go as far as denying the Ephesian form “Theotokos”, but now the Marthoma church feels it has the right to become Nestorian, while commemorating the Council that declared Nestorianism heretical?

So now I got the air that it is your reading that whoever is not doing the intercessory prayers they are Protestants and cannot be called Orthodox or at least reformed Orthodox even though they have many things in common.
As for the Nestorians we understand them too. I have explained about it above. They were accused of so called Nestorian Heresy.

Quote
The Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, however, to this day is commonly known to our Western Christian Brethren as the “Nestorian” Church. This misnomer has led them generally to think that this Church has established by Saint Nestorius, and that it received its teaching from his followers. The so-called Nestorian doctrine has been erroneously or deliberately interpreted by its opponents to mean the belief of two persons in Christ. These allegations, of course, have their origin in the Council of Ephesus. This issue, however, has since been much clarified by various Protestant and also some Roman Catholic scholars.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “So far as Nestorius himself is concerned, however, it is certain that he never formulated such doctrine, nor does any recorded utterance of his, however casual, come so near the heresy called by his name.

As to the Assyrian Church of the East, however, because they would not change their true faith, but kept it as they received it from the Apostles, they were unjustly styled “Nestorians,” since Nestorius was not their Patriarch, neither did they understand his language; but when they heard that he taught the doctrine of the two Natures and two Qnume, one will, one Son of God, one Christ, and that he confessed the orthodox faith, they bore witness to him, because they themselves held the same faith. Nestorius, then, followed them, and not they him, and that more especially in the matter of the appellation “Mother of Christ.” Therefore when called upon to excommunicate him, they refused, maintaining that their excommunication of Nestorius would be equivalent to their excommunication of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Apostles, from which they received what they professed, and for which we are censured together with Nestorius.
ref: nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

If the Nestorian churches were of Nestorian Heresy how can they join with Catholic? To surmount the theological disagreement they did the declaration of the “Christological Unity”. This is the Classic example of what I was telling that to find the agreement rather than to find differences for the Unity of all Churches.

Quote:
Both sides would wish to remove the barrier without vitiating their traditional theology. Recently, such has been the case. On the 11th of November, 1994, the Catholicos-Patriarch of the East and the Pope of Rome signed a **“Declaration of Christological Unity.” **In it, both Churches recognized that the Christology of the other was not only orthodox, but actually the same Christology, expressed in different terms. Both Churches upheld the validity of the others terms for Mary, stating, “We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.” A renewed interest in the West towards the thought and writing of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and Bawai the Great, as well as other theologians of the Antiochene School of Theology, may continue to help improve understanding and enhance dialogue. We pray God’s blessings on these developments.
nestorian.org/nestorius_and_the__nestorian_c.html

 

[EagleWatch]

So is your belief, and the Marthoma church’s belief that Christianity fell away from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as early as the 2nd Century?

I will not say fallen away for from the teachings of Christ and apostles. I would say progressed or evolved further and differences between factions occurred.

Popular. They were present from the beginning, as you wrote above. Reread the bolded section from your quote - which martyrs do the Marthoma church commemorate in the Liturgy and/or venerate?

I have already told you how Marthomites hold all the Saints and Mother Mary with veneration – (It is not according to your way) we always remember them in our Holy Qurbana. We do not enter into the intercession with Saints and with Mother Mary.

What is your beef with St. Cyril? You do realize that the Marthoma church actually names their bishops after him, and even uses a protestantized liturgy attributed to him - look it up - they call him by his Syriac name Mar Koorilos.

I have no beef with St. Cyril. He is also one of our apostolic father. If I have, that is not Christian way. (But no one is perfect. They had their share of problems) I was just referring the history, disputes of great men and how others suffered. As always I am doing this as an explanation to have a broader outlook on other lesser Churches and their feelings. Not just blatantly stab them with conclusions.
In coming years may be more bishops with Mar Koorilos may emerge from Marthoma Church. I have no qualms about it.

The “east” is a huge place - the only Apostolic Church not commemorating Mary as Theotokos is the Church of the East - and they recently declared their Christological agreement with the Catholic Church, that they have no problem with the term Theotokos. (By the way, the original Church of the East became Catholic on and off, but finally remaining so in the 1500s. The non-Catholic wing was created to replace the majority who became the Chaldean Catholic Church).

You are right in your statement – See the declaration of the “Christological Unity” referred above.

 

[EagleWatch]

Because Nestorius had a problem translating the Greek terminology into Syriac. When a question came up, the Church formed an Ecumenical Council to address it - the bishops from the world over convened - they came to a definitive understanding, guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church and the Ecumenical Council have spoken.

This is what I said it was probably a gross injustice done to Nestorius. We understand them better now. When the justice was denied to any one with misunderstanding… do you want to say all those politics and persecution followed also are part of Holy Spirit?..well you can have your opinion.

Why should you revert to this naive, very protestant understanding of the purpose of Scripture? Is Scripture to address every heresy that would later arise, after Scripture was compiled?

There is nothing wrong to check them in scriptures to understand them properly. There is no scriptural reference for explicit terms Theotokos and Christotokos. All I said they were part of the theological development. I did not say it is wrong. Both are correct in their way. Better we understand each other.

In any case, Scripture does in fact show us the following, “Elizabeth said to St. Mary, ‘But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’” (Lk 1:43).

Yes the Scripture says the Mother of my Lord. Not Mother of my God. Explanation is that Lord is God. Hencs call the Mother of Lord as Mother of God. We understand them well.

Using your view, logically, where in Scripture is “Christokos”, the Nestorian formula used?

It is agreed above.

What illogical and irrelevant conclusions you have reached. Scriptural evidence is there, as St. Cyril himself quoted the Scriptures, the teachings of the Apostles, and expressed philosophical and theological understanding. You have not read the debate between Cyril and Nestorius, yet you claim Cyril has introduced wrong teaching, against the conclusion of the entire Church.

No I did not say Mar Cyril was wrong in his conclusion. He is right in a way. At the same time Nestorius was also right in his way. But Mar Cyril was not accommodative. It has been already discussed.

The veneration of Mary and the Saints is separate from the Theotokos debate - the Church of the East [Nestorian as you call them] DO IN FACT venerate Mary and the Saints! They also pray for intercession to the Saints and pray for their deceased.

Indications are there that the Veneration of Saints and Mother Mary has grown to the present form only after the acceptance of the Term Theotokos by Ephesos Council. Thank you for that information that the Church of the East [Nestorian] has intercession prayers with the Saints. But I heard from one person they do not – probably they also may have differences in them? I need to study more about it.

You haven’t produced any minutes, these are incorrect conclusions you’ve read from others.

You may be right. I will come back on it. I am doing some work on it.

As to venerating the Cross - do Marthomites do that TODAY? We do in the Syriac and Chaldean/Assyrian Churches - Catholic, Orthodox, and Church of the East.

We all use cross. We bless it too. We use it as our symbol of salvation.

 

[EagleWatch]

The Pope is Patriarch of the Latin Church. He can modify the Liturgy of his Church with his Synod. Abraham malpan was a single, individual priest - on who’s authority does he go about making any changes - even a single one?!

You are right. Pope has right to do it. Probably work is done by others and finally approve by Pope. Right? So as long as the Bishop recognize the Changes it is valid.
A committee was appointed by the Mar Thoma 11 to study and report about the course of reformation needed Abraham Malpan was one of them. Mar Thoma 12 was for the reformation too until he was inclined to pro Antiocans after misunderstanding with Anglicans. He backtracked and subjugated the church to Antiocans at Mavelikkara Padiola. So there was no other way for the reformation to go further. Having strong conviction for the cause of reformation already in momentum since the time of Marthoma 6, he went ahead with the modification of liturgy. It was approved by many priests along with him and later adapted fully by Marthoma Bishops.

Modifications are not being questioned,

Appreciate your understanding.

it is the protestantation that we are discussing, e.g. deviation from the teaching of the Apostles and the Catholic Orthodox Church.

As refered before I understand your stand now (protestantation). We have not deviated from teachings of Apostoles. Show us where we deviated scripturally?

It is the schizophrenic theology of the Marthoma church - Syrian claims, yet rejecting Syrian theology; commemorating Ephesus, rejecting it’s teachings; citing Church of the East [Nestorian] teachings, yet celebrating the West Syran Liturgy… etc… it makes no sense and is completely arbitrary based on no solid understanding.

Isn’t it confusing to you? Your understanding is not our understanding yhat is the difference. That is why we are unique with best of all with us and we have an open out look to accept all in the name of Jesus Christ despite differences in doctrines.

That is why as you said a Mar Thomites can be seen worshiping among the different quarrelling denominations. When we come in to a worship place of any church what we see is only Jesus Christ, but those who see or looking for something else than Jesus will find it difficult to pray and worship Lord.

While I was preparing this I have been to a Catholic Church along with one of my friend who is also a Mar Thomite, we spend a few minutes in prayers there. How do you feel about it?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I will not say fallen away for from the teachings of Christ and apostles. I would say progressed or evolved further and differences between factions occurred.

Please be specific. Exactly what differences or “progressions” occurred in the Malankara Church that Marthoma church “prevented themselves from succumbing to”?

I have already told you how Marthomites hold all the Saints and Mother Mary with veneration – (It is not according to your way) we always remember them in our Holy Qurbana. We do not enter into the intercession with Saints and with Mother Mary.

Perhaps you also have a unique and unparalleled definition of public veneration. Please quote using your Qurbana, where are Mary and the Saints venerated. Which specific Saints are honored on which days? How so - what is the Liturgy? Where did it originate?

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is what I said it was probably a gross injustice done to Nestorius. We understand them better now. When the justice was denied to any one with misunderstanding… do you want to say all those politics and persecution followed also are part of Holy Spirit?..well you can have your opinion.

Did Marthoma church call an Ecumenical Council to reverse the decisions of Ephesus, or did they just arbitrarily decide which of the Council’s actions were injustices and which were good based on who knows what?

No I did not say Mar Cyril was wrong in his conclusion. He is right in a way. At the same time Nestorius was also right in his way. But Mar Cyril was not accommodative. It has been already discussed.

Mor Koorilos presented his view to the Entire Church, Nestorius presented his view - the assembly, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided toward Mor Koorilos - what is to be accommodated? Nestorius could have easily accepted the decision of the Church and been done with it.

Indications are there that the Veneration of Saints and Mother Mary has grown to the present form only after the acceptance of the Term Theotokos by Ephesos Council. Thank you for that information that the Church of the East [Nestorian] has intercession prayers with the Saints. But I heard from one person they do not – probably they also may have differences in them? I need to study more about it.

Those supposed indications are incorrect - do you want specific prayers addressed to Mary and the Saints in the “Assyrian Church of the East” Tradition? Here are a few:

“O Mary, Mother of the King of Kings, offer with us thy prayers to thy Son, that He may cause His peace and safety to dwell in the world, and that the Church and her children may be kept from evil.” - Tuesday vespers, Kdham oo d’WathÄr.

“O thou holy Virgin, through whom our race corrupted by the deceitfulness of sin was sanctified, pray with us to thy Sanctifier to sanctify us, and that through the shadow of thy prayers He may preserve our life, spread out the wings of His pity over our frailty, and deliver us from evil. O mother of Him Who causes us to live, thou handmaid of our Creator, be to us a wall of refuge at all times.”- from Collects in Khudhra

“O ye saints, prophets, apostles, doctors, confessors, martyrs, priests and hermits, pray to CHRIST your strength for us all, that through you prayers we may recieve out of His treasure an answer to all our prayers, as may be profitable unto us.” - IBID.

“May thy [the Virgin’s] prayers be to us a wall, keep us from the wicked one and his agents, drive from us all evil, and cause peace to dwell in the world for ever.” - Gezza, Blessing of the Virgin.

Need I go on?

 

[SyroMalankara]

We all use cross. We bless it too. We use it as our symbol of salvation.

Perhaps you misunderstand what public veneration is. It is not simply an act of the mind. We, all of us, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriac, Malankara, even Latin Catholics and Orthodox - we literally kiss the Cross, we kiss icons of the Saints, we kiss the altar, etc.

The Assyrian Church of the East Catechism states:

23) When does the substance of bread and wine become the Body and Precious Blood of our Lord?

The Holy Church teaches us, and so we believe, that the Precious Gifts are ours through the prayer of the epiclisis or consecration when The Church is at worship, but, as to how these change to become for us the Body and Blood, remains a mystery; we do know and believe that The Holy Spirit comes down and unites with the bread and wine and they become for us the Very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, as He taught us; “ . . . I AM the Living Bread which came down from Heaven, if any man eat of this Bread he shall live forever, and the Bread which I shall give is My Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world . .” (John 6:51)

1. Now, then, are these the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, or are they merely symbols?

Yes, indeed, they are The Real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ! Jesus did not teach us that these are merely “the symbols of His Body and Blood” but, rather, The Real Body and Blood of Him who came “down for us and for our salvation;” for nowhere in all of the Holy Bible is there written any reference that these gifts of Jesus were a symbol or symbolic, “. . . and, HE took bread and gave thanks, and break it, and gave unto them saying, ‘This is my Body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of Me,’ likewise, also the cup, after supper, saying ‘This cup is the New Testament of My Blood, which is shed for you. . .’” (Luke 22:19-20) Again it is written by the Treasurer of The Church, St Paul the Apostle: “ . . the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ, for we being many are One Bread, and One Body; for we are all partakers of That One Bread.” (I Cor 10:16,17)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Regarding the Blessed Ever-Virgin St. Mary, the Assyrian Catechism states:

1. Who is this Virgin Mary?

The holy Virgin of the lineage and The House of Abraham and David; (that is from the same line), the Redeemer Jesus Christ, was to come according to the Promise of God, this blessed Mary was betrothed to Joseph, a man from the same lineage, so that he might fulfill his ministry to the Holy Family as its guardian. She had dedicated her entire life unto God through her vow of preserving her perpetual virginity. “ . . . the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of Abraham . . . Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, out of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ . . .” [Matthew 1:1–17] [see also the genealogy of Jesus in the 3rd chapter of St Luke’s Gospel]

1. Did the Blessed Virgin Mary remain pure and untouched following the birth of Christ

Yes! The Virgin Mary was pure and virginal for the rest of her life, we will use these points for our examples of this unique role of the perpetual Virgin Mary: the Old Testament example of the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam, he remained a complete man; the sun when entering into the window reflects light, undivided; and, again the rock in the desert land, which Moses struck for giving water to the thirsty . . it always was and continues to be a stone. The Second Eve was not distressed by the birth giving of Him who is her Lord.

1. What names, other than the Perpetual Virgin Mother, are the possession of St Mary?

We have named her with these titles: The Mother of Christ, The Mother of our Lord, The Second Heaven, The Mother of The Church, The Daughter of Zion, The Burning Bush, The Mother of Immanuel, The New Ark of the Covenant, The Second Ark, The Second Eve, etc. In the Prophets it is written: “ . . . therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel . .” (Isaiah 7:14) “ . . . and she shall bring forth a Son, and Thou shall call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin. . .” (Matthew 1:21) Then, again, Elizabeth states: “ . . . whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord shall come to me?” (Luke 1:43) In the Church of the East we recognize her as bearing and bringing forth Him who is God with us; however, we prefer to say: “Mother of Christ, perfect God and perfect man… .”

1. In what sense can we recognize or acknowledge certain theological terminology used by our beloved sister apostolic churches who will address The Ever Virgin Mary as “The Mother of God”??

The Orthodox position will declare this: The Blessed Mother did not give birth to His Godhead, which is from eternal; but rather she had given birth to His manhood, at the end of time, still it is right to be called “the Mother of God,” why? Because He who is born of her is at once God and Man. By way of example: The mother of the President of the United States did not give birth to his presidency, she gave birth to the man; and indeed we call her the mother of the President; and again, the Catholicos Patriarch of the East received his office from The Church, and not from his mother who bore him, and we do call her the mother of the Patriarch.

1. What exalted thoughts can we entertain concerning the Mother of our Lord, the Ever-blessed Virgin Mary?

As the Mother of our Lord she excels in graces and nearness to God; also in dignity, the Holy Church honors her far above the Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, and the whole of the Angelic Hosts, her blessed name is used by mothers naming their daughters, many churches are built to her honor, institutions of healing (hospitals), she is commemorated in The Holy Church at least 3 times through the year, and many prayers and petitions are offered to the Lord in her name. “ . . . The Angel came in unto her, and said, hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee, blessed are thou among women. . . for He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden; for, behold, from henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed . . .” (St Luke 1:28; 48) .

 

[SyroMalankara]

A committee was appointed by the Mar Thoma 11 to study and report about the course of reformation needed Abraham Malpan was one of them. Mar Thoma 12 was for the reformation too until he was inclined to pro Antiocans after misunderstanding with Anglicans. He backtracked and subjugated the church to Antiocans at Mavelikkara Padiola. So there was no other way for the reformation to go further. Having strong conviction for the cause of reformation already in momentum since the time of Marthoma 6, he went ahead with the modification of liturgy. It was approved by many priests along with him and later adapted fully by Marthoma Bishops.

Wow, please re-read what you wrote, allow me to break it down.

“A committee was appointed by the Mar Thoma 11 to study and report about the course of reformation needed Abraham Malpan was one of them.”

A committee was appointed to decide whether the changes proposed by the Anglicans should be made - meaning, there was already a certain form for prayer in place, now this committee is gather to decide whether to change that already standard form.

At this point, Mar Thoma XI and the committee changed nothing, despite Abraham Malpan’s personal views.

“Mar Thoma 12 was for the reformation too until he was inclined to pro Antiocans after misunderstanding with Anglicans.”

So, Mar Thoma XII also refused to “reform” and go along with the Anglicans.

“He backtracked and subjugated the church to Antiocans at Mavelikkara Padiola.”

How is it “backtracking” when the entire Church was already praying a certain way and under the guidance of the Patriarch of Antioch? He didn’t “backtrack”, he simply ‘stayed put’.

“So there was no other way for the reformation to go further.”

In other words, even when two separate Heads of the Church decide against change, it is okay to do it alone simply because that’s what I think should happen - not obedience, but my way or the highway.

“Having strong conviction for the cause of reformation already in momentum since the time of Marthoma 6, he went ahead with the modification of liturgy. It was approved by many priests along with him…”

Priests do not have the authority to approve such things. And ignoring two (according to you 6, from Mar Thoma VI - Mar Thoma XII) separate heads of the Church and their Holy Synod is not conviction, it is arrogance and pride.

As refered before I understand your stand now (protestantation). We have not deviated from teachings of Apostoles. Show us where we deviated scripturally?

Show me where in Scripture the Apostles said we must use Scripture as you do. The Scriptures are the written emanation of the Apostolic Faith Tradition, the other’s are the constant teaching of the Church, the Holy Liturgy, practices, and praxis, the Apostolic teachings handed down to our day.

Nevertheless, a few deviations to start with:

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus’ Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).