Too bad the comity did not last, after the honeymoon it was a horrible experience for them.
Yes it is too bad. But what is your point? That history is retroactively changed by later events? Oh, that’s right, you’ve made an analogous claim about persecution and coercion at the Union of Uzhhorod.
I suppose we might hear some day that the OCA never “broke communion” with Rome, it has the same relationship to Moscow that the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala had to Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Using this kind of conjecture over obscure points of church history, people can claim anything. Does Father Roberson list this church as one that “never broke communion” with Rome? I don’t recall his book (which I have), nor the CNEWA website ever making such a claim.
I doubt we would hear such a claim made in seriousness. The first key issue is, as I noted, was isolation. In these times it is, unfortunately perhaps, difficult to find such isolation. There is also the ecclesiological issue of the lack of transitivity in breaking-communion. However, there is plenty of documentation of the OCA’s position on communion. Can you give me the same for Syro-Malabar church? It is, of course, a gross anachronism to talk about the OCA - a church whose history is confined, unlike the Syro-Malabars, to an era in which communication is easy, “sides” are clear, and the question of “whose side are you on” is all too evident.
As we all know, the Church of the East was very extensive, reaching southern India, Tibet and China. Some say they might have reached 80 million adherents at one point (which was pretty good for those days). Kerala was at the crossroads of important trade routes for millenia, they were not “lost” in any real historical sense, they were close to the midpoint of the civilized world in a great arc extending from Spain to northern China. They had commercial ties in every direction, and this was clear from the historical records in the middle ages of Europeans going to India seeking out the tomb of Saint Thomas, and Chinese ships visiting the country from the east. Even Marco Polo passed by.
I think that it was along the path of the silk route that there was great missionary growth, with the spice route was relatively isolated. Kerala was in “the middle” of the great arc that you mention in longitude, but down in a remote corner in latitude. The isolation was by no means total. But Marco Polo refers to the tomb of St. Thomas with these words: “The body of Saint Thomas the Apostle lies in the province of Malabar, at a certain little town having no great population; 'tis a place where few traders go .” Moreover, the question is what was there connection with other Christian churches What was the nature of their interactions in matters of theology/heresy? What documentation do you have that mitigates the idea that this church was largely isolated?
The isolation we think of for these people was due to the rise of Islam and the later destructions of Tamerlane. But they were only to some partial extent isolated from their own Patriarch who continued to appoint bishops for them. That was the only ecclesiastical connection of practical importance to them other than a desire to connect with Christians around the world we all share.
The connection to their Patriarch did indeed, as you note, also have a degree of isolation. Appointments were not regular; communication infrequent.
From Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria they had already severed ecclesiastical relations in 431AD by refusing the Council of Ephesus. They were no more in communion with Rome nor Constantinople than Seleucia-Ctesiphon was.
Yes I understand that is what you are claiming. However, this is the claim that is resisted in accounts of the Syro-Malabar church history. What makes your account better? You claim that “they had already severed ecclesiastical relations in 431AD by refusing the Council of Ephesus”. Prove that they severed relations. Prove that they considered, in their local churches, accepting or rejecting the Council of Ephesus. Prove that this was even discussed in India. What is their oral history of that era?
And Ireland was no more in communion with Seleucia-Ctesiphon than Rome was (using this same logic) The Patriarch of the Assyrians could probably claim “the Celtic Church of Ireland had never broken communion with Seleucia-Ctesiphon” because there are no formal records of Irish bishops hurling anathemas at the Assyrians. Quite meaningless ultimately, and silly.
Again a rehash of the claim. I agree that the argument is silly. So let’s stay with not silly things.
The idea certainly exists within Orthodoxy that a church can be in communion with churches that are not in communion with each other. Certainly one could give all sorts of examples where this notion seems silly. After that boring exercise, it’s time to dig deeper. Since it is not always silly, then what are the conditions that apply when it is it not silly; how are these conditions relevant - or not - to the case of Thomas Christians. That is interesting, IMO to discuss. A decent respect for Syro-Malabar history means not drawing certain conclusions while uncertain on basic facts.
break communion with the Catholic Church (which constituted all other Apostolic Churches at the time). They remained under one communion until the 15th century!
