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

[SyroMalankara]

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

Phil. 2:25-29 - Paul teaches us to honor Epaprhoditus who almost died for the faith. How much more honor is owed to the saints that did die for the faith!

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.

1 Tim 2:1-2 - because Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), many Protestants deny the Catholic belief that the saints on earth and in heaven can mediate on our behalf. But before Paul’s teaching about Jesus as the “one mediator,” Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. Paul is thus appealing for mediation from others besides Christ, the one mediator. Why?

Rev. 1:4 – this verse shows that angels (here, the seven spirits) give grace and peace. Because grace and peace only come from God, the angels are acting as mediators for God.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

Rev. 8:3-4 – in heaven an angel mingles incense with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne of God, and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. These prayers “rise up” before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity. God responds to his children’s requests, whether made by his children on earth or in heaven.

Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.

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.

Do you accept ALL? Rev. Moon, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, Pentecostals, one-ness Baptists, Unitarians, gay-friendly Anglicans, and women-priests and bishops? Just the top of the iceberg regarding doctrinal differences, do you accept all of these despite differences? If these are okay, there are thousands more that you will have to accept.

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.

Or it is because each Marthomite chooses to do whatever he or she feels like, isn’t knowledgeable or isn’t concerned about doctrine - and the denomination cannot provide a proper response, since it prefers not to alienate anyone by not answering firmly to anyone?

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?

I am happy for you, I hope being in the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ gives you all the graces you need in your spiritual sojourn.

 

[EagleWatch]

Synod of Udayamperoor and Minutes of decrees revealing the ancient customs of St. Thomas Christians.

Part - 1

Ref: Malankara Marthoma Sabha Charthram by N.M Mathew (Part 1)
Note: The decision and minutes of the Udayamperoor synod has been written in Portughese language in the book “Jornado do Arcebispo Alexio de Menezes quando foy as Serra do Malaubar, 1606 by Rev. Guve.
The Latin Translation is available in
“Juris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide” Part I, Vol VI, Part II, p.243 (ref: Catholic Encyclopidia, Vol:14, page 685)
Mr. K.N Daniel has written a book “Udayamperoor Sunnahdosinte Cononakal” (translated – Canons of Synod of Udayamperoor) in 1952, after studying five hand written Malayalam texts.
There are other references available in the following books
• “Ittoopu Charithram” (translated – History by Ittooppu) page 113
• “Sabha Charithra Samgraham” (translated – Briefing of Church History) page 31
• “Mar Thoma Sabha Charithram” (translated – History of Mar Thoma Church)Page 75,
• “Mar Thoma Sabha Directory” page 37
• “The acts and decrees of the Synod of Diamper 1599” by Dr. Zcariah Zachariah
Mr N. M Mathew has referred to those books and other references and written the following which matters the Mar Thoma Church’s belief and faith practices.

(This book is in Malayalam and I tried my best to translate them according to my ability)
Pages 157 onwards.

Day one
The Purpose of Synod

1. For the mighty happiness and glory of Lord.
2. For the fullness of Holy Catholic faith and for its glory and its manifestation.
3. For the holy and certainty of practices of Priests and believers of Malankara Church.
4. For the correction/acceptance of the syriac books.
5. To join this (Malankara) church with all the churches under the sky.
6. This Synod is being conviened to bring (Malankara church) under the Holy Pope who is the head of all Nasranees.

Some of the important decisions.

• Believe that the decrees to bow to (venerate) Saints who are with Messiah in heaven and should be requested of them to intercede for us and the (veneration) of Saint’s holy bodies or bones (relics) have to be certainly accepted. (It is evident here that Ancient St. Thomas Christians did not have these practices.)
• We should believe that the bodies or bones (relics) of Saints are to be bowed (venerated) and to be kept carefully at Thronos or at Holy places.

• We believe and accept the decrees especially to make images of Messiah, Mother Mary and Saints and to bow to those (venerate) remembering them. (Note: It is evident here that Ancient St. Thomas Christians did not have these practices.)

• We believe that it is qualified to call Virgin Mother as Holy Mother.

• We believe that she (Holy Mother) delivered without pain and sadness; before and after the delivery she is virgin; by thoughts and by deeds she was not stained by sins.

• The holy Church teaches that since it is not right to decompose the body of Mother which bore and delivered the Son of God, Lord has raised the Mother and seated her in heaven above all the angels. We all should believe the same.

• Being Mother, Head and Teacher to all churches in the world, we submit to the Holy Catholic Roman Church, which is near to the apostles. We believe that those churches not submitting to this (Roman) church are differing in faith and not obeying Lord and not worthy to be saved.

• We by oath submit to the Holy Pope who is the successor of Simon Peter and is the high priest, teacher, chief and head of all the Nasranees. (Note: St. Thomas Christians were not under Pope but was independent)
We believe that there is no salvation for those who not submit to the Holy Pope and they are rebel against the Messiah.

 

[EagleWatch]

Synod of Udayamperoor and Minutes of decrees revealing the ancient customs of St. Thomas Christians.

**Part – 2 **

Some of the important decisions. (Cont…)

• Under the sky there is only one church. Holy Pope is the head and shepherd to this Church. Holy Pope is successor of Peter. Holy Pope is the head, chief, teacher and high priest of Nasranees. Hence priests, Metropolitans, Episcopes, Patriarchs, Catholics, Elite, Lords, Kings and all baptized are under (or submit to)Holy Pope.

• We believe all the decrees from the past councils are good and accept them. We condemn all that is condemned in these councils. We condemn and disown the theology of Nestorius as well as Nestorius.
(Note: Shows strong Nestorian connection of ancient St. Thomas Christians)
We accept all the decrees by the patriarch Mar Cyril and 200 Metropolitans, who opposed to Nestorius with the doctrines of Pope in the city of Ephesos.
We believe that this Mar Cyril is seeing the Lord in heaven and there is no salvation for those condemn him.

• We believe that the apostles taught of the same way that was taught by Messiah the Lord, and the ways and offerings of Simon Peter and St.Thomas were same.

• We all agree each other to take oath to accept now or later any Bishop comes in of doctrines of Pope, and to disagree with the people of Nestorian church which is reigning in discordance with Roman church. (Note: Shows strong Nestorian connection of ancient St. Thomas Christians)

• We the synod request Fr. Francis Rose to make available those books of apostles’ time which are not available in Syriac by translation from Latin.

• It is instructed to those who have Syriac books or crosses should bring them to show to the honorable Metropolitan or to Malpan Francis Rose to be made acceptable.

Day two – Sacraments

In the new faith (cathoilcs) believe that Messiah the Lord had ordained 7 sacraments.
1 Maamodheesa (Baptism) 2 Oprisma (Conformation) 3 Qurbana (Holy communion) 4 Kumbasaram (confession) 5 Last Oprisma (Last Confirmation)
6 Pattom (Ordination) 7 Penkettu (Marriage)

Note: Only **3 Sacraments **(Maamodheesa, Qurbana, Pattom) were accepted by ancient St. Thomas Christians. The rest were not considered as Sacraments.

1. Baptism• 1st canon – Malankara Nasranees are not keen to conduct the baptism of new born by 8th day. Hence the synod is decreeing that the newborns are to be baptized on the 8th day itself.
   • 3rd canon – There is no practice of using anointing the baptized with 2 kinds of Saith (Holy oil). Knowing about this Metran arranged to provide all necessary by blessing the Holy Oil for the Nasranees. Priests shall use only the blessed oil for anointing.
   • 4th canon - In this church there is neither custom God father nor God mother to touch the head of the baptized. There has to be a God father for a male child and a God mother of girl child.
   • 9th canon – Those who are getting baptized should not be called the common names of old faith (faith of Nasranees). The Holy synod instruct that, since the name Easow is the name of our Lord, when this name is heard those who are in heaven, earth, hell will bow down as written by St. Paul, hence this holy name should not be called to any human.
   • 12th canon – Each church should have built baptism bowl built according to their financial ability. There should have a proper channel to drain the water in it completely. It should have a wooden cover also.
   • 13th canon – The Synod instructs each church to have record book to record the name of the baptized and the parents and God parents along with their signs and date.

Note: Baptism was practiced among the St.Thomas but it was better organized only after the Synod of Udayamperoor. Concept of God father and God mother and keeping records were accepted in Mar Thoma Church.

 

[EagleWatch]

Synod of Udayamperoor and Minutes of decrees revealing the ancient customs of St. Thomas Christians.

Part – 3

1. Confirmation

• 1st canon - Since the Bishops of Malankarawere not aware of it, this Synod informs every one that when Metran (Bishop) is available, those who are firm should accept this sacrament. Not only should the head of the family but all be sent. The synod decree that there is curse to condemn and relinquish this Sacrament. When Metran arrive all who reaches 5 years of age should receive this Sacrament. This sacrament is only for once.
• 2nd canon – The Synod heard that when Metran arrived at some churches, it was said to him that this Sacrament is not required and condemned it as if Satan is filled in their hearts. It is said to them that it was wrong and forgive them. Now onwards if any one says that this sacrament is not necessary, he will be excommunicated.
• 3rd canon – when you come for this Sacrament there need to be someone to be present who is in charge as in the case of Baptism.
Note: There was no Sacrament of confirmation among the St. Thomas Christians. It was seldom practiced even after the Synod. Mar Thoma Church conducts study classes certain prayer ceremony for the first communion.

1. Qurbana (Holy Communion)
   • **Transubstantiation **- Believe that Jesus Christ’s happiness, spirit, body and blood is contained in the Qurbana. Believe that by the strength of sanctifying words in the Qurbana, the essence of the bread change in to the Messiah’s body and the essence of the wine change in to Messiah’s blood.
   • Confession to priests - 3rd canon – it is not receive Qurbana without confessing each sins to the priests.
   (4th day minutes)
   • **See Qurbana **– 6th canon - Nasranees those are not prevented/stopped should see Qurbana every Sunday and every festival. Those who do not see will have curses. The head of the family should send all of his house to show Qurbana. Those who are not doing it will have curses. Those abstain from church should be convinced by the head of parish.
   8th canon – The Head of Malankara Church (Malankara Moopen) should arrange to have priests for each parish for conducting Qurbana.
   • Baspurkana (Purgatory) – Believe that there is a place to remove the stains of spirits of the dead where they are strained but they will be cooled (comforted) by the worship and good deeds of the believers.
   • **Prayers and Qurbana for the dead **- since there is nothing better to cool (comfort) the struggling spirits in purgatory, the Holy Synod requests to introduce the practice to conduct Qurbana for the spirits of the dead and when someone is about to die.

Note: St. Thomas Christians believed of the presence of Jesus Christ in Qurbana, but were ignorant of the above teachings. They served the Qurbana as bread and wine separately, receives it by kneeling in reverence. There is 2 days of strict preparation. Fish is avoided, all entertainment are suspended. Stay away from women. They regretfully confess their sins in church. But they never heard of purgatory (ref: Some Years Travel Into Asia and Afrique page 305).

Since it is said in the Synod (in Malayalam) that the custom of conducting the Qurbana for the dead should be introduced while in Portughese it is said that even remembrance of it (Qurbana for dead) is not left in the Church, it is very much evident that those practice were never part of the ancient St. Thomas Christians but introduced only after the Synod of Uadyamperoor.

Teaching about the Purgatory started in AD 600 during the time of Pope Gregory (AD 590-604)

Mar Thoma Church has omitted such practices.

This teaching of change of substance of the bread and wine into body and blood of Christ is believed to be started by 9th century by monk Pscasus. (ref. Church History, by Miller Andrew)

 

[EagleWatch]

Synod of Udayamperoor and Minutes of decrees revealing the ancient customs of St. Thomas Christians.

Part – 4

Other References: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.

In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ (during the time of Pope Innocent)

Most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, and the notions of “substance” and “accidents”, while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

 

[EagleWatch]

Synod of Udayamperoor and Minutes of decrees revealing the ancient customs of St. Thomas Christians.

Part – 5

1. **Confession ** – There are 3 things for the confession.

1 pain/regret in the heart 2 Act of confession 3 Penalty prescribed by the priest. This is to be said in secrecy to the priest.

1st canon – There is curse for those do not confess at least once in a year.

2nd – 6th canon – Confession is must for those who are completed 12 years of age, those are near death and pregnant women.

7th & 8th canons – Priests are allowed to decree only certain penalties. Bishops can do certain others. But penalties those are worthy of excommunication can be dealt only by Pope.

Note: From the beginning the St. Thomas Christians had only common confession prayer. There was no practice of confessing to Priest of all the secrets. **The word ‘Comfessar‘is a Portuguese word. **(The ****confessing to priest is made doctrine only in AD 1215 during the time of Pope Innocent).

1. **Last Oprisma **(Last Confirmation) – This sacrament is said only if the death is almost certain. Priest must be called.

1st canon – Malankara Nasranees are not doing this sacrament in right way.

3rd canon – Priest should carry personally the container of holy oil. A deacon should go ahead with a cross.

Note: It was common among the ancient St. Thomas Christians to call the priest to give Qurbana and to console the sick if anyone wished. But the anointing with Holy Oil was not practiced. This is accepted by Mar Thoma Church.
(Ref: 4th day minutes)

1. Pattom (Ordination) – Messiah the lord decreed the sacrament of Ordination. It is decreed that for conducting this worship ceremony it is required to have a serving priest ordained by the Bishop. Ordained (Qurbana) priest to serve Qurbana are given two rights, to conduct Qurbana and to bless the gathering of Nasranees.

Bishops are Episcopes, Metrans, Patriarchs and the Holy Pope.

1st canon – Since it is known to the Synod that there are certain priests without of the right age, education, testing, and obtained the ordinance in one day with money, it is decreed the ordination should only be obtained in accordance to the decree of Council of Trent.

Note: The acts of Bishop Menezes to ordain many without testing of character in order to avail support for him were the paradox to above decisions.

7th canon – As the Synod has heard that certain priests of lesser/weak faith is telling that some days are good and bad for certain things , write some books about it and advice against the marriages during the bad days, no should adapt and believe such things. Now onwards if any one advise of the same will be excommunicated. Priests should inform the public that there is no bad day in front of the Lord and good things can be done on all days.

Marriage of priests

11th canon – the Synod instruct that the married Priests should not conduct Qurbana and other sacraments. It is requested of the **married Priests to separate from their wives **in order to conduct Sacraments. Those who oppose to this will be excommunicated. It is instructed the Synod hat no one should marry the ordained Priests or help for it.

12th canon – Those Priests willing to live separate from their wives can conduct Qurbana and other Sacraments.

17th canon – No one should accept ordination until the arrival of a Metran for Malankara alone.

Note:** Arkadiokan (Malankara Moopen – Head of the Malankara church)** or Edavaka Mooppen (Head of Parish) were not included among Bishops. There was instruction from Pope not to ordain any Priests or Bishops form Indians. That is why it 17th canon is decreed by the Synod. It is written in the report that sent to Rome in 1645 that no Indians are ordained.

 

[EagleWatch]

Synod of Udayamperoor and Minutes of decrees revealing the ancient customs of St. Thomas Christians.

Part – 6

1. ** Penkettu (Marriage) **

1st canon - According to the prevailing practice in Malankara priest of the Bride’s parish must give her hand to the Bridegroom. Tithe of the dowry to be given only to the Bride’s parish.

3rd canon – Marriage has to be announced 3 times.

5th canon – 3 days earlier to marriage, confession and receiving of Qurbana should be done.

10th canon – Boy should be completed 14 years and the girl 12 years.

14th canon – The synod had heard of the customs of inquiring match (Horoscope?)and day for the marriage and Pouring of rice and water. Such thing are not to be done or made done.

16th canon – The Synod heard that it is only after 4th day of marriage and after bath only they can go to the Church. Since those are from old faith and from non Christians it should be discarded. If a Sunday comes before the 4th day and do not go to see in church then there will be curse and will be spoiled for certain.

7th Day – Festivals

14th canon – In order to unify the prayers / worship of the Malankara Church like rest of the church, Nestorian teaching should be avoided and make known that the last part is missing from the liturgy of Blessing Mary.

It has to be said like following:

Praise thee Mari am who is full of goodness – Lord is with you – You are blessed among women – Fruit of your womb Jesus is blessed – Holy Mother , Mother of Lord, pray to Lord for us sinners now and at the time of our death.- Amen

(This last part was missing from St. Thomas Christians’ worship)

Hope these excerpts are helpful in understanding the ancient St. Thomas Christians and Mar Thoma Church of the present.

For more details refer to the 3 volumes of Mr. N. M Mathew’s books.

 

[EagleWatch]

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

Ref: Synod of Udayamperoor Minutes

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?

Holy Qurbana Startes with referring to the Holy Virgin Mother, and John the Baptist.
The Psalms of Virgin Mary is recited. During the Qurbana it the Saints are remembered. It is prayed that we are also to be remembered at the time of resurrection along with them.
We honor the Saints by giving their names to Parishes. We adore them in our heart and try to emulate their life.

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?

Mar Thoma Church’s call is not for changing all the errors or doctrinal differences occurred during in those synods. But we being the St. Thomas Christians have tried to preserve our ancient ways by reformation principles. It has been already discussed.

I have made the references to the Ephesus Synod and Nestorius were mentioned only to show there were disagreements in the past. Many conclude that the injustice is meted out to the minority. Conviction of sin and the judgment can give only by the Holy Spirit. The discourse and acts of those involved are already recorded. When you go through it you can discern it. Let them be concerned who are in it.

Nestorius was considered as a Saint among Nestorian Churches. Since now some factions of the Nestorian churches are in communion with Catholics, do those Nestorian Churches condemn Nestorius now? Or did Catholic Church accept him as Saint as Nestorians? Or did they at least accept him not as heretical? So who has to correct whom? And make amendments?

 

[EagleWatch]

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.

You will get an insight about it here:

nestorian.org/the_lynching_of__nestorius.html

Lynching of Nestorius Part - 1

NESTORIUS. Many people, in western civilization, do not know this man. If they do know the name, they only have a vague understanding of this man and the group he represents. The name Nestorius or Nestorian on a popular level is used to stigmatize. This name divides the world of Christendom into two groups.

Nestorius was likely born of Persian parents and spent his early years at Germanicia in Syria Euphratensis, present day Maras in southern Turkey. He became a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia and studied at Antioch before becoming a monk at the nearby Euprepius Monastery and a presbyter (priest) shortly thereafter. He acquired a great reputation for asceticism, orthodoxy and eloquence. He was nominated to the See of Constantinople by Theodosius II in 428 A.D. Although the exact date of his birth is not known, his death occurred shortly after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

CYRIL. Almost as obscure as Nestorius, Cyril was the leading antagonist to Nestorius. He was born in Alexandria to Greek (pagan) parents around 375 A.D. Cyril was destined at an early age for an ecclesiastical career. His uncle, Theophilus, was Patriarch of Alexandria and convened the Synod of the Oak in 403 A.D. where Cyril assisted him. He succeeded his uncle to the See of Alexandria in 412 and retained it until his death in 444.
This article will deal primarily with the time period surrounding the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D., between 425 and 435 A.D.

By the time of the Council, a severe conflict between Nestorius and Cyril was epidemic. The conflict is most often perceived to be a theological dispute, which it no doubt was, but many ignore the political situation and deal only with perceptions and theological schools of thought. In other words, the differences existing between Alexandrian and Antiochian interpretation and Christology. We will focus our attention in two areas. The first will be to address the political landscape around which the Council of Ephesus was formed. The second will focus on the theological issues which Nestorius addressed in an attempt to answer his critics on the charge of heresy.

The larger political picture dictated much activity which preceded and followed the condemnation of Nestorius and his teachings.
The resentment between the Eastern Roman Empire centered in Constantinople and the Western Roman Empire centered in Rome was experienced in theology (i.e., in the east, the interpretation of the Apocalypse of Daniel as bringing in the millennial kingdom with Constantinople as Capital), the establishment of rival apostolic lines of succession, and the development of the concept of primacy.

The movement of the capital by Constantine from Rome to Constantinople (New Rome) on the Bosphorus was an act of political desperation in order to save the Roman Empire. This created a split in the thinking of many in the Christian community, creating jealousy between old Rome and New Rome. Constantine further exacerbated the tension between east and west by calling himself ‘Proto-Apostolos’ meaning ‘first of the apostles’, placing his tomb in the middle of the cenotaph of the Twelve Apostles in Constantinople. (Haussig, pg. 112)

This posed a threat to the claim of primacy in Rome and subsequently formulating a list of apostolic successors beginning with Andrew the Apostle consecrating a certain Stachys as the first bishop of Byzantium. In response to the Byzantium claim of apostolic superiority, the Roman Popes formulated their own list of successors from the Apostle Peter.

 

[EagleWatch]

Lynching of Nestorius Part - 2

One is able to see the political advantage which could be gained by Pope Celestine siding with Cyril against Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, whether right or wrong.

What is the benefit gained by Cyril anathematizing Nestorius? The evidence seems to suggest that within Egypt there was an Antiochene community before the Council of Ephesus and Nestorian sympathizers after the Council, who were obstinate against the authority of Cyril. So Cyril sought a means by which he could lessen or eliminate their influence.

After the Council was convened and the anathema was declared, Nestorius was banished, first to Antioch (431-435) then to the Great Oasis of Hibis (al-Khargah). Following deportation to the Great Oasis (435-439), he spent some time in Panopolis under the guardianship of Shenoute. Shenoute had attended the Council of Ephesus as the chief bodyguard of Cyril. Some scholars discount the influence of Nestorius in Egypt during this time but fail to account for the continued existence of “Nestorian” monasteries who either ignored or were unaware of the condemnation of Nestorius and his teaching.
I believe there was a sizable “Antiochene” community in Egypt which would give a raison d’etre for Cyril’s actions and explain the continued presence of monastic communities which credit their founding to a “Nestorian”…Isaac of Nineveh.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople was a highly esteemed position but it was also fraught with political dangers. John Chrysostom, in his six year term as Patriarch (398-404), was harried out of office twice. He died the second time at the hands of those who exiled him.The success or failure of the Patriarchate was dependent primarily on the Patriarch’s political savvy. The intervening years between John Chrysostom and Nestorius gives evidence of two extremes of success and failure. Arsacius (404-406) was characterized as peaceful. Atticus (406-425) was praised as being “all things to all men.” Finally, Sisimmius (425-427) was rather “indolent” although personally he was noted as pious. (Gregory, pg. 83)

The beginning of Nestorius’ term at Constantinople was marked with enthusiasm. He vowed to Theodosius II that he would “free (the land) of heretics and I will give you heaven in return; help me to destroy the heretics and I will help you destroy the Persians.” (Gregory, pg. 84)

Nestorius sought immediately to strengthen the existing laws regarding heretics and even went so far as to add new penalties against the Novatians and Quarterdecimans in Asia, Lydia and Caria. In his enthusiasm he may have crossed some of his neighbors’ borders in search of fleeing heretics, thus violating territorial bounds. This type of enthusiasm was not looked upon too kindly. Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, during the Council of Ephesus specifically opposed Nestorius for pursuing these heretics into Ephesian ecclesiastical areas. Ephesus had suffered financially as an ecclesiastical center because of the importance of Constantinople. (Gregory, pg. 102)

Relations between the Sees of Alexandria and Constantinople were not always strained. There is evidence to suggest this point. During the early period of Nestorius’s rule, he sought to establish a yearly festival at Constantinople in honor of John Chrysostom and succeeded in getting Cyril’s consent to placing John’s name in the Alexandrian diptychs. This occurred as late as 429 A.D. A letter from Nestorius to Cyril around 429 even refers to their mutual, previous “friendly relations,” when Cyril was trying to dissuade Nestorius of his position on the use of the word ‘theotokos’. (Griggs, pg. 193) Apparently, after these series of letters, Cyril decided to press the matter and seek to convene a general council.

Cyril, in many ways, was a shrewd politician. He sought the support of the Roman Church and after a synod was convened there in August 430, Pope Celestine threw his support behind the bishop of Alexandria. On the advice of Cyril, the teachings of Nestorius were condemned. Cyril held his own synod in Alexandria that same year to rally supporters. All the parties agreed to settle the dispute through a general council.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Gregory, Timothy E., Vox Populi: Popular opinion and violence in the religious controversies of the 5th century A.D., Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 1986.
2. Griggs, C. Wilfred, Early Egyptian Christianity from its origin to 451 C.C., Vol. 2, E.J.Brill, Leiden, N.Y. 1990.
3. Haussig, H.W., A History of Byzantine Civilization, Trans. J.M. Hussey, Thames and Hudson, London, 1966.
4. Meinardus, Otto, Oriens Christianus, Vol. 51, “The Nestorians in Egypt”, 1967.

 

[EagleWatch]

Lynching of Nestorius Part - 3

Theodosius, who had appointed Nestorius to the patriachate, was not convinced that Nestorius was guilty of heresy and was reluctant to call for a general council.

He reluctantly conceded to Cyril’s request on November 30, 430 partly as a result of the unrest which was going on in the city. (Gregory 101) He issued a letter calling for a council and ordered all Metropolitans of the empire to meet in Ephesus at Pentecost, June 7, 431.

I find it odd that the site of the council is in a city whose Bishop is so anti-Nestorius, but this question will have to go into the annals of history unanswered. My speculation is that Theodosius entrusted the details of the council to his older sister, Pulcheria who opposed Nestorius and opposed what was popularly termed Monophysitism. Pulcheria may have been influenced by her mother’s bitterness against John Chrysostom. She opposed anyone who favors John and Nestorius naturally did favor him as was previously mentioned.

Nestorius arrived on Easter, April 16, with 16 bishops and an armed escort. He had heard of the reputation of Cyril. He had also faced opposition and physical threats from some monks in Constantinople. Apparently Cyril was stirring up opposition to Nestorius through the onus of Eusebius, a lawyer of the Basilica of Constantinople. (Gregory 90) Nestorius arrived to find some lesser bishops already there.

Cyril arrived in the city shortly afterward accompanied by about fifty-five bishops and a considerable number of monks. By the June 7 deadline 198 bishops had arrived but they were still expecting the oriental delegation which comprised John of Antioch and thirty other bishops. This delegation was crucial support for Nestorius’ case.

The bishops had already agreed to wait until July 10 for the delegation but on June 21, armed with what he thought was special authority from Pope Celestine, Cyril proposed to open the council under the pretense of preventing more sickness and death among the bishops. Sixty-eight bishops, along with the chief guard of Nestorius from the Emperor Theodosius, presented letters protesting the decision and demanded that Cyril wait. Cyril ignored them.

The next day, June 22, Cyril opened the council presiding over 60 like minded bishops (Kelly 327), and dispatched four bishops to summon Nestorius. He refused to appear before the oriental bishops arrived. In the absence of Nestorius, the supporters of Cyril moved quickly to depose him. They finally pronounced a formal statement against Nestorius. Meanwhile, outside there was a crowd gathered, eagerly anticipating the outcome. It is worthy to note that there were demonstrations of women in Ephesus supporting the position of Cyril. When the decision of Nestorius’ deposition was announced to the gathered crowd, the women formed a procession to show their support. (Gregory footnote 124)

It seemed they had a special attachment to Mary. But why did they feel this special kindness and closeness to Mary?

The Mother of our Lord through a late tradition seems to be connected to Ephesus by the Apostle John. While on the cross, Jesus gave John custody of his mother. Near the end of John’s life according to tradition she accompanied him to Ephesus. Epiphanius denies this tradition has any historical or biblical merit. These women of Ephesus who expressed a special veneration for Mary were following an older tradition and devotion of another virgin and mother, Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians. (Acts 19 & Gregory 106, 107)

Meanwhile, Nestorius met with a group of 43 rival bishops in a synod and issued a similar verdict against Cyril and the rest of the bishops. (Atiya 250)

Finally, on June 26, the oriental delegation of bishops arrived under the leadership of John of Antioch. John petitions Emperor Theodosius and describes the city in a state of civil war and “all manner of confusion.” (Gregory 104) In his letter, he squarely places the responsibility on the shoulders of Cyril and Memnon.

Theodosius, after hearing of the condemnation of Nestorius and his teaching (June 29) dispatched a letter to Ephesus decrying the decision of the council and reproving the bishops for not waiting for the oriental bishops. On July 10 the legate of the Pope of Rome arrived and declared the Pope’s support for Cyril. Cyril was quick to point out to the emperor that his continued support of Nestorius was contrary to the decision of the ecumenical council.

 

[EagleWatch]

**Lynching of Nestorius ** part - 4

(Gregory 108) The words of Nestorius sum up the situation:
‘When the followers of Cyril saw the vehemence of the emperor…they roused up a disturbance and discord among the people with an outcry, as though the emperor were opposed to God; they rose up against the nobles and the chiefs who acquiesced not in what had been done by them and they were running hither and thither. And…they took with them those who had been separated and removed from the monasteries by reason of their lives and their strange manners and had for this reason been expelled, and all who were of heretical sects and were possessed with fanaticism and with hatred against me. And one passion was in them all, Jews and pagans and all the sects, and they were busying themselves that they should accept without examination the things which were done without examination against me; and at the same time all of them, even those that had participated with me at table and in prayer and in thought, were agreed…against me and vowing vows one with another against me…In nothing were they divided.’ (Gregory 109 quoting Nestorius)

The condemnation of Nestorius by the Cyrilian council and the counter-condemnation of the oriental council against Cyril was not the end of the matter. Cyril, Memnon, and Nestorius were all put under arrest and full imperial investigation was demanded by the oriental bishops. Each group was invited to present their case before the Emperor in Chalcedon. It was not until 435 that the matter was settled. After things had settled down in Constantinople, Theodoret came to Chalcedon presenting views not far from those of Nestorius and found a considerable amount of support. This may indicate that the support for Cyril’s views may have been artificially contrived through political alliances with Empress Pulcheria and the wealth distributed by Cyril to members of the imperial court in the sum of 1400 pounds of gold shortly before the Council in 431. (Gregory 113)

The bribes of Cyril fit into a larger picture which are evidence that he was willing to dispense with the ontological truth concerning the heretical nature of Nestorius’ teaching to achieve a political victory. He sacrificed principle for politics but history in the end gave him neither. I believe Cyril envisioned being the “Bishop of bishops,” much like the Roman papacy of today. In an article entitled “Rabbula of Edessa and the Peshitta” Matthew Black illustrates that Rabbula utilized the gospel quotations of Cyril in the revision of the Peshitta gospels. What does this have to do with the Nestorian controversy? Previous to the time of Rabbula (c.412-435) most if not all of the bishops of Edessa looked to Antioch, Seleucia or Ctesiphon for their direction in relation to defining orthodoxy but Rabbula looked to the west, i.e. Rome, Constantinople or Alexandria. The utilization of Cyril’s New Testament quotations seems to indicate a shift in political perspective for Edessa and the willingness to accept Cyril’s leadership in Biblical matters implies a close cooperation between Alexandria and Edessa.

As the “champion of Orthodoxy” in the church, he had the support of Rome and Edessa and the only person standing in his way of becoming “Bishop among bishops” was Nestorius who was an Antiochene. But shortly after the condemnation of Nestorius, Pope Celestine I died in 432 and Rabbula of Edessa died in 435. Cyril’s plans died with them.
There is an account of a monk whose name is Victor along with three other monks who made an official complaint to Theodosius II regarding their treatment at the hands of Cyril. Apparently, Nestorius received them and heard their complaint against Cyril. This would naturally be an embarrassment to Cyril. This volatile situation would be cause for confrontation. Cyril needed to look for an opportunity against Nestorius in order to discredit him. The popularity of the term theotokos in Ephesus as ascribed to Mary coupled to Nestorius’ opposition to the term for theological reasons was an ideal situation for Cyril. This was his chance to gain political advantage over Nestorius on theological grounds and at the same time divert attention from his own problems. (Schwartz)
The theological differences between Nestorius and Cyril are traditionally resorted to when seeking a reason for the council of Ephesus. I would like to give a brief explanation of the issues involved in the discussion.

Most of the discussion centered around the appropriate use of the term theotokos (“she who bore God” or “Mother of God”) for the mother of our Lord. Nestorius felt this term to be unacceptable and chose to use Christotokos (“Mother of Christ” or “Messiah bearer”), Anthropotokos (“Mother of man”), or Theodokos (“God-receiving”). Theotokos first appears in written sources in a letter written in 324 by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria to the homonymous Bishop of Thessalonike but it seems to even go back to the time of Origen.

Socrates says that Origen wrote a long treatise in his Commentary on Romans on the suitability of the term (theotokos) although the term can not be found in the extant text. (Anastos 197)

 

[EagleWatch]

**Lynching of Nestorius ** Part - 5

Central to the discussion will be Nestorius’ own view of the matter. For 1550 years Cyril’s rendition of the matter has been touted as orthodox and Nestorius’ writings have been sought out to be burned. With the rediscovery of Nestorius’ Bazaar (Treatise) of Heracleides in the early part of this century the objective observer can get both sides of the debate. The Bazaar represents an apology written by Nestorius, most likely, right before the council of Chalcedon (451) in order to redeem himself. Many complain that the document is long, frustrating, wearisome and painful but when one sifts through all the tautology, eliminates the contradictions, and reads the account within the context of a man trying desperately to save his reputation it will slowly eat through the layers of time which label him a heretic and vindicate his name. (Anastos 199)

The Treatise in the beginning denounces the Jews, the Manichaeans, the Arians, the Sabellians, and Appollinarians. He explicitly condemns Paul of Samosata.

Thereafter, Nestorius goes on the explain the basis of his theological system.

“He says each existing animal, object, thing or person including man has their own substance or essence (usia) and from this essence is derived life or existence. The usia, which is invisible, is what the object is in itself, in its innermost being, apart from being perceived. Each usia…has a distinct nature, (physis), i.e., the totality of qualities, features, attributes, and peculiarities (both positive and negative) which give it its individual stamp or character. every nature is founded upon its own usia; there is not nature without an usia; and usia without a nature. Thus usia and nature are correlative terms, each of which implies and requires the other. But neither the usia nor the nature is fully present effective without a third equally indispensable element, the prosopon. None of the three can be separated from the other two, nor can the usia and the nature be recognized externally apart from the prosopon which reveals them. No ordinary entity or individual being has more than one each of these three components, nor does any one of the three have more than one each of the other two.” (Anastos 201, 202)

Nestorius stressed the Christological point that God the Word and the human nature of Christ were never mixed. These two were “alien to one another.” (Anastos quoting Bazaar 202) In the same breathe, he further explained that these two things, the manhood (usia) of Jesus and the usia of God, were joined together in the prosopon (one prosopon of both natures). These concepts are presented in the most explicit terms. Nestorius describes that the union of the two natures are in the one prosopon of Jesus Christ, and denies that it should be described as a union of prosopa. (Anastos 204) He maintains through out the discussion a firm belief in the God-Man which is a union of the divine Logos and the separate individual man Jesus from the moment of conception.

It is crucial that we understand the concept of prosopon as Nestorius presented it. Prosopon was understood in two senses. The first sense is a more general one. It may be called the external appearance of a thing which has substantive reality and distinct qualities. Prosopon in this sense is another aspect of physis or usia. The second sense which he understood prosopon was in the same way we understand the word “person.” When we think of a name we think of a person. When we think of the name Jesus Christ or Joshua the Messiah (Yeshua ha Meshiach) we think of a person. In ordinary usage we do not separate a name from a person. After we have understood these two senses of the term prosopon Nestorius introduces a unifying factor between God the Logos and that person who the disciples saw. He uses a Latin term - communicatio idiomatum - which simply means a transfer of attributes. So God the Logos (understood in the first sense of divine nature) became the prosopon of Jesus Christ’s human nature. (Anastos 206)

The Scripture which was used by Nestorius to illustrate this transfer of attributes was Philippians 2:9-11. This Scripture emphasizes the name of Jesus. ‘Name’ in Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic is ‘shem’, and ‘onama’ in Koine Greek. Now, the Greek use of ‘onama’ does not conjure any special significance but the Semitic term ‘shem’ denotes a mark, name, title, nature, and/or denomination. (Jastrow 1590) So the Semitic understanding encapsulates both that which the disciples saw and recognized as Jesus and the substantive reality of the individual, recognizable in its distinct qualities, which remained undiminished after the union of the divine Logos and the human Jesus.

Nestorius used the one term prosopon in two different senses to describe the name of Jesus before which every knee will bow. He was quick to add that the prosopon was singular thus avoiding the charge that he was adding a fourth member of the Godhead.

 

[EagleWatch]

**Lynching of Nestorius ** Part 6

The point which must be taken away from this discussion is that Nestorius was not a heretic, as Cyril perceived or described him. Some historians and commentators of the differences between Nestorius and Cyril assert the opinion that they were simply arguing different sides of the same coin, but with all that has been said about the differences, they shared common ground. They shared a zeal for “orthodoxy” as has been noted earlier and sought to extend their reaches into, sometimes, uninvited areas. Nestorius conceded the title theotokos was innocuous if properly explained and with sufficient qualification. both agreed to the Christology that Christ had two natures and that each nature had a hypostasis and a prosopon. Cyril sought to emphasize the differences and call the differences heresy.

I believe the major defect in Nestorius was his failure to deal wisely with Cyril who was a political power monger. Cyril, as a theologian or politician, has little to offer Christendom except the antithesis to a good and wise politician or theologian.

 

[EagleWatch]

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:

May be you are right about it. I certainly need to look at it. You have a valid point in your argument. But that does not rule out everything.
Then it opens another area of research. Why the ancient St. Thomas Christian customs in Kerala were different than of those in Middle East even after the Nestorian connections?
Does it show that we (St. Thomas Christians) had a unique indigenous customs and Nestorians were never keen to impose their customs on us forcefully like Catholics?

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.

This is where we are differing from you. We may use them only as object of remembrance. We don’t kneel to or kiss the cross, pictures, icons, statues of any one, be it of Jesus or any other Saints.

It is in accordance with the Scripture.
(Exodus 20:4-5) “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;”

Ancient Israel also had such “Nehushtan” among them.

(Numbers 21:8-9) “And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.”

(John 3:14) “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:”

The fiery serpent Moses which was a shadow/symbol of Christ – the Nehushtan – was worshipped / venerated until the time of King Hezekiah.

(2 Kings 18:4) “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.”

The mighty prophets Moses, Joshua, Samuel … great Kings David, Solomon … were not dared to remove it from being an object of worship and veneration. God was pleased with King Hezekiah for restoring the true worship to the Lord.

(2 Kings 18:3) “And he did [that which was] right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.”

King Hezekiah also had his tradition handed over by greats like Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon etc. But King Hezekiah knew what is just right in the eyes of the Lord.

I need not say anything more.

Holy Qurbana

You may refer to Mar Thoma Thaksa (liturgy) to understand that the bread and wine are blessed to be the body and blood of Christ.

Virgin Mother Mary

We believe that she gave birth to Jesus being Virgin. Scripture does not explicitly give evidence of any other children born in Mother Mary from Joseph. Hence I do not see anything to deny the traditional belief about Virginity of Mother Mary.

 

[josethomas2005]

In response to the Byzantium claim of apostolic superiority, the Roman Popes formulated their own list of successors from the Apostle Peter.

But the list of bishops of Rome were already in the book written by Eusebius of Caesera. Then why you used the word formulation?

 

[EagleWatch]

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

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

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’.

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.

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.

Why did they wish to have a committee to study the course of reform if they were not inclined to it? If they are comfortable with the Antiocan liturgy as perfect to their tradition of St. Thomas Christians it is absurd to appoint a committee of such.

It is a known fact that Pulikkottu Mar Dionysius (Mar Thoma 10) and Punnathra Mar Dionysius (Mar Thoma 11 - consecrated in 1817 Oct 19) were interested in restoring the ancient custom of St. Thomas Christians by purging the unnecessary teachings got in by Roman and Antiocan connection.

There was a meeting convened by Malankara church at Mavelikkara with attendance of 40 priests, 700 representatives from various parishes on 3rd December 1818. Rev. Joseph Fenn was invited to deliver a speech there. He pointed out many errors including the praying to Mother Mary.

If Malankara Church & Mar Thoma 11 were not inclined to it to study further why did they went ahead with the committee ( Palakkunnathu Abraham Malpan, Kaithayil Gheevarghese Malpan, Eruthikkal Markose Kathanar, Adangappurathu Joseph Kathanar were among the committee) even after Anglican speach.

It should be noted that the modification of Thaksa was done by the committee under the supervision of Mar Thoma 11.

In 1825 August 27 Cheppattu Mar Dionysius was consecrated. He had very cordial relations with Anglican missionaries Rev. Thomas Norton (returned to England in 1826), Rev. Benjamin Bailey ((returned to England in 1833).

The new missionaries Rev. James Morwood, Rev. Joseph Pete were arrived in 1828 and 1833 respectively. Marthoma 12 - Cheppattu Mar Dionysius were willing for the reformation at least until 1833. Unlike their predecessors, immature, arrogant, dealings of Rev. Pete and unnecessary interference of Anglicans into the administration of Malankara church and authority of Mar Thoma were the reasons of his backtracking from the reformation process. He feared that Anglicans are going to take over the Malankara Church by force as happened with Portuguese rule.

Those of vested interest also played their crucial role in distancing Mar Thoma with Anglicans.

Hence he convened the Mavelikkara Synod in 1836 to decide to declare that Malankara church is under Antiocan church against the tradition of St. Thomas Christians as independent church.

Your argument “they stayed put” is right with Antiocan doctrines. But also they subjugated themselves to Antioch. From my side it was also backing from the reformation process. If he was not for it why he kept the committee working? And it why it took 11 years to decide against?

Mar Thoma and priests who studied the subject were not unaware of the difficulties in implementing the reformation against the Antiocan doctrines and their strong influence on the Church. It had to be introduced gradually by educating the believers.

The intention of Malankara Chuch for the reformation was plainly evident from the time of Mar Thoma 11 (1817- 1825) Mar Thoma 12 (1825-1836) nearly 19 years.

So it was not only the personal view of Abraham Malpan but also those who worked with him under the guidance of the Malankara Bishops till then, were reflected in the trumpet call of reformation.

Once the Cheppattu Mar Dionysius decided against reformation and decided for subjugation of Malankara Church to Antioch, it was necessary for those who valued reformation independence and customs of St. Thomas Christians to find alternatives.

It is worth noting here that Cheppttu Mar Dionysius was against the supremacy of the Antioch in his early years, as evident from his opposition to Mar Athanasios Abda-el-Mesiu (Antiocan Bishop) who tried to claim the church to Antioch by showing the “Sthathicon” (Letter of Authority) from Patriarch of Antioch. Cheppattu Mar Dionysius had to seek the help of British resident to his help in exiling Mar Athanasios.

Since you being from the other side I can understand your way of seeing it. I just tried to put here the Mar Thomite side so that any person can judge them from both perspective.

 

[EagleWatch]

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.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

“That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

So it is acceptable to look into scriptures if you are not sure or dispute of the doctrines, you can correct them by referring and matching with scriptures.

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).

We did not say against the scriptures you quoted. You may adapt your ways. You are happy with it. You have scriptural support for it. You are getting blessings from it. We have no doubt about it.

But we had our ways before and now. We choose to confess to Jesus direct as he is the High priest. We scriptural base for it and are confident that he is capable of forgiving our sins. We are happier about it rather confessing to any priest. We get blessings also from direct confession.

There is nowhere in scripture it is written that you should always confess to the priest and not to Jesus then only your sins will be forgiven.

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).

We have already discussed this I understand the doctrine as explained by you.

Intercession prayers

I have written my stands about the intercession prayers. No need to explain. We both understand the subject.

But it is personal choice to do or not to.

Here is the best intercessor.

Romans 8:14-15 “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

Romans 8:26-27 “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the **Spirit itself maketh intercession **for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”

Do you accept ALL? Rev. Moon, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, Pentecostals, one-ness Baptists, Unitarians, gay-friendly Anglicans, and women-priests and bishops? Just the top of the iceberg regarding doctrinal differences, do you accept all of these despite differences? If these are okay, there are thousands more that you will have to accept.

I don’t think this deserve any answer. You already know about them and Mar Thomites since you already had some research on us. You claimed that you have spoken to some Mar Thoma Bishops and Priests. Did they say so? Or indicate so?

Or it is because each Marthomite chooses to do whatever he or she feels like, isn’t knowledgeable or isn’t concerned about doctrine - and the denomination cannot provide a proper response, since it prefers not to alienate anyone by not answering firmly to anyone?

It is because we retain an open mind to see, discuss, refer the scriptures and freedom to accommodate, accept or reject according to the conviction given by Holy Spirit.
I am happy for you, I hope being in the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ gives you all the graces you need in your spiritual sojourn.

Thank you for your prayers brother. May the Lord bless you too.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ref: Synod of Udayamperoor Minutes

Not to burst your bubble, but Mr. N. M Mathew is a member of the Marthoma church and is not a scholar - his writings are questionable at best, and supportive propaganda at worst. The man does not even separate fact from his personal opinion, blending everything together to present his personal view as reality - unfortunately this way of writing only effects those who already support his views, and does nothing for serious scholarship.

Holy Qurbana Startes with referring to the Holy Virgin Mother, and John the Baptist.

Have you noticed the obvious change in the reference? The authentic Qurbono states “Mary, who have thee birth and John who baptized thee, shall be intercessors on our behalf, be merciful to us O Lord!”. What does the Marthoma version say?

The Psalms of Virgin Mary is recited. During the Qurbana it the Saints are remembered. It is prayed that we are also to be remembered at the time of resurrection along with them.

Not sure what you mean, which saints? What about remembering them today, not “at the time of the resurrection”?

We honor the Saints by giving their names to Parishes. We adore them in our heart and try to emulate their life.

Marthoma churches are often named after cities, does this mean you are honoring the township? or that the naming of parishes have nothing to do with honoring saints?

Mar Thoma Church’s call is not for changing all the errors or doctrinal differences occurred during in those synods. But we being the St. Thomas Christians have tried to preserve our ancient ways by reformation principles. It has been already discussed.

Only if these preservation attempts were authentic, but it has been proven to be an Anglican creation.

I have made the references to the Ephesus Synod and Nestorius were mentioned only to show there were disagreements in the past. Many conclude that the injustice is meted out to the minority. Conviction of sin and the judgment can give only by the Holy Spirit. The discourse and acts of those involved are already recorded. When you go through it you can discern it. Let them be concerned who are in it.

How far do you take this? Did the marthoma “reformers” also re-interpret and re-review the disagreement between Peter and Paul, the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople as well?

Nestorius was considered as a Saint among Nestorian Churches. Since now some factions of the Nestorian churches are in communion with Catholics, do those Nestorian Churches condemn Nestorius now? Or did Catholic Church accept him as Saint as Nestorians? Or did they at least accept him not as heretical? So who has to correct whom? And make amendments?

Chaldean Catholics do not believe in Nestorianism, since the Church has already condemned it.

 

[SyroMalankara]

May be you are right about it. I certainly need to look at it. You have a valid point in your argument. But that does not rule out everything.
Then it opens another area of research. Why the ancient St. Thomas Christian customs in Kerala were different than of those in Middle East even after the Nestorian connections?
Does it show that we (St. Thomas Christians) had a unique indigenous customs and Nestorians were never keen to impose their customs on us forcefully like Catholics?

So now even Nestorius’ belief and practice on Saints is rejected in the so-called " “Nestorian” Indian Churches? This is illogical. The ancient Indian Church believed in intercession of saints and the Blessed Mother, there is really no way around it. Most of the most ancient Churches in Kerala are even called “Marth Mariam”, I think it is obvious.

This is where we are differing from you. We may use them only as object of remembrance. We don’t kneel to or kiss the cross, pictures, icons, statues of any one, be it of Jesus or any other Saints.

It is in accordance with the Scripture.
(Exodus 20:4-5) “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;”

Ancient Israel also had such “Nehushtan” among them.

(Numbers 21:8-9) “And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.”

(John 3:14) “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:”

The fiery serpent Moses which was a shadow/symbol of Christ – the Nehushtan – was worshipped / venerated until the time of King Hezekiah.

(2 Kings 18:4) “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.”

The mighty prophets Moses, Joshua, Samuel … great Kings David, Solomon … were not dared to remove it from being an object of worship and veneration. God was pleased with King Hezekiah for restoring the true worship to the Lord.

(2 Kings 18:3) “And he did [that which was] right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.”

King Hezekiah also had his tradition handed over by greats like Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon etc. But King Hezekiah knew what is just right in the eyes of the Lord.

I need not say anything more.

So are you conceding that the Indian Church truly did venerate icons, etc - is your position that Abraham Malpan was following Hezekiah’s footsteps? If so, how do you respond to those who wish to “cleanse” further by stripping the altar completely, removing curtains, priests vestments, crosses and everything else; and how do you reconcile Moses actions of creating images of earthly creatures with the command forbidding such creations? Perhaps God truly does allow the creation of such objects, but not for adoration, but only veneration. Adoration is due to God alone, veneration is given to saints because of God acting in them. The Israelites were worshiping the image AS God - very big difference!

You may refer to Mar Thoma Thaksa (liturgy) to understand that the bread and wine are blessed to be the body and blood of Christ.

And I refer you to the “Receptionist Theory” taught in Marthoma church as proof that Marthoma church does not believe what it says in it’s own Thaksa. The Marthoma church, in fact, rejects that the priest is offering the sacrifice of Christ Himself to the Father in the Holy Qurbono; instead offering “the sacrifice of praise”.

We believe that she gave birth to Jesus being Virgin. Scripture does not explicitly give evidence of any other children born in Mother Mary from Joseph. Hence I do not see anything to deny the traditional belief about Virginity of Mother Mary.

You do not, but many in your church do, I would even say the majority deny it. How do you reconcile this?