Talk:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Moving the original author's sig here

Written by:

Jack Eapen

jackachachan@yahoo.com

Great job, Jack. Just bear in mind that no one 'owns' any article on wikipedia, and it will probably get edited a little, maybe even a lot. If you want to keep track of changes to this article, log in as a user (pick any username), come view the article you're intrested in, and use the link on the side to add it to your "watch list". Later you can view your watch list to see which of those articles have been edited most recently. Wikipedia has lots of other features to make it easy to edit articles, view change history, discuss articles with fellow contributors (like this Talk page), and on and on. Enjoy! Wesley 16:19 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

How big is this denomination? It seems like it would be really small, but the article gives no clue into the number of members. Fishal 19:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1.5 million according to http://www.pro-oriente.at/?site=ok20041124161715&lp=de --Pjacobi 20:55, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

I would like to say that Malankara Orthodox Church is different from the Malankara Syrian Orthodox church

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church = Indian Orthodox Church

Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church = a member of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch

Have a look at the table below (it's french but you understandable)

Églises orientales du Kerala (Chrétiens de saint Thomas)

Syriaque occidental					Syriaque oriental
Anglicans	Orthodoxes orientaux			Catholiques orientaux		Assyriens
Église malankare Mar Thoma	Église malabare indépendante	Église malankare orthodoxe	Église syro-malankare orthodoxe	Église catholique syro-malankare	Église catholique syro-malabare	Église malabare orthodoxe
N.B. I understood that orthodox malankar and syro-orthodox malankar church are in communion but I am not 100% sure of this

Bear in mind that each of these churches have different names...

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project

There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church

Is this Church the same one that is in communion with the member Provinces of the Anglican Communion? - (203.211.76.52 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, thats correct. The Mar Thoma Church is in full communion with the Anglican Church, but is not a member of the Anglican Communion. Trust me, I'm a member of the Mar Thoma Church. --Schacko0205 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "this church". If you mean Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, then no, that's not in communion with Anglicans; it's a part of the Oriental Orthodox. The church which is in communion with the Anglicans is the Mar Thoma Church. Tb (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tone/Style

Some of the last section reads more like an advertising brochure than an encyclopedia article, e.g. "From such small beginnings, the Christian Community of Kerala grew to its present stature against heavy odds aided, among other providential factors, by the continued tolerance and hospitality of many a neighborhood, the goodwill of the local rulers, chieftains and others." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 15:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Founded by St. Thomas

"...founded by St. Thomas, the Disciple of Christ in A.D. 52."

Unless this statement is universally agreed by all mainstream historians, it should not be given as fact. The Acts of Thomas, for example, are not a verifiable source, having been written 150 years after the events they describe. I suggest rewording to

"Members believe that their Church was founded by St. Thomas, the Disciple of Christ in A.D. 52."

Mtford 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion...

The article Jacobite Syrian Christian Church says that it is also known as "Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church". This is very confusing, and there should be something in these articles that explains that they are different (if they are different — otherwise the articles would be merged). ... discospinster _talk 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know, there are some differences between the churches. They have different heads. Even though most of their rites are the same, it is headed by different people. I dunno which section, but one is headed by a person called "Bava" from Kerala itself and the other one is headed by a bishop from antioch or damascaus. User:Dtox.danny —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This church in a pathetic state

The situation of the Orthodox Church in India is similar to that of the church in Ukraine. The followers of Patriarch of Antioch and Catholicos of East are fighting in the streets to get possession of the assets of the church.

The Patriarch fraction is known as Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Catholicos fraction as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. An Independent Orthodox Church body also exists since 1772 AD by name, Malabar Independent Syrian Church, which is not in communion either with the Patriarch or Catholicos.

Majority of the Orthodox christians in India,including me, accept the Patriarch of Antioch as the Spiritual leader, and Catholicos of East as the autocephelous head. Similar to the situation in Georgia, where Georgians accept the Catholicos of Georgia as their autocephelous head and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the Spiritual head.
So, we christians dont know which church we actually belong, since we need both the Patriarch and the Catholicos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinu007 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Catholicos ?

I dont know, who wrote the title "Supreme Catholicos" for the Catholicos of East. To my knowledge, only the Armenian Catholicos (Etchmiadzin)uses the title "Supreme Catholicos". That too because there is another Catholicos (Cilician Catholicos) under him.
I dont know, which Catholicos is under this Orthodox Catholicos of the East. Anyway, Catholicos Baselius Thomas 1st of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is not under him. The Uniate Catholic titular Archbishop is also not under him.
Therefore, please dont teach wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulangattil (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

infobox

there should be an infobox for quick reference to the leadership. I for one have not found who out [Indian] pope is. I was still wondering who our pope is? (i'm not christian btw) Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional information not merged

An editor keeps adding additional information which sort of, but not quite, duplicates the information that is there. Only giving a rare occasional footnote. Please stop it!

Merge stuff, don't add near-duplicate material! Student7 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

An editor has made two unexplained reversions to this article. One is a change in numbers. It needs to be footnoted with a WP:RELY source. Right now, the figures all seem made up = WP:OR.

The value of the Anglican visit to the Orthodox is not explained in the article. So what if the Anglicans arrived? What good or harm did that do the Orthodox church? Student7 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Common History

There are Six articles which claim common history of Saint Thomas Christians out of this 4 have almost similar contents about the same period. To avoid repetitive articles and to improve the quality of the article, share about WP:RELY sources and re organization of these articles.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity#About the articles on Saint Thomas Christians common historyPamparam (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

I don't particularly like "Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church", because it doesn't make much sense, looks messy, and doesn't even correspond to any of the official titles of the church body. I think this article should be moved to the title "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church". I, however, cannot figure out how to do this. The move function will not work because the latter title already exists. Does anyone know how this can be done? Deusveritasest (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, one would use the move function, described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This would give interested editors an opportunity to discuss it first.

In this case, it appears that the name you are proposing redirects to this article. This may suggest that the name has already been discussed at some point in the past and rejected. It can be discussed again of course. Not sure why there are so many names for this church. I agree that one would be nice, but can have no opinion otherwise. The redirect can be overwritten after the vote is taken, if people favor the move. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change

I corrected the word "fraction" to "faction". I also assumed that 13,000,000 was meant as far as the number of believers, and corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoanC (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart :Nazrani Evolution

This is with regard to the chart being seen on most of the wikipages of the local Indian Churches and the local church events pages.

The chart does not speak the history of the Orhtodox church or any other Indigenous church in India. (Please refer to all the local churches websites). It does not put the church in the right perspective either. This file should be removed from this article.

The question of the chart being corrected.

All the churches of India, have their own history. Their is no common chart. The options are,

1. Each Church to have their own chart.( Whatever their history speaks) or 2. Not to have a chart at all.

Thanks !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix the chart by fixing the chart, not by deleting it. Saying "there is no common chart", is a way of saying "let's fork to avoid hard problems." We don't give up, we fix it. So go forth and fix it: which requires the hard work of being willing to discuss it with others, reach a consensus on an NPOV way to present the information, and editing the chart to express that consensus. It's not ok to simply delete material without discussion and decline to participate in making it better. Tb (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tb. Please repeat your comments on File talk:Nasrani Evolution.jpg. Too long have Indian Christian histories ignored each other when they share a common background. Once they were one church. Now they are not. While they have difficulty recognizing this common background objectively, does not mean that it should not be reported encyclopedically. Student7 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the first person (125.22.97.34) said that there is no common chart, is because the history of the Christians in India are largely wiped out by the Portuguese. The uncannonical Synod of Diamper, called upon cunningly by the Portuguese, beckoned the Indigenous Chritians for a discussion. The humble local Christians, having no clue of the Portuguese mentality , brought all the ancient manuscripts written on palm leaves to be verified and discussed, however , the Portuguese, seized these documents are set it on fire.

Remember printing reached India only in the 19th century. Old ancient manuscripts written on palm leaves, were sought out and destroyed by the Portuguese. Now the cunning catholic historians , just in the 19th century came up with there own history, making all indigenous Christians “New Party” and them(who arrived only in the 16Th century) as “Old Party” and this is what they are trying to propagate here. One should understand that this is a mere catholic propaganda chart, the true history is entirely opposite of what is depicted here.

The is a something about which we are going to fight tooth and nail, I doubt the credibility of articles in wikipedia. Shame !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.16.119 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good material! Granted that the "Old Party" labeled was invented by Catholics, was or was there not a schism at the Synod of Diamper, whatever its legality or illegality? What are alternate names for what the Catholics called "New Party" since they did leave as a separate group. Again, having abandoned WP:POV labels here (!), we are looking for labels that can be accepted by both groups, not one called "The Legal Successors of Christ" or somesuch. The other side has to accept it, as well. I don't necessarily mean editors alone, but readers. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, The indigenous Christians were called St. Thomas Christians , and Catholics, according to the Orthodox Christians were called Latin Christians., or Portuguese Christians. Again my sincere suggestion is not to have any names, as names are derogatory or offending for some. The present names “Old Party” and “New Party” are only to underscore all the Indigenous Christians in Bad taste. Having no names, does have better dignity rather than calling some one “New”, which either side can.

Then, how would one justify the one straight line which is depicted here as, Syro Malabar Catholic Church, common sense is, when there is a schism, one straight line should be spilt into two. I don’t understand the reason behind putting this is chart in unnecessary places like wiki page of Oriental Orthodox, Coonan Cross Oath etc, clearly shows the untoward intention behind creating such a chart. !!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.21.39 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why you would feel that way about the labels. I agree that it appears to you to be pov showing a "straight line" for Catholics only. However, all were together at one time.

Taking the Anglican church break from Rome, it is facetious, I think, to suggest that the King's new church deserves a "straight line" from the year zero; King Henry VIII's main intent (there were many others) was to get a annulment (he'd already used up one!  :) so he could marry a third wife. Not my idea of a straight line!

The Indians, for whatever reason, were together under the Portguese/Latin Church at one time. They felt provoked, revolted for the best of reasons (unlike Henry) but jumped the track. IMO Pakistan "jumped the track" when it broke away from India - no straight line for them! And Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan. Straight line for Pakistan, but not Bangladesh. Am I wrong?

Why should it be different. BTW, if describing the Jewish religion, I (a Christian and Catholic) would have to draw the Jewish religion as a straight line. They did not change. Worse, the "founder" of the church I follow was in that straight line! A Jew! It was Christians who changed. Christians are heretics (quite correctly) to Jewish people. Does that bother you? It is true, nonetheless. What do you say?

I realize that "new" is a pejorative in religion. Nonetheless, Christians were "new" at one time. New and better? (pov or course). What is wrong in thinking that "New Party" is "new and better?"

Until I saw the charts I could make no sense out of local religions at all. The poor helpless reader has to have something.

We can't really go with "convincing" each other. We have to use WP:REL:Y labels. We can use both in the "explanation" which nobody sees. but we need to use something on the line to distinguish the old group from the breakaway group. I know, I know, it was the Latin church which "went wrong." Nevertheless, it was the, uh, so called "New" Party which "relocated" as it were. Student7 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is POV to say things like "the King's new church". Of course, the position of Anglicans is that ours is the same ancient Church of England, which separate from Rome, but neither of which was a new church. It is important to recognize that about such things "straight lines" contain considerable political importance, and express POVs which are often by no means neutral. While it may seem obvious to Roman Catholics that theirs is continuous and others "broke off", the others very frequently see it the other way round. Nowhere is this perhaps as much an issue as in India, so I would urge you not to approach it by trying to find out who should have the straight line, and instead, assign it to nobody. Tb (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are we to assume that the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is the original Nasrani church rather than the Chaldean Syrian Church, for instance? Or perhaps the Jacobite Church? Or the Indian Orthodox Church? If anything, presence of those in union with Rome is a development of the 16th century, whereas a church clearly existed there beforehand. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave off straight lines for the time being.

BTW, an editor has suggested that the chart be converted to something that is editable. Anyone want to give that a crack? For starters, aim at what we have. Have to start somewhere.

Question one about the old chart. What do we say about "New Party" and "Old OParty" (translated into English)? Are there any other recognized names that can be used with evoking laughter? We do want to use recognized and recognizable names.

There is a term in America called political correctness. This refers to (usually) changing the name of something sensitive to something else for awhile. Usually less truthful. I don't think we should attempt to hurt people's feelings here, but neither should we use terms that can't be recognized by the average reader either.

Incidentally, I ran across two people from Kerala the other day. One was a Catholic with a PhD (but not in religion or history!). When I brought up our concerns to her, she was either mystified or bored, probably the latter. The other was a Muslim. Needless to say, he didn't know and couldn't care less. So what we are discussing here may be of great import to us editors, but somewhat less than the end of the world to average Keralans, most likely. All we are trying to do here is get history straight, not to right all wrongs of the past. We can record all wrongs of the past, however! Student7 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well too much to type….. Okay am ready …

Anglican Church, Jews , Bangladesh and my own India and King Henry the womaniser .. hahahaha…

Okay, Anglican Church or Church of England came into being only after King Henry decided to (as far as I know). Christians split out of Jews after Jesus Christ came down to earth. Pakistan was created after they got independence in 1947 ????

We are called St.Thomas Christians because of a reason, we are the followers of St.Thomas, and not St.Peter (which the catholics would have used happily, if they were here, from AD52). However we have St.Thomas Christians, because, there was a time when St.Peter or his followers never knew about a tiny place called Kerala. You would have read, umpteen numbers of time that the Christians in India had connections with Persia. The church was under the rule of the Persians or Nestorians , are they Catholics ? Hmm, I doubt the Catholic Church wouldn’t want to go anywhere near to them as, they were heretics… But unfortunately we the Christians of Kerala had connections with them. The evidences are the Persian Crosses found in Kerala. Out of the many Syrian congregations which landed in Kearla. One of the largest being under Mar Sapor in Kollam. The Malayalam Era starts from this event. Hmm okay… by the 15th or 16tb century we had uninvited guests here, namely the humble and meek Portuguese. They were people who went from Latin America to Philippines doing charity business. Helping people, supporting, guiding and sometimes a bit of torture… “ Oh please that, was 16th century you know, torture was permissible….” Hahaha.. okay, the uninvited guests had their mouths open when they found well established Christians thriving on the kerala coast.

Hmm, thus started torture, in a light manner, just peeling off orthodox priests ears and noses, just putting fire to churches, oh ..even a jewish synagogue was also not spared, a synagogue in Trichur was blazed, wow.. forcing orthodox priests to conduct latin masses, locking up orthodox priests in islands of cochin for days and going around and destroying whatever was precious for the local Christians.. hmmm

Now some history which I saw in History channel which belongs to the very grand old Rupert Murdoch a devout catholic ….

After the crusades, the crusaders who came back to their home countries were a nuisance, they were organised and even more powerful than the local kings. The difficultly in controlling these hard men, were immense, so the kings decided to give them a new job… kings of Portugal and Spain, raised a maritime wing, and ordered these men to conquer unfound lands. (thus by avoiding nuisance back home) The Templars still existed even after the crusades… the history channel says, that Vasco da Gama( the one who brought Catholicism t o India ) was himself a templar. The Spaniards had Gun Powder, and they mastered cartography. Because of these two colonialists, the catholic church , once a small church, or maybe as big as the orthodox in the middle east, flourished throughout the world. Read about the atrocities these people have committed from the Latin America to Philipines. And coming back to the chart, its like we Indians, were SUPERPOWERS, we kicked the Portuguese and created our on church… wow…. The Portuguese and the Spaniards who were terrorizing the world, got f***k*d in India…. Then am very proud to say am an Indian… we all all St.Thomas Christians should be . And also the poor Syrians and Persian bishops ,who didn’t have gun powder, an army or even 10 followers behind them and not even 10 rupees to spare, convinced the st.thomas Christians in India to rally against the Portuguese … I get reminded of the phrase, “common sense is not so common “ … hmmm.. sad…

Visit India, and see the numerous Orthodox churches, which dates back to 7th and 8th century , and the graves, which dates back to 1000 years. In my church, is a memorial, which is erected in memory of all the Christians who sacrificed their life fighting the Portuguese. We have plenty of families who have forefathers, who sacrificed their life fighting the catholic Portuguese… Get to India and understand what we are.. meet the people , rather that reading Catholic Enlyclopedia. ( which does not have the name, “orthodox” in its article about Ethiopia )….. hahahahaha…..( see the link : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05566a.htm )

insultory and misleading article.

I find the present article to be highly misleading. The two titles "english assistance in reviving church", "anglican influence" really misrepresent the history of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church(official name).

English actually destroyed this church by spreading protestant beliefs. This directly led to the formation of Marthoma Syrian Church in 19th century from converted Indian Orthodox believers.

I feel its very unfair and insulting to Oriental Orthodox christians like me to see the history of an Orthodox Church being intentionally misrepresented. This article is a crime against the Indian Orthodox Church! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Would agree to Mathenkozhencherry, lack of Orthodox wiki editors,have allowed this page to be marauded and ramshackled by editors who belong to differernt congregations. The initial orthodox editors, do not have the heart to look at it again, because of the frequent reversions and changes made by people alien to this church. People with no history and little history are battling to make some history atleast in wikipedia. The evidence is the page of Mar Thoma Church.