Talk:Syro-Malabar Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Llywrch
Would someone verify the contents of this page?
- For one, I think the opening sentence of the History section should refer to the church being founded by St. Thomas as a tradition rather than a fact. Peashy 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I took my own advice and changed it.Peashy 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This page was originally deleted Jan 17, 2004 due to a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation for details. -- llywrch 06:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Manjithkaini
The line
- ...the controversial Synod of Diamper formally reunited this church with Catholics ...
may not be correct. What the synod did was Latinising this church. The Syrian Catholics were in communion with Rome, but it was via the Persian Church.
-
- Dear Manjithkaini, — I am totally unable to comprehend how one can claim to be in unity with a third person (The Pope) by being in practical, unquestioned submission to a second person or party (Nestorian heresiarch of Assyria-Chaldea) who is EXPLICITLY NOT IN UNITY with that third party (The Pope). This seems to me to be impossible intellecutal gymnastics, and outright dishonest.
Since this is an internal Christian issue, Christian principles obtain. There is no shame in confessing one's sins of schism and heresy, but it is totally unacceptable to pretend that one has never been in schism when the incontroverible truth is that one had. It is totally unacceptable from those who lay claim to the name of Christian.
Also, these histories are also dishonest in that they parrot blindly the lies of trhe Dutch Calvinists imbued among the St. Thomas Christians, when in fact, the "disaffection" was entirely due to the persecution of Catholics by the Dutch and their native Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Jain allies; and that the only true reason for the Schism, was not Portuguese persecution (the Synod of Diamper was some 80 years old at the time) but Dutch terrorism of the Catholics and pressure to revert to Nestorianism. This is a fact that no one mentions even in passing!
Lastly, why is it that the page has no mention whatsoever of the great tension and violent disagreement between the two factions of this Church? I am aware of this conflict, but I do not believe I know enough to write on it. I would suggest that you add this to the page. WikiSceptic 14:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Manjithkaini, — I am totally unable to comprehend how one can claim to be in unity with a third person (The Pope) by being in practical, unquestioned submission to a second person or party (Nestorian heresiarch of Assyria-Chaldea) who is EXPLICITLY NOT IN UNITY with that third party (The Pope). This seems to me to be impossible intellecutal gymnastics, and outright dishonest.
[Manjithkaini — Please always sign your comments and also put them in chronologically, at the bottom of previous comments, to avoid confusing the talk page]
I think the controversy is not well know outside the SMCC. I had heard about Dutch issues in other areas, but not there. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose a project which will cover the Judeo-Christo-Malayalam ethnicity and all its facets. The interdisciplinary nature of this people demands a diverse pool of knowledge. Fundamentally the stories are the same but are being repeated over and again on many different pages. If you are interested please let me know. Zestauferov 12:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Some minor edits
I have made a few minor edits on the article, changing the punctuation and a few words here and there. I hope the sense is now clearer and the original author(s) is/are not offended. Peashy 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Syro- churches
I think it would be helpful to have a brief recap in this article on the distinction between this church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. They are both Eastern Rite Catholic churches in India whose liturgy is based on the Chaldean tradition, yes? I'm sure there are any number reasons why there are two of them, but you can't really tell from this page or the other. --Jfruh (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move of interest
In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)