From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India. See also the Christianity in India Portal. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Church Origins 2 Llywrch 3 Manjithkaini 4 Some minor edits 5 The Syro- churches 6 Requested move of interest 7 Changes 8 Response to Few Comments 9 Major Cleanup Needed!! 9.1 Clean Up Article 9.2 Please use Sandbox 9.3 Fraction comment

[edit] Church Origins

There are conflicting theories on the origin of Christianity in India. The only point which all historians agree is on that Christianity was present in Kerala even in the 2nd century.

[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)

[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)

[edit] Changes

I have made few changes to the History section.It didnot talk anything about history than making counter observations earlier. I have also distinguished other Syrian Churches with Syro Malabar.

For referance use

http://www.smcim.org/article2.htm -- the offical SMC site

http://members.tripod.com/~Berchmans/malabar.html

http://www.indianchristianity.org/syromalabar.html

Please discuss before anyone makes changes.

[edit] Response to Few Comments

Peashy tradition vs fact

I don’t understand how do u define fact. We are talking about a community that existed in Southern India who kept their records in palm leaves. If you look at the evidences there are plenty but u wont get anything similar as you can find in Rome or west. That’s simply because People are different their culture for maintaining records are different.

WikiSceptic Synod of Diamper

I am also of the opinion of Manjithkaini. What Synod of Diaper did was latinising this Church. Portugese wants to get credit of brining a fold of people in to Latin church and that’s the sole purpose of Synod of Diamper.

Communion with Rome is not as a one who shares the tradition of latin church. Centuries before Synod of Diamper there was latin rite in Kerala.These rites co existed successfully in Kerala.

But the Portuguese especially The Bishops was greedy and nothing less than inposing latin was acceptable to him.

The Christians on this coast always courteously received any bishops who came to them from over the seas and even made use of these to ordain or consecrate, but it does not follow that they always accepted the doctrines taught by these bishops.

Also, historians have been too ready to regard any Asiatic bishop as a Nestorian but the bishops who came to this coast may have been good Catholics. There always was a tendency among the Nestorian bishops to make overtures to Rome and on three or four occasions there was an actual reconciliation with Rome. When the Portuguese came they were very ignorant of Oriental Churches and did not understand the position of the Syrians, but Francis Xavier praised Jacob as a good Catholic and the next two bishops, Mar Joseph and Mar Abraham were in open communion with the Holy See, so that before the diocesan Synod of Diamper the Syrian Church on this coast was in union with Rome

When pope Julius III on April 6th 1553 confirmed John Sulacca as Chaldean Patriarch, the Pope said that the discipline and liturgy of the Chaldeans had already been approved by his predecessors, Nicholas I (858- 867), Leo X (1513-1521) and Clement VII (1523-1534).

This Papal letter also mentions the former Patriarch, Simon Mamma, of good memory, as Patriarch of the Christians in Malabar.

This shows that there were from time to time Chaldean Patriarchs in communion with Rome and it is contended that the Thomas-Christians of Malabar were in communion with these Chaldean Patriarchs and not with the Nestorian Patriarch.

When the Portuguese arrived here they inaccurately called the four bishops Nestorians but these bishops were Chaldean.

Their report of 1504 was addressed to the Chaldean Patriarch, else how did it find its way into the Vatican Library?

The Portuguese were startled by the absence of images and by the use of leavened bread, but these two points are in accordance with Chaldean usage.

The Thomas-Christians paid the expenses of Marignoli because he was Papal Delegate.

St. Francis Xavier in a letter from Cochin to St. Ignatius Loyola, dated 14th January 1549, asks for Indulgences for certain churches, saying, "This would be to increase the piety of the natives who are descended from the converts of St. Thomas and are called Christians of St. Thomas." In another letter dated 28th January 1549 to Rodriguez, St. Francis Xavier asks for indulgences for a church at Cranganore, "which is very piously frequented by the Christians of St. Thomas, to be a consolation for these Christians and to increase piety."

As saints are notoriously keen in detecting heresy and as indulgences cannot be granted to schismatics, it is contended that these letters of St. Francis Xavier show that the Thomas-Christians were in communion with Rome, even before the arrival of Mar Joseph in 1555. Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, by H.J. Coleridge, S.J., ii. 74 90.

When the Portuguese deported Mar Joseph to Portugal it was not the Nestorian Patriarch but the Chaldean Patriarch who sent Mar Abraham to take his place. This appears from Action iii, Decree X of the third provincial council at Goa in 1585, which recites that Mar Abraham came as Archbishop of Angamale, with a letter from Pope Pius IV. Another point is that the letter which Pope Gregory XIII wrote on November 29th 1578 to Mar Abraham does not tell him to convert his flock, but to convert others, that is to say, those who were not Christians

Can you explain me why historians don’t write anything about this ?

But I do agree with you in few points.Not everyone were Chaldeans. There were Assyrians too. Overall why these points are neglected are because of few considerations. You have given few points in that direction

1. Christianity successfully co existed in India for more that 2000 years. No part in the world can claim that. Rome it was a persecuted sect. Middle East it was and still it is. That’s the reason why in Malabarises there are many of Eastern orgin. Accepting this fact is un thinkable to many world wide historians.

2. In India Christianity was made a mess not by Hindus or Muslims its by the Portuguese and the Dutch and few inside leaders of the community.

3. Then the politics and the power fight among the population.If you use the word Nestorian you can keep people away from looking at history and continue doing the latinisation.

MalabarSpider , 06 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cleanup Needed!!

In my humble opinion, this article is seriously flawed and needs a major cleanup, to remove obvious typographical errors, to correct grammatical and syntactical errors, to improve its overall organization, etc. It does not present the reader with a continuous, logical flow, but jumps back and forth from one subject to another, repeating subjects, etc... --Sophroniscus 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up Article

I'm starting a sandbox for cleaning up the page and invite the community members that visits here to stop by and contribute. Tarijanel 19:41, 19 Nov 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use Sandbox

Please use sanbox for content additions or deletions.Tarijanel (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraction comment

The sentence that states that the `old party` that remained in communion with Rome is `ONLY A FRACTION` of the original church is POV and carries a negative conotiation. Even if one person left the Church, both sides would then be considered only a fraction even if 99% stayed and only one person left. The Malabar Church is much larger in number today then at the time of the reestablishment of Communion with Rome and it was the Faithful who stayed. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is larger then any of the other Churches that split from her and if you add to their number those who are in the Syro-Malankara Church, you find that instead of being `ONLY A FRACTION` which sounds small, that Catholics are the MAJORITY of SYRO Christians in India. The sentence that makes the Fraction comment needs to be edited or taken out of the article. This is only fair as no one on this site treats the other churches this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC) If you want a source, the Catholic Near East Welfare Accosiation carries and publishes very accurate numbers that are accepted by EVERYONE, and those numbers clearly show the truch of my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)