Talk:Mar Thoma Syrian Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

27 57 153 84 and 14 96 142 135[edit]

These two IP address are from the same location. The reason for reverting by these two IP addresses is, “Your intention behind changing the Intro, is to remove the Anglican connection, never properly mentioned in the entire page.” What is the Anglican connection you are thinking of? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Am not reverting, considering your age. Wiki is not a place to update, YOUR CHURCH's version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

reverted the edit[edit]


give reference of the misguidance.. pls dont indulge in habitual editing.the material is made after proper reference and much evaluation. Roshyf2 (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bent Cross Oath (Koonan Kurishu Satyam)[edit]

(NeduvelilMathew or one of his friends deleted this to hide the truth from readers, I am reposting these facts Qurbono (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC))

Most versions of this Oath are biased. Mr. Mathew included the version most favourable to his faction, but there are other versions of history regarding this event. The most objective version I've found is here[1]:

I will include it below:

The Coonan Cross Oath (Koonan Kurishu Satyam) Just like any historical event related to Malabar church each fraction keep its own version of this event.

The Coonan Cross Oath (Koonan Kurishu Satyam), taken on January 3, 1653,[1] was a public avowal by members of the Saint Thomas Christian community of Kerala, India that they would not submit to Portuguese dominance in ecclesiastical and secular life. The swearing of the oath was a major event in the history of the Saint Thomas Christian community and marked a major turning point in its relations with the Portuguese colonial government. The oath resulted directly in the formation of an independent Malankara Church, with Mar Thoma I as its head, and ultimately in the first permanent split in the community.Historically the Saint Thomas Christians were part of the Church of the East, centred in Persia, but the collapse of the church hierarchy throughout Asia opened the door for Portuguese overtures.[2] They came into direct communion with the Church of Rome through the Chaldean Patriarchate with the arrival of Mar Joseph Sulaqa and Mar Elias in AD 1554 and Mar Abraham(Died 1599). With the establishment of Portuguese power in parts of India, clergy of that empire, in particular members of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), attempted to Latinise the Indian Christians.The Portuguese started a Latin Rite diocese in Goa (1534) and another at Cochin (1558), and sought to bring the Thomas Christians fully under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese padroadoand into the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. A series of synods, including the 1585 Synod of Goa, were held, which introduced latinized elements to the local liturgy. In 1599 Aleixo de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, led the Synod of Diamper, which finally brought the Saint Thomas Christians fully under the authority of the Latin Archdiocese of Goa and replaced traditional East Syrian liturgy with Latinized liturgy.[3][4] Widespread discontent with these measures led the community to rally behind the archdeacon, Thoma,[5]However, many Saint Thomas Christians resisted the Portuguese padroado, including members of the old church hierarchy. In 1641 seething tensions came to a head with the ascendancy of two new protagonists on either side of the contention: Francis Garcia, the new Archbishop of Kodungalloor, and Archdeacon Thomas, the head of the old native hierarchy.[7] In 1652 a man named Ahatallah, who claimed to be the rightful ""Patriarch of the Whole of India and of China", arrived in India.[8] He was arrested by the Portuguese and was never heard from again in India, starting rumors that he had died or been murdered.[9] This event combined with Francis Garcia's general dismissiveness towards the complaints of the Saint Thomas Christians, led directly to the swearing of the Coonan Cross Oath.[9].On January 3, 1653 Archeadeacon Thomas and representatives from the community met at the Church of Our Lady in Mattancherry to swear what would be known as the Coonan Cross Oath.Those who were not able to touch the cross, tied ropes on the cross, held the rope in their hands and made the oath. Because of the weight it is said that the cross bent a little and so it is known as "Oath of the bent cross" (Koonen Kurisu Sathyam).[11][12][13]

When news of these events reached Pope Alexander VII, he dispatched a Carmelite mission, headed by Jose de Sancta Maria Sebastiani. This mission, which arrived in 1661, organized a new East Syrian Rite church hierarchy in communion with Rome. By the next year 84 of the 116 Saint Thomas Christian communities joined this Eastern Catholic Church, known as the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.In 1665, Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel, a Bishop sent by the Syriac Orthodox (West Syrian) Patriarch of Antioch, arrived in India, at the invitation of Thomas.[15][16] This visit resulted in the Mar Thoma party claiming spiritual authority of the Antiochean Patriarchate and gradually introduced the West Syrian liturgy, customs and script to the Malabar Coast.The arrival of Mar Gregorios in 1665 marked the beginning of West Syrian association of the Thomas Christians. Those who accepted the West Syrian theological and liturgical tradition of Mar Gregorios became known as Jacobites. The remaining 32 communities eventually entered into communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church, introduced by Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel of Jerusalem.Those who continued with East Syrian liturgical tradition and stayed faithful to the Synod of Diamper are known as the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. They received their own Syro-Malabar Hierarchy on 21 December 1923, with the Metropolitan Mar Augustine Kandathil as the Head of their Church.The Saint Thomas Christians by this process became divided into East Syrians and West Syrians.The split into Syro-Malabar and Malankara factions would be permanent; over the next centuries the Malankara Church would experience further splits and schisms.

Malanakara Jacobite Version.( part of oriental orthodox Syrian church of anthioch following west Syrian tradition ) In response to the continuous appeal of the Thomas Arkadiyakon (archdeacon), who was then giving leadership to Malankara Church; from the Patriarchate of Antioch came Mor Ignatius Ahattula in 1653. The tradition is that the Portuguese arrested him, tied him up and cast him in the Ocean. Consequently, the Syrian Christians get agitated and as a result, a large gathering of about 25,000 assembled at Mattancherry and took Oath at 'Koonan Cross' which happens to be known as the historical 'Koonam Kurisu Sathayam' in 1653 and declared that Our future generations will ever be loyal to the throne of Antioch and we would not adhere to the Franks, nor accept the faith of the Pope of Rome.

Malanakara Orthodox Version.(independent oriental orthodox following west Syrian tradition )& Malanakara Marthoma Version. (A protestant reformed church following west Syrian tradition): By the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that henceforth we would not adhere to the Franks, nor accept the faith of the Pope of Rome. [Source: This reference from the The Missionary Register of 1822 (Letter from Punnathara Mar Dionysious (Mar Thoma XI)to the Head of the Church Missionary Society.)]

Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Version (Eastern Catholic Churches): A protest took place in 1653 with the Coonan Cross Oath. Under the leadership of Archdeacon Thomas, the Thomas Christians publicly took an oath that they would not obey the Jesuit bishops [Sampaloor pahtiri].[2][8][9].The oath was not against pope or catholic church but against Portuguese authorities.

Neutral Version. The situation is best explained by the Stephen Neill (an Anglican protestant missionary, later Anglican Bishop of Tamil Nadu, from Scotland) in his book "A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707". "On january 1653 priests and people assembled in the church of Our Lady at Mattanceri, and standing in front of a cross and lighted candles swore upon the holy Gospel that they would no longer obey Garcia, and that they would have nothing further to do with the jesuits they would recognise the archdeacon as the governor of their church. This is the famous oath ofthe ‘ Koonen Cross ` (the open-air Cross which stands outside the church at Mattnchery.The Thomas Christians did not at any point suggest that they wished to separate themselves from the pope. They could no longer tolerate the arrogance of Garcia. And their detestation of the jesuits, to whose overbearing attitude and lack of sympathy they attributed all their troubles,breathes through all the documents ofthe time. But let the pope send them a true bishop not a jesuit, and they will be pleased to receive and obey him." A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707 By Stephen Neill page 326-327 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)TruthiNESS

sexual abuse content[edit]

Where is the appropiate place to put information on the sexual abuse scandel as it affects this church? see this diff. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The article posted here was not a neutral one. The details are taken from a Catholic website. Which can never say the truth about Oath of the Bent Cross. Since it was against the Pope and catholic church.

A Catholic can never say the truth? You are twisted and no scholar. Why do you ignore the words of your Anglican protestant missionary writer, Stephen Neill? He and his relatives help fund your denomination, why not take his word? Stephen Neill is the grandson of Col. Munro, and became a CMS priest and later CMS/Anglican Bishop of Tirunelvel, and helped create the Church of South India. How much more neutral can you get? The man was not a Catholic, yet he wrote what he wrote. Accept reality.Qurbono (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


The name "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church" does not appear to be widespread outside of Wikipedia. Despite what Neduvelilmathew seems to think,[1], the English version of the church's website doesn't use "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church", it uses "Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar", or more usually just "Mar Thoma Syrian Church."[2] Additionally, "Mar Thoma Syrian Church" is far more common in sources; returning over 6000 Google Books hits, compared to only 244 for "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church" - most of which are copies of Wikipedia. Barring some reasoning for the revert I'll be moving the article back to the more common name.--Cúchullain t/c 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How disappointing that rather than discussing, as I requested, the editor has just continued reverting and excising material. Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Cúchullain on this. "Mar Thoma Syrian Church" is the correct name for this, by ghits and their own website. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This was posted to my talk page: Recently many corrections were appearing on this page. At last, you have also made the excising and corrections without any discussion. I know that our web site is using “Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar” in English, but just below that, the translation in Malayalam is “Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church”, as it appears in the approved Constitution of the Church. If you had made the excising and corrections after discussion, it would have been different.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Neduvelilmathew, I shouldn't have to tell you that the English Wikipedia uses English. It doesn't matter what you think a better translation of the Malayalam is, when a subject has a name that's common in English sources, we go with that. In this case, we have a clearly established common English name that's even used by the church itself.
As to my edit, I merely removed some poorly written, irrelevant unsourced material, added a brief and neutral section on history taken from the cited sources and the church's own website, and rearranged a thing or two. You've reverted all of that now. Considering that the current name fails all Wikipedia standards I would hope it would be uncontroversial enough that we could correct it without a formal move request, but we can certainly do that if necessary.Cúchullain t/c 00:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Neduvelilmathew, care to respond?--Cúchullain t/c 22:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
After receiving no response for a week, I went ahead and moved the article. Additionally Neduvelilmathew's revert not moved the talk page archives, so it needed to be fixed. The article should not be moved again without a discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Kindly refer the name as per the english website. Link - Even in all the church publications and books, the name Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is used. Additionally the name registered for the purposes of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 of India is Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church. However i cannot seem to find an online source for this. Regards. Baseleious Nikephoros (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma Syrian Church has been contesting with Jacobite Church for the true successor Church of the Malankara Church.They claim that they are the true successor church of the Malankara Church forgetting the fact that they got legally separated from the Jacobite Church of Malabar. Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Kokkarani, You seem mistaken about a few facts. It was infact the Jacobite faction that broke away in opposition to the then head of the Independant Malankara Church Mathews Mar Athanasius and joined up with Patriarch of Antioch and the Oriental Orthodox Communion. Refer: Synod of Mulanthuruthy 1976. However the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church also cannot claim to be the true successor Church of the Malankara Church because they enacted several reforms in the church in an attempt to restore the beliefs and practices of the pre-Synod of Diamper church. Baseleious Nikephoros (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Purely biased[edit]

it is a true factor that this article is highly biased to orthodox church. marthomites belives that they are founded by marthoma sleeha. they also believe that they are tracing the actual belief lay down by the st. thomas in AD52. but this article totally rejecting this beliefs and it underlines that marthoma church is totaly found out by abraham malpan (by refering an orthodox biased website). this is very sadfull. this article has no validness as an encyclopedia article.

NOT Purely biased[edit]

The Christians in Malabar before the arrival of Portugese were nestorians , as this is evident from the various historical informations. They never worshiped mary or other idols . After the arrival or Portugese lot of unholy non biblical practices were started in Malankara church. With the help of CMS missionaries malankara church started seminary at kottayam and started learning the word of God. So they found out that lot of unholy practices still exists in the church even though the church was not under the eagle - the Catholic church , but the church was under the unholy catholic church for about 100 years . I am saying the catholic church unholy because they tortured and killed our ancestors to get the church in communion with Rome . So a murderer can never be considered as holy . When the priests learned the unholy practices existed in church they wanted to remove it, so they sought the help of Anglicans. Please note this point that the then bishop asked Abraham malpan and his colleagues to study the reformation needed to be done in the church. And they found the necessary reformation needed, but the greedy Anglicans tried to control the church, so the bishop was afraid and he terminated all the alliance with anglicans. But Abraham malpan wanted to reform the church by removing the unholy practices but he lost support from the bishop that was a major turning point. All the reformations are always treated as Protestant reformation. Here also the orthodox people thinks the same. Marthoma church is not a protestant church as they wish it to be. But they can call marthomites with whatever ways they want because it is up to them. Marthoma church also got supports from Anglicans. But dont forget the facts that orthodox church also did several reformations with the help of Anglicans , but still they says they are orthodox and marthomites are protestants. I request you all to go to a marthoma church and see what is the Protestantism existing there. If you say - not praying to mary and saints - I will say our ancestors - who were nestorians never worshiped mary as the Nestorians do not consider Mary as mother of god, instead mother of human Jesus.

You have not signed this statement. Good thing you did not, since what you say is false. The Assyrian Church of the East, and the Chaldean-Syrian Church, as well as it's Catholic counterpart, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church all venerate St. Mary and other saints. Look at reality. The Chaldeo-Assyrians are still around to check their books. They do not worship as you do, and are not in communion with you. Abraham malpan was a manipulator and tricked quite a few people. His descendants continue to stay in power as Marthoma bishops with similar lies. Unfortunately for them, history books are readily available, and nowadays just a click away.

  • See this as an example [2]:
    • Priest: Bless, O my Lord. My brethren, pray for me.

The Deacons: May Christ hear your prayers and be pleased with your supplications, and by His grace and mercy accept your offering, for ever and ever, Amen. Let us pray. Peace be with us. Pray for the memorial of our fathers the catholici and bishops and of all the priests and deacons and young men and virgins and of all who have departed and passed from this world in the belief of the truth and of all our fathers and brethren

  • another example [3]:
    • All: The Trinity that blessed the righteous believers and forefathers; bless this church, and may it be blessed now and for ever. Protect, O my Lord those who dwell in it from all harm and tribulations. Let it be full of blessings, like the House of Abraham. And increase and multiply its benefits like that of righteous Job, and may it be protected by the prayers of the holy virgin Mary from now and for ever.

Qurbono (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

St. Thomas[edit]

it is globally accepted that st.thomas founded the malankara church. orthodox, jacobite, malabar catholic, malankara catholic, malabar independent, chaldean, marthoma, and evangelical, all come's in these tradition. so it is believed that ALL THESE CHURCHES ARE FOUNDED BY ST. THOMAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abin jv (talkcontribs) 10:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You would be incorrect in your belief then. Qurbono (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Some work[edit]

I plan on doing some work to this article today. Specifically I'm going to condense the material about early history, which describes all St. Thomas Christians in general, not specifically this church, and replace inferior sources with better ones such as are used in the corresponding sections of the main Saint Thomas Christians article. There's no need to give a full account of the history of the St. Thomas Christians in general in every article on a modern St. Thomas Christian church; that material can be found elsewhere so a summary should be just fine.Cúchullain t/c 13:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


Some contributors have issues with being objective in their edits. I realize this may be your denomination, but stop deleting factual references that you disagree with or do not like. Why delete the name of the Saint who's statue being thrown in the well that started the Reformation? Why keep changing the popular demographic to a self-reported list based on a guess from 2006, instead of an accurate estimate based on statistical analysis from 2009?! Also, stop removing the name of the contributors to the "Rabban Bible", and the presentation given by the priest as to the History of the Pesh'tto Bible in Kerala! If you have a problem with the references to the Synod of Diamper's minutes, please read the actual Synod, not your church's view of what they want to think, but what was actually stated.Qurbono (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Population Statistics[edit]

Neduvelil Mathew and others keep pointing to the WCC self-reporting page, which is from 2006 and has the following disclaimer on the site: About membership

Marthoma church population is available with the sabha directory which is published once in 4 or 5 years.Whatever population statistics provided will be based on that. So please stay away from putting orthodox church's view on Marthoma church.

So no one moves, gets married out of, leaves, or does anything but stay stagnant within the Marthoma sect until 4 or 5yrs when the directory emerges? Ridiculous, stop making up "data". At least have the academic integrity to post the so-called "sabha directory". No one has seen it and now must take your word for it. Qurbono (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Does Marthoma Church believe in Transubstantiation ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

False witness against the Assyrian/Chaldean Church[edit]

An often repeated lie by the Marthoma denomination is that they restored the Church in Malankara to the way it practiced prior to the Catholics and Orthodox arriving in India. History and all the facts show that prior to the Syrians and the Portuguese arriving in Kerala, the local Liturgy was prayed in East Syriac according to the Chaldean-SyroMalabar-Assyrian usage. This liturgy today is prayed by the Syro-Malabar Catholics, the Chaldean-Syrians of Trichur, the Chaldean Catholics of the Middle East, and the Assyrian Churches of the East. None of these are in communion with the Marthoma denomination. All venerate St. Mary, and have multiple Saints that they Commemorate, they also pray for their dead (Dukhrana/Dukhrono). Here is one small example: Saint Andrew Liturgical Calendar for the Year 2013[4]

  • Friday January 11, 2013 it is the Commemoration of Saint John the Baptist the Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:30 PM.
  • Friday January 18, 2013 it is the Commemoration of Ss. Peter &Paul. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:30 PM
  • Monday January 21, 2013, it is the Rogation of the Ninevites.
  • Wednesday January 23, 2013 it is the Wednesday of the Rogation of Nativities. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 P.M. The Holy Mass will be followed by Potluck.
  • Thursday January 24 2013 it is the Thursday of thanks giving. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 A.M.
  • Friday February 1, 2013 it is the Commemoration of Saint Steven. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:30 PM.
  • Sunday February 3, 2012 It is a Commemoration of Mar Benyamin Shemoun Catholicos Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East. Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 AM.
  • Friday February 8, 2013. It is the Friday of the deceased. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:30 PM. The Holy Mass is followed by potluck.
  • Wednesday March 6, 2013. It is a Mid-Lent. The Holy Mass will be celebrated on Wednesday evening at 6:00 P.M. (followed by potluck)
  • Friday March 22, 2013. It is the Resurrection of Lazarus. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:30 P.M.
  • Thursday March 28, 2013. It is the Passover Thursday. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 P.M. (Followed by Potluck) Night Vigil.
  • Friday March 29, 2013. It is the Friday of the Passion. Evening Service will start at 7:00 PM.
  • Saturday March 30, 2013. It is the Saturday of the Lights. Evening Prayer begins at 5:00 P.M. Easter Vigil Service begins at 6:00 P.M. Mid night Mass begins at 8:00 PM.
  • Sunday March 31, 2013. It is the Sunday of the Holy Resurrection. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 AM.
  • Monday April 1, 2013. It is the Monday of the Thief (Robber) who was crucified in the right hand of the Lord. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 AM.
  • Wednesday April 24, 2013. It is the Commutation of Saint George the Martyr. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Tuesday May 7, 2012. It is the Commemoration Saint Shmoni and her Sons. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Thursday May 9, 2013. It is the Feast of the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven. The Holy Mass will be celebrated on Thursday at 6:00 PM.
  • Wednesday May 15, 2013. It is the Commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Holy mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Friday May 24, 2013. It is the Friday of Gold. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Sunday June 23, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Raban Pithyoun. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 PM followed by Dookhran.
  • Wednesday July 3, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Saint Thomas the Apostle. The Holy mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Sunday July 14, 2013. It is the commemoration of his Beatitude Mar Yousif Khnanisho Metropolitan of Baghdad Iraq of the Assyrian Church of the East. The Holy mass will be celebrated at 9:00 AM.
  • Monday July 15, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Mar Quriaqos the Martyr and his Mother Yoliteh. They were crowned in the year 304 AD. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Friday July 19, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Mar Mari the Apostle. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Tuesday August 6, 2013. It is the Feast of the Transfiguration of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Feast of Transfiguration took place in the year 33 A.D. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Wednesday August 7, 2013. It is the Commemoration of the Assyrian Martyrs. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 60:00 PM.
  • Thursday August 15, 2013. It is the Commemoration of the falling asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the year 38 A.D. Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Friday August 9, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Mart Shmuni and her sons. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Friday August 19, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Mar Shimon Barsabbae. The Holy mass will be celebrated at 6:30 PM.
  • Friday September 13, 2013. It is the Feast of the Cross. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:30 PM.
  • Saturday September 14, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Mar Sawa, Mar Odisho, Mar Bisho, Mar Zaia amd all the Saints. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 AM.
  • Thursday September 19, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Mar Shalita. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Thursday October 17, 2013. It is the Anniversary of His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV Catholicos Patriarch.
  • Monday October 28. It is the first day of the Rogation of Saint George the Martyr. This Rogation lasts for three days, Monday through Wednesday.
  • Monday November 4, 2013. It is the Commemoration of Saint George the Martyr. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 6:00 PM.
  • Saturday November 30, 2013. It is the commemoration of Saint Andrew the Apostle. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 5:00 PM.
  • Tuesday December 24, 2013. It is Christmas Eve. Evening prayer will begin at 5:00 PM. Christmas Vigil at 6:00 PM. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 8:00 PM.
  • Wednesday December 25, 2013. It is Christmas day. The Holy Mass will be celebrated at 9:00 AM. Qurbono (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Syriac Bible (the Peshitta)[edit]

Marthoma denomination follows the protestant Bible as put together by the British in the 1800s. The Peshitto Bible is the basis of the Syriac-Chaldean Catholics, Syriac-Malankara Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church. The books that are considered inspired can be found in the Catechism written by Mor Dionysius Geevarghese of Vattasseril in his book titled Quintessence of Religious Doctrine[5] (p. 156), first published in 1900:

  • On the Books of the Bible

Every faithful should acknowledge the Old Testament and New Testament Books, which were authored through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and canonised by the holy Fathers

  • Canonised Books of the Old Testament
    • Books of Moses - 5
    • Joshua, son of Nun - 1
    • Judges - 1
    • Ruth - 1
    • Samuel - 2
    • Kings - 2
    • Chronicles - 2
    • Ezra including Nehemiah - 1
    • Maccabees - 3
    • Job - 1
    • Books of 150 Psalms - 1
    • Books of Solomon - 4
    • Prophets - 16
  • In the above list four books are attributed to Solomon as it includes the two books of Proverbs; there is a title at the

beginning of the 25th Chapter of the Book of Proverbs, the chapters following the caption are to be deemed as constituting another book. Daniel’s book includes the Book of Susanna also.

  • Canonised Books of the New Testament
    • Gospels - 4
    • Paul’s Epistles - 14
    • Peter’s Epistles - 2
    • John’s Epistles - 3
    • James - 1
    • Jude - 1
    • Clement’s Epistles - 2
    • Acts of the Apostles - 1
  • Regarding some of the Books incorporated in the Old and New Testaments, the following is to be borne in mind. Although the Church respectfully considers them as canonical texts, Athanasius the Great, Dionysius of Alexandria, et. al. cast doubts on the authenticity of them, while some suggested that a few others of that category may be studied and read to augment faith and devotion. Such books are listed under.
    • Solomon’s Great Wisdom
    • Bar Asira
    • Judith
    • Tobith
    • Didascalia of the Apostles
    • Shepherd of Hermas
    • Revelation of John
    • Revelation of Paul the Disciple
    • Epistles of Barnabas

As all the Books are written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they are useful for giving counselling, imparting instruction, confirming in orthodoxy and training in morals. Treatises which are likely to be so written can be approved of by the Church. Similarly canons, histories, preachings, epistles, homilies, can be recognised, after careful scrutiny by the bishops.Qurbono (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This teaching is again explained in detail in Malayalam on GregorianTV Parumala. The Malayalam Holy Bible, from the time of St. Thomas until present day by Rev. Fr. Reji Mathew, Ph.D., Principal of Orthodox Theological Seminary, Nagpur.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qurbono (talkcontribs) 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Copypaste tag[edit]

Hi, Woona,

How did you come to the conclusion that Wikipedia article Mar Thoma Syrian Church, copied from the web site ; and not the other way round? Marthoma Church, Coimbatore is one of the parishes of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church. I am a member of the Mar Thoma Church and know this parish at Coimbatore. The copypaste tag is removed. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuous Vandalism[edit]

This page is subjected to continuous vandalism efforts. Hence the page is requested to be monitored through watch-list by qualified(reputed) administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For the continuous disruptor[edit]

1. reformation movement(the movement)=cleansing was the promoted (process)

2. that was inspired through the contacts with British Anglican missionaries. You may compare the similarities of theological similarity with the many reformation stemmed ideologies Given in the text cited and known accepted fact, don't interpret for opinions. But this doesn't mean any of the reformations instituted aren't valid. It is unique in its changes it brought out, which was from a longitudinal study. But theologically Reformation based ideologies. However, in the current period of stasis the church is going back in its principles to pre-reformative standards. (But that's an other matter and opinion)

3. ridiculed=misconception and personal opinion. it doesn't mean the current Liturgy is in any manner of poor quality. It is a revised and standardized version. Perspectives from dependents of a church, always seem to glorify and Wikipedia is not the space for it. A clear example is given below.

4. antagonist=misconception and poor or misguided historical grip. For more idea research about Mar Thoma XII.(Have to approach libraries) It is even ridiculous to think that then head of the syrian church (patriarch) accepted the changes that Malpan instituted and supported for reformation by disdaining their own belief system that was practised in India. Mar Thoma XII suffered from a lot of health issues, this is stated in the history books. He was abdicated only when he was bed-ridden. Read biographies for this. Read also about the Deed of Submission that was instituted after the Consecration of Deacon Mathew. You also yourself cite parts of the reason for this prompting of sending Deacon Mathew - To save public face, but you construct and interpret wrongly for your own needs. This is just a citing of the logical inaccuracy you have convinced through non-academic or non-critical texts. For more understanding you may have to turn to hard copy books, many are out of print but major libraries of the church have them.

5. Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church=Though was sent as the bishop of Malankara church, Mathews Mar Athanasius Metropolitan is considered as one their bishops, Not of Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, they explicitly claim he was excommunicated(however no such data exists and matter of discussion for other times) for later being turncoat with Abraham Malpan. Changing this is from a misguided historical grip and diminishes the clarity.

6. reform groups were also evolved from Marthoma Church=Historically important and accepted by the evolved groups itself. Published material exists and cite as such. Just because some people or you doesn't validate their existence, isn't a criteria for avoiding a historical truth.

7. an ancient Syriac church community (Not that ancient in origin as marthomites, but considered as such in spirit from legacy)=denomination, check dictionary - It is an alternative term to describe church and Government of India denotes the church as such. Though this flattery words are include in later parts of the article.

Censoring and Original research are not a part of Wikipedia policy. We hope your concerns are cleared. (undid wrong history edict.....please don't propagate and publish wrong history for your own needs)

Roshyf2, concerns addressed. (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roshyf2

First and foremost you have to understand those are not my edits. But yes reverted based on openly known facts and your deliberate changes in cited materials.

1. Believers church doesn't have anything to do with Marthoma Church. - Understandable. Still the published fact exists he was a former Marthomite. An unpublished known story exits that K P Yohanann approached Alexander Marthoma for ordination as a priest,but was refused. The official and published material cite most of the first members of Believers Church were Marthomites. Currently Believers church is a episcopal church (yes there are opinions and two-sides) with a reformed ideology. Hence the stance of published material that Believers church is an evolved(Reformed) group from Marthoma Church stands valid.

2. It is like the Jacobites and some Orthodox church members even today call Marthoma Church as an Split Church. Unfortunately, that is your opinion. - See this is not a blog. And I guess from looking at edit history that no-one expressed the birth of Evangelical church as a pride. It happened. It exists and published materials are there. So its given. But I do understand the spirit behind it. Unfortunately again, that edit comes under opinion.

3. I think the previous editors have only considered churches with an episcopal polity and evolved with the basis of reformation and used only such materials. The mentioned churches are evolved from Marthoma church, not the Malankara Church.

4. It is even ridiculous to think that then head of the syrian church(patriarch) accepted the changes that Malpan instituted and supported for reformation by disdaining their own belief system that was practiced in India and ordained Mathews mar Athanasius with this concern. This is just a logical inaccuracy you have convinced. For more understanding you may have to read about cautious Institution of Deed of Submission after the consecration of Mathews mar Athanasius, Mar Thoma XII, and the social stances and other materials. The rest is pure interpretations and fabrications from your side. You know it so and I know it. The History books are there to say so.

Starting from when, where and how reformation started would clear your concerns.

I cant do the work for you, you have to read and have these materials as a responsible editor. I hope your concerns and disputes are clear. Edit war, is a bad habit for Wikipedia editors. You maybe new to the whole wikipedia thing, before editing go through the various policies and so on. If any administrators catches you, you could be banned for vandalism and there are extreme measures for vandalism and sock puppetry.

Citing the church website for your understandings while discarding scholarly books is not a good practice. Church websites always and only promote their own preference. Mostly the history says Abraham Malpan as troubled man. Though always opportunistic. He had conflicts about his own faith and ordination. Second ordination and the subsequent fines for this is a historical truth. Lack of conviction seeded by Anglican missionaries is also seen in his own Reformation movement. It is also worthwhile to notify that the first reformation started by 1818 after 18 years of service and problems, he took up again the reformation idea. Many historians even say Malpan planned for Restoration than Reformation. Statements like Malpan he sent all denotes that Malpan had the authority yo sent Deacon Mathew for Consecreation...there you are misinformed. It is just an over-magnification of the incident. Even stating he recited prayers in malayalam by looking into a syriac thaksa.. . qualifies for the extempore act. But Ara doesn't mean that, It simply means shortened version.(based on the published material, and you yourself say that). But that doesn't mean the current liturgy is termed as AraKurbana. It is much revised and standardized version. If the statement "The glass is half full" is considered as ridiculous then only ....The citations from the former sabha secretary and vicar general specify as many other materials the protestant theology and the influence of Anglican missionaries is spearheading the Reformation movement. Further reform group evolutions are cleared, Church websites are not only the basis of history. News paper articles, scholarly books, other parallel literature...etc is all considered as worthy material. It is better to stay away from further reversions and edit war, and keep the existed and accepted material as it is.

Lack of understanding how even the article talk page works is also a proof of a newbie or a irresponsible editor who requires to be banned at-least for a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Reverted fictitious writing.

Fervent misleading of the article has been reverted, based on previous talk page information and checking. Removed fake links that doesn't cite the information and church dependent links to make more authentic and to make a point. Moreover the recent edits try to glorify the past with misleading, using severe censuring and giving inappropriate weight and twists to the facts. The previous edit also seems to sort of defame other episcopal churches like STECI with false citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

reverting vested writing[edit]

it is seen from your previous writing pattern that you are indulging in  distorted and non existent history analysis by  posting  a pre written write about again and again. it is kindly requested not to indulge in such  frivolous editing.. however your point is noted in the past and  discarded. it is seen you are unnecessary complicating and twisting the wikipage by your facts . As from the writing you seem to be a person who donot have a genuine interest in the subject marthoma church and is  advocating something of vested and crooked interest.

Roshyf2 (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you note & Request[edit]

Thank you to Cuchullain, who have simplified the intro with neutrality. I also have tried to keep it close to the reversion of

There is some interesting reviews in . Does anyone have translations of Tharisapalli plates with discussion. If so post a link or image links. Thank you.

un acceptable trimming[edit]

@ cuchullian, It may be kindly shown on what academic sources you have deleted the facts and citations . however after trimming its highly biased and one sided version. and the trimming has deleted many facts that acts the authenticity of a research page. Origin of Marthoma church was cited as with two incidents " Introduction of Holy Qurbana in MOTHER TOUGUE " and destruction of Idol of Yeldo mar baselious kept in maraman church. IT HAS TO BE SHOWN what is the protestent doctrine in Marthoma church? .The version what you have added is the version of Metran faction (later orthodox church of malankara ). On that consideration your trimming and subsequent s version is not acceptable and is totally wrong. The facts can be disputed or the sentence construction can be made better ,however total deletion is one sided and against historical facts. Roshyf2 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cuchullian why was the edit done in abraham malapan...he was not only the clergy by a level higher , he was A mALPAN ..MEANING theological professor in Syriac. it is not true to the position of Malpan in Malnkara church— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshyf2 (talkcontribs)

dear why the original content is to deleted. what is the misguidance in it.? Roshyf2 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed it back to the former status quo wording as it's much more concise and worded better. However, I don't have the energy to keep working on this if you're just going to keep revert-warring your preferred version. Roshyf2, your edits introduced a huge amount of poorly worded, confusing text based on out-of-date sources. You've been edit warring over several pages; please stop.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I came for looking maramon convention details. The trimmed version looks more simple and elegant. There is no bias. Roshyf2's edits seems to have more irrelevant content and high transliterated colloquial language. Malpan simply means teacher, later changes are intended changes for promotional aspects. Many citations added by the person seems to be just mention a name or so and describes something else. Also by magnifying certain events for purposes unknown, skipping timeline and facts makes Editor Roshyf2's writeup look like a hack job and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

dear What is the difference between "Clergy " and priest ?Are all clergies in malankara church designated as malpan.Malpan is a higher level of responsibility . Malpan may mean Teacher literary. but there are many levels of teaching my dear. Are all teachers called as Malpans? There were other clergies as well teachers in old seminary kottayam at that time who where not called as malpans. Pls for sake of criticism dont criticise .Is there any need to give a explanation for why you came to Wikipage Marthoma Syrian. The explanation seems to be very artificial and unrealistic ,as there is already a wiki page for "Maraman Convention" .Plse give the reference or citations not relevant to that paragraph rather than blatant accusation . Roshyf2 (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

dear Cuchullain I am not into edit war .Your trimming has deleted facts more than poorly worded sentence. and it shows a bias in interpretation. when you delete fact dont you need to give some rationale. when i asked for the academic source which you said your trim was based on , you said you dont have energy. You have been deleting the facts without giving reasons or disputing which is un ethical, you may introspect your act. why didnt you use this template

so people with time and energy may have edited and perfected it?

can you explain 1. why you retained translation of syriac qurbano to abraham malpans reformation and deleted his act of destroying the wooden statute of the saint?

2. what are the protestent doctrines accepted by marthoma church? have there been any formal declaration or event? what does the canon, thaksa and constitution of marthoma syrian church say about the protestent doctrines?

3. from when onwards reformation in malankara started? what was the relation ship of the anglican missioneries and malankara church till 1836? who were the anglican missioneries or britishers involved in malankara reformation or with methran faction till 1889? who were the missioneries or britishers associated with marthoma church there after?

4. what was the background of formation of st thomas Evangelical church ? which are the other reform groups evolved from marthoma church?

however i am not into this seriously .however i contest that abraham malapan introduced protestant influenced doctrines.unless you give the details of the protestent doctrines involved in it.Roshyf2 (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You were reverting to your preferred version despite challenges, that's what "edit warring" means. Again, the problem is that you're introducing large amounts of uncited or poorly cited material, and the wording is VERY poor. On the sources, per Wikipedia's no original research policy, we on independent, reliable sources, particularly secondary sources. That is, not primary sources like "Historic Documents" or the Bible, but sources by scholars interpreting the primary sources. We can't rely on 19th-century books or websites with no clear reliability. As for the wording, I took a stab at cleaning up after you at Malankara Church, but so much of it is so bad that most had to be discarded entirely. It's difficult to tell what you meant. I'm not just going to tag changes that are detrimental for "copyediting". Experience at these articles shows that no one ever comes along to copyedit, the articles just sit in a poor state indefinitely.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain

"Edit warring"=preferred version despite challenges, when you challenge or dispute is not a courtesy to pin point what is the base of your challenge? What did you do ,if i am stating i will say you did edit warring despite my challenge of explanation and reference for your edit on my writing which you still owe . whenever i made a edit i give an explanation. 19 th century books cannot be accepted is one of your wrong attitude. this books were written on first hand information of primary sources or on the period when these events occurred and all these were links to the complete digitised books (from oxford and cambridge archives). when i tagged Buchanan bible as the cited reference for the first printed bible in malayalam in 1811 , its preface itself is its citation of the printing details and the historic document of Mavelikara Padiyola it itself spoke for the split between Malankaraites and anglicans . As a administrator if you are finding un cited facts or poorly cited you should have asked for [citation needed] . The secondary sources are based on interpretations and third party reference . In "malankara church "wikipage there are citated references of vadekkekara, gregorious and roberson what is their scholarliness and why not W j Richards, Michel Geddess are scholars?. There are other wikipages of similar thread like "malankara Orthodox Syrian Church" , "Jacobite syrian Christian Church" which have given citations 31 nos and 32 only , that too majority of them are church sponsored websites and are poorly worded. My freind there are many wikipages of "Very" Poor wordings and as an administrator you cannot take the entire burden of cleaning it . It is a group effort and you should have used

, whether people comes forward or not, you should have been given time.

You were enthusiast in reverting my edit for which i have given citations and accusing of sock puppetry . What is your scholar lines to dispute a cited fact ,Of course you can dispute me in my "Very Poor " Wordings ,which i don't feel was true ,it was definitely because of my disputing to the protestant influence and doctrine misinterpreted over Abraham Malpan and Marthoma church . And obviously your version was earlier a un solicited para graph and it was overruled by another administrator in the past. "It's difficult to tell what you meant" if it was so why you didnt come in my talk page or Marthoma syrians talk page in the past and had a discussion on it.?

I conclude with " Unless lions have the opportunity to write their history, the story of hunt always favors Hunters"Roshyf2 (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess the whole problem for Editor Roshyf2, is in accepting certain facts. He is not willing to accept a historical and generally accepted notion that reformation movement and contacts with Anglican missionaries had an impact with Mathoma churches own Reformation Movement. Because of this he is trying to stage the "Mavelikara Padiyola" and the subsequent dynamics as something important to the Marthomite history. This is confusing and misleading and comes under original research. He even goes to bite editors who simply define and cite his illogical ways. Considering everything Roshyf2 is edit-warring without no doubt. An editor also noted that he is simply putting up books that just says a name or quotes something. Those are some serious misdoings, If he or she is doing this to other articles also. (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no issue in accepting any fact my dear pls give me the reference of the protestant doctrines in Marthoma church. Marthoma church has a reformation base ,true, but the many of the reformation principles which marthoma church stood for was later accepted by Orthodox and jacobite factions . But the passage says of british or anglican doctrines in Marthoma Church . After Mavelikara padiyola in 1836 Anglicans parted ways with malankara. AND BY 1840 FORMATION OF anglican church of travancore and kochi there was seldom any anglican influence directly in malankara or metran faction Reformist.
here i edited the passage with two acts of Abraham malpan, he destroying the statute of "muthappen and proscribing prayers before figures ,statue and before tombs which is a historical fact . If you want to include "protestant doctrines "in its place ,you have to give the reference of protestant doctrines or ecclesiastical subjects he explained in protestant way. If Cuchullian and you agree that the above mentioned act is a protestent act , then let the acts be there .There is no harm. Why to brand Abraham Malpan as protestant if you dont have any reference Roshyf2 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Roshyf2:I am reverting based on this ( and the general consensus. Acts based on doctrines and doctrines are entirely different. It is sad, these issues are all because of one person's misunderstandings or misguidance that exists in church through various forms. Moreover, this is fight with aspects which a majority are in peace with(who is big:mine or yours, who is first, whose approach is genuine...etc.), it is time to focus on current issues.
Roshyf2: Please start formatting your comments correctly and responding in the correct sections, rather than starting new ones. I already explained the issue above: you edits introduced a lot of poorly sourced and very poorly worded material, and frankly, seem to be pushing a point of view that's contrary to what the sources say. Again, we need to rely on reliable, up-to-date secondary sources, we can't use 17th or 19th century sources and we certainly can't rely on individual editors own original research or personal opinions in making article changes. As for cleaning up your edits, the burden is on the editor adding the challenged material to defend it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain
Your stand is still NOT UNDERSTOOD. Till now you have not engaged in discussion in the aspects of the facts or secondary sources.WhICH IS THE PRIMARY or Unreliable source i have given, the debate should be based on that, why it cannot be taken? and you keep repeating the same story of poorly sourced words.The BOOK OF W J RICHARDS is not a primary source and it is based on interpretation from Missionary registers of the era. The Church of Malabar by Michael Geddes is also not a primary source but a secondery one based on decress of synod of diamper. It is understood. BRITISH had a different view of Indian History. and Indian Historians have a different view. for us indians ,Indian view is authoritative. wiki page on indian history ,WILL you keep british view or indian view.? Will you keep the truncated map of india which is in circulation in whole world or will you keep the map of india with kashmir and arunachal in it? Don't raise lame excuse
when was the first encyclopedia published my dear 1768 ?? so you say you wont accept the entries of 1768 origin still the revised encyclopedia britannica 2016. it is immature and detrimental.
my point is clear ,when you delete a sentence and the citation quoted in its place ? the person who deleted that has to give explanation .
In my discussion with i have made it clear. Two particular acts of Abraham Malpan started the phase of reformation in malankara .In the trimmed and simple version of intro passage by you i have included that. If you say he introduced protestant influence doctrines which is a big super set and he have not indulged in the entire protestant . Why it should be particular to include protestant influence doctrine which is misleading and biased in the sense that Abraham Malpan led the church to different faith and why not the exact act done by him?? even now too Jacobite church and marthoma church differs only in its approach to the devotion to saints (and not in communion of saints) and in prayer to dead and holy qurbana at tombs only.
My friend the edit similar to the one now you have made has earlier made by some ip addresses (whose location and origin remained the same) and those edits were reverted by some other admins and in one case this page was protected for a minimum period. The same intro passage from where i started editing remained colloquial and poorly worded with suggestions of "ara kurbana" and "kp yohanan " without any primary ,secondary, 17th century or 19th century reference.
Can you explain why you deleted the CITATION OF the pdf file biography of Abraham malpan given by me? after the clean up or trimming what ever you say, why have yo not added citation for abraham malpans act? And are you accusing me of what you have deliberately avoided?
The majority which you are quoting is not a majority interested in Marthoma church history ,but a PERSON OR A GROUP OF PERSONS OPERATING FROM same location or of same interest origin. Have i not given the reply in continuation of your discussion ,and addressed to you ,where is the section clash coming? Roshyf2 (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I already explained that we can't use primary sources OR secondary sources that are out of date over a century (Richards), let alone three centuries (Geddes). "Primary sources" are the things like "Historic Document" and "Malayalam Bible Printed in 1811" that you tried to add. The church's websites are, however, primary sources self-published by people affiliated with the subject itself, and can't be used for anything other than stating the church's own stances. It can't be used to contradict anything that comes from a nuetral, third-party source.
The better sources will be things like Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India and K. V. Mathew's The Faith and Practice of the Mar Thoma Church, and yes, Britannica.--Cúchullain t/c 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Its getting hard to understand who all are expressing their concerns. Honestly Neill's book is more like an opinionated book based on loose facts. Mar Dionysius IV, was never excommunicated(hope no one sees this, it would simply start an another spitting war) Niel goes with what could have happened form of structure, but such a system on explaining history is not suitable. (I am only basing this concern from my readings of pages from 251 to 254)or events never existed. Both Mar Dionysius IV and Mathews Mar Athanasius Metropolitan was accepted as the then Bishops. This was an accepted fact with a little dissent, such was the extent of authority from Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs. This was evident with Mar Dionysius IV actions, where he didn't nominate an other bishop instead of Mathews Mar Athanasius Metropolitan. The sole reason behind the verdict of Mathew's claim was based on Indian in origin and this event happened much later after passing away of Mar Dionysius IV. The earlier edit seemed to put matters simplle and understandable, this is reason why I am reverting it. Somewhere in the previous comments I saw that both Jacobite and Marthomite only differ in certain rituals, this is absolutely wrong and the same person even seems to contradict his own explanations on certain subjects in the past, this shows lack of integrity as an editor. (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I added the material on Abraham and Matthew based on the cited sources. Whether or not some readers agree with his findings, Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India absolutely is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles by any measure. It's an academic work published by the University of Cambridge and it has been well received by other experts in the field. However, I trimmed the paragraph a bit to focus on the dispute rather than the specifics of it. However, the changes are necessary as the previous wording isn't verified in the source that was cited, or wasn't cited at all, not to mention the fact that it was very poorly worded to the point that it makes no sense (for example, the passage stating that "in 1843, nephew returned as the leader of the Malankara Church, (later Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church) which led into establishing authoritatively an independent church in the order of apostolic succession with indigenous Christian heritage known as the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Kerala").--Cúchullain t/c 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure from where you are Cuchullain, you seem to have only a bookish knowledge about this, correct me if i am wrong. The book seems kind of opinionated than a authoritative account based on clear-cut study. Though your focus on mellowing the dispute seems to be effective through trimming, but without certain specifics it losses its focus as an intro. Very poorly worded is more of a misunderstanding it seems - I will try to explain as I understand from the sentence: In 1843 Matthew returns as Bishop in Kerala as a bishop of malankara church under the syriac orthodox patriarch. The current name of then malankara church now under the syriac orthodox patriarch given in brackets. The authority of this bishopship of Matthew or the continuation line from an apostolic era, made his later consecrations valid and hence the birth of the church in reformation-restoration of the church to a period before apostasy(24 changes made in practice based on reformation doctrines) is valid wit its indigenous Christian heritage. But even though not happy with the current paragraph. I am also happy with the cited changes, if it reduces further dispute over silly issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
My knowledge of the subject comes only from the sources I've cited and a few other comparable ones. Wikipedia articles can only be based on reliable sources, not editors' personal knowledge or original research, and Neill's book is likely the best available source for this subject. Your changes are mostly good, but need some work as they've got some problems:
  • First, Neill says that the changes Abraham made were translating services into Malayalam and revising the Holy Qurbana based on his reading of the scripture. The translation wasn't the only change he made. And yes, he notes that all this was inspired by the CMS missionaries.
  • Second, you name drop "CMS missionaries" but don't indicate what this is; the reader has no frame of reference. The language of the sentence is also confused.
  • "Mar Dionysius IV was reserved with reformation" is a wonky sentence, and doesn't really follow Neill. Neill is clear that Dionysius repressed the reform movement, issuing excommunications and refusing to elevate priests associated with Abraham.
  • You've also introduced some unnecessary passive voice ("was sent by", etc.)
  • The court case upheld Matthew's claim to be metropolitan of the Malankara Church. He remained as such until his death. Neill is clear that the rift hadn't healed and says that this led to the split between the factions.
  • "Though" is also not the adverb you want in the final sentence, as it's unclear; it needs to be "however" or similar instead.
I'll take another stab at it.--Cúchullain t/c 02:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of the confusion seems to be over the difference between a bishop and the metropolitan bishop. The metropolitan bishop was the head of the Malankara Church, but there could be several other bishops at the same time. Matthew's claim was that the Patriarch had named him metropolitan, and this is the claim that was held up by the government in Travancore. Either way, Matthew was the generally recognized metropolitan until his death. It may be enough to simply say that Abraham Malpan's reforms led to a rift in the church hierarchy, and ultimately the reform faction became the independent Mar Thoma Church.--Cúchullain t/c 02:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


I Don't know your cultural background, However my statement is based on the interaction with theologians and church historians. When you use words like "lack of integrity " you actually indulge in intolerance . You may make yourself aware about a fACT that there is a active theological dialogue between Syriac Orthodox church and Marthoma syrian church for wider communion in Theological and Ecclesiastical subjects. Marthoma church and Thozhiyoor already engages in such closer relationship in spite of their differences in some area. Yuhanon Marthoma has clearly stated in the Court of law that Marthoma church do not follow Prayers to dead, prayer requests to saints etc not because it is theologically wrong or sin, but historically such believes were manipulated in past and led the church in to superstitious and corrupt path deviating the believers from true faith and right path .On the light of scripture Marthoma church only teaches its believers to pray only to The Trinity The One God and not to any one or anything above or below. Mr Hope you heard about Hudos etho and kudos etho ( sanctification of church and reformation) . By the writing competency and way you write it seem you may have a editor username of wikipedia.
I agree with your view in aspects of Neils book. However it is not a completely un biased book , it is having opinions which is not acceptable to many.Roshyf2 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cuchullain

There are even flaws in your cited examples. Neutrality of Neils is questioned by another un-named editor here itself, the factual error in that particular article of britanica i have already pointed out, and the other book is only one of the books written on the subject and there are many ,more accepted. Authors like Vadekekara, george menenchery , etc are catholic biased historians. Em Philipose and many others quoted in malankara church are orthodox biased historians. Agur, Wj Richardson, Neil, mackensie etc are anglican biased historians. Cuchullain

Dionysious IV was not only against Reformers, but also against a group of Conservationists who believed he did not have the authority as a bishop , because of his ordination. Till the time Dionysious IV was active as a Malankara Metropolitan , Mathews mar Athanasious of Palakkunathu did not indulge in direct control of Malankara and reigned as a Suffragan and was affectionately called Kochu thirmeni. Mathews Mar Athanasious took the direct control of malankara when Dionysious IV stepped down in favor of Euyakim Mar Koorlose of Antioch.EVEN BEFORE THE ROYAL COURT PROCLAIMATION Mathews mar athanasious was accepted as Metropolitan of Malankara In synod of Kallungathara .eARLIER synod of kandanad convened by Dionysious IV was disrupted because of the attempts of Dionysious IV to destroy the Stathikon issued in favour of Mathews Mar Athanasious By Elias III pATRIARCH.It WAS THIS synod OF kALLUMGATHARA decided that Mathews mAR Athanasious should take the royal decree in his favor for which he was strongly against.
Neil was misguided by a Holy kurbana printed by Missionery Benjamin Bailey and circulated among the Anglican Parishes (only) at that time which l followed Syriac Thaksa ( this group even now calls themselves as syrian anglicans or CSI syrians). This book had corrections as per anglican doctrines.( at that time Missionaries of Cms or anglican had given a option to the syriac priests and parishes joined anglican church that you can either follow bOOK oF pRAYERS OR Translated syriac thaksa. But for the former salary will be paid by Anglican church. Meanwhile Mathews Mar AThanasious published and circulated a thaksa without "hAIL mARY Prayers" for malankara church and in opposition to this Rev Joseph Cattanar Later Dionysious V printed a version of hail mary and started attached to the thaksa without it and later his press in kunnamkulam started printing the books with hail mary.
It is believed that Abraham malpan made his translation extempore. (by looking into syriac taksa he translated and recited in malayalam).1897 thaksa ,1902 thaksa of marthoma church differed with jacobite church in aspects of hail mary prayers only.. however the changes now seen in marthoma thaksa is made in 1927 under thaksa committee headed by K n Daniel. This revision sowed the seeds of schism in marthoma church which eventually resulted in the formation of Evanjelical church.
Abraham Malpan was not the only person of the era who stood for reformation. kaithayil gheevargese malpan, KAITHAYIL kOSHY kathanar , who was stabbed to death by the tradionalists for performing qurbana in malayalam. Lot of unknown Cattanars manhandled and removed from parishes for destruction of statues . YOU quote and take Neils interpretation as neutral and genuine , which is not a general attitude here . Hope you can expand your knowledge by including versions of others. Roshyf2 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Roshyf2, please start formatting your comments correctly. Follow the indentation of the previous comments and don't break your comments up or leave spaces before the paragraphs. I've asked you to adjust your formatting several times; if you want people to respond you need to start doing it.
I've explained to you before that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published sources. Sources published by scholars in a relevant field by reliable publishers (such as university presses) are the sources we need to use. We do not go counter to one reliable source unless it's been superseded by another reliable source. That is, we don't go by individual Wikipedians' knowledge or original research. We also don't judge sources based on whether editors like what they have to say, we judge them based on how they're regarded by other published experts in the field. Stephen Neill (not "Neil" or "Neils") is one of the best sources available for this topic; it was published by Cambridge and is very well regarded in the field. We need to stick to what the source says unless there are others of equal or better status that challenge it. If you can share some, please bring them up so they can be vetted, otherwise, it's time to move on.--Cúchullain t/c 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cuchullain
Individual Wikipedians knowledge is not a auto created one. It is acquired after referring many authors and books like that of Shri Neill. I told you Shri Neill is only one of the several authors in the subject . His VERSION IS ALSO OPINIONATED. However since you are not taking in the line of discussion it is better we move on as you said. The facts which i have given is based all on verifiable books and in archive format and it is not my own research as you project. I can give a lot more reference. Who is to decide which reference is better my friend?.Since you have only to say about other formatting issues and Neil (oops Neill, He is Stephen Charles Neill and my friend he was a Scottish Anglican bishop, he had a strong affinity and interest in mission activity and role of missionaries , his majority of books were in that field and the Book which you are constantly referring " Christianity iN India "is not completed by him, In this background do you think his version will be neutral or will it be biased to Anglican version of " Reforming the Black land ) .However Pls go back to the passage you are constantly bettering , Here in Malankara or in Syriac tradition we dont address or name the Bishop with his first name alone, It is advised to change "Mathew "( he is MATHEW AND NOT MATTHEW ) to Mathews Mar Athanasious or as Metropolitan Mathew or as Mar Athanasious of Palakkunathu. He was appointed as a metropolitan Bishop as per his stathikon (Stathikon is a Ecclesiastical document issued in the Name of the metropolitan signed by the patriarch and other metropolitans at the time of consecration),in Syriac TRADITION OR MALANKARA the bishop designate is lifted to the whole leadership of a dioceses or the land. Mathews mar athanasious was ordinated as the metropolitan of malankara. Most of your edits are of neutral version but in order to achieve that neutrality you have scissored many facts and citations . I quit from discussion . It was good to hear you .Roshyf2 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, Wikipedia editors decide what sources to use, based on how well the source is regarded in the field (Neill's books were published by Cambridge and have been very well reviewed in academic journals, though of course any author has their own bias and he died before finishing them). In practice, we're limited by what we have access to. Neill (or parts of it) can be viewed on Google Books. If there are other sources of equal caliber they can of course be used. However, we'd have to be able to cite them to the page number, and ideally others would need to be able to vet the material. No original research is a Wikipedia policy requiring that material be cited directly to reliable sources, not our own knowledge.
Again, if you have other sources we can discuss how to include them. We'd be better off focusing on the rest of the article than the intro if we're talking about major expansion, the intro is just supposed to summarize the key parts of the article body.
One note on Matthew: "Matthew" is the version in the citation - it's obviously just using a different spelling - and he didn't get the name Athanasius until he was ordained. We could probably add "Athanasius" to the reference after he's ordained, but in the first mention he was still just Matthew.--Cúchullain t/c 05:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The current edit is O.K, so was the previous edits. All this issues stem from Roshyf2 edits. There is no issue in this article. The only issue is presistent point pushing and other activities. If. Editors like Cuuchullain cant enforce actions against disruptors like Roshyf2. It is high time to ban the editor in terms of disciplinary action by other high ranking skilled editors or convince him to move on and not to pick fights and vandalise other articles. Any child can understand this article is subjected to conflict between editors or fervent religiosity by Roshyf2. This has nothing to do with the article. Cuchullain current version of intro is fair, with little tweakings. There is no need of any fights. Kindly stop or chose an another article to sort out egostic differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain
Even Mathew is not his name before his ordination . He was Mathen and is referred as Deacon Mathen or Mathen Shemmashan (Syriac for Deacon). As mathew or mathen the said person did not have any supporters. He gained his supporters being Malankara Metropolitha. And Reformist faction organised themselves as Marthoma Church atleast 20 yrs later after his death and it was during the time of Titus Marthoma. So the usage of " Matthews supporters", and "Matthew for Mathew" is highly inappropriate and wrong.Roshyf2 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
dear thanks for the comments , hope you will also not further indulge in disrupting edits from different ip addressRoshyf2 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations removed[edit]

I have removed most of the contributions of Roshyf2 because copyright was violated. You cannot copy and paste from documents into Wikipedia. You must write in your own words. If this behavior continues, then we will need to open a contributor copyright investigation into all of your contributions. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

dear Elizium23
As i already said to you in your talk page .there is no copy write issues involved in this.
Marthoma church during Indian Independence movement is not a part of any document which you have pointed out. It is a derived topic from many sources and mostly written in my words.
organisations of church ,Abbeys and monasteries , seminaries and theological is a information and its given in Marthoma church website ,and it was there in the passage before too i have just tabulated it. NO COPY RIGHT ISSUES INVOLVED.
Marthoma fasts and lents is a is also a derived passage ,but from many sources. it is not solely depending on any document. However citations of the parent document or the article from where the idea or topic has been taken is given in 86.And that document "faith and practices of Marthoma cHURCH IS A OPEN DOCUMENT and figures in many church websites and books ., etc
if Citation link is provided to the copy righted material (if used) it donot result in copy right issues.(ref WIKIPEDIA:COPYRIGHTS) However the facts and information mentioned in the passage you deleted were information and facts regarding to a church or a fact known to many ,it cannot be copyrighted .even now also you fear copy right violations THEN YOU MAY KINDLY GO AHEAD WITH WP:CCI Roshyf2 (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTRS Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Elizium23
The sentence "Mar Thoma constitution strictly admonishes that the festivals, feasts and Lents are not to be removed or altered" is a part of marthoma church constitution and not a part of the said document alone .that is why it is deliberately kept. All other event mentioned in that para is already well defined , the document writer or any other person can only use the same definitions. The text do not not exactly matches the link. you have been carried away by the first sentence and arrived at a conclusion. however the other topics you have deleted do not figure in the link at all .Can you explain why then you have deleted that? However you may introspect your act after going through the passage again.
Area or set of sentence is matching with the link ,because both are using a already known fact or a fact that is already documented. however i am only talking about the scope "fast ,feast and lents" If you can add you words to it it will be help full but do not delete the entire scope which is covering in two three heads. Hope we will enter into a consensus by tommorrow.roshyf2 04:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is a direct copy from the document [3]. You can't make close paraphrases like that without violating copyright. It's called plagiarism when you do it without acknowledging the author. We have no evidence that you are the author of this document. Please see WP:OTRS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You have not answered my doubts. delete the paraphrases .Since your issue is only with those areas which is the part of that document. other Heads will be reverted hope a consensus is arrived (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That was just the beginning of my concerns. Now let's talk about neutrality. The following text flagrantly violates WP:NPOV: "Mar Thoma church as a nationalist church had a vital role in infusing the spirit and vigor in the freedom movement of India. Marthoma Syrian Church broke the Chains of Temporal and Ecclesiastical supremacy of any foreign authority over Malankara. This particular thinking of the church has been reflected strongly in her approaches to the Freedom struggle of India and encouraged its faithful to actively participate in freedom movement." Please don't add this stuff to articles. It is sectarian and promotes a particular Church in detriment to the others. Elizium23 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a clear case of plagiarism, not to mention the neutrality issue and style problems.--Cúchullain t/c 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not it is separated from Malankara Syrian Church?Kokkarani

Marthoma Syrian Church was legally separated from Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite) in 1889 with the verdict of Travancore Royal court.

Marthoma metropolitans of Malankara throne[edit]

This part is confusing and not clear. Which metropolitans belongs to which church? Marthoma Syrian Church is a reformed and separate church from Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite). After the court verdict in 1889,the reformists formed a separate church distinct from Malankara Syrian Church. So how is the lineage of Marthoma meropolitans related to Malankara Church? Does it give truthful knowledge to readers? Kokkarani

Marthoma Metropolitans using the name Marthoma is not a big deal. why? Because it started only in 1653. If Marthoma I was from 1653, what kind of lineage is that to the apostolic throne of st. Thomas? No body before 1653 claimed about any throne or any lineage. They only believed that they are in Marthoma Margam or in the true faith of St.Thomas. All other things are fabricated to establish that Malankara church was independent from its inception.Kokkarani

Why a Marthoma Metropolitan seated on Malankara Throne? Malankara throne was used for enthronement of Malankara Metropolitan not for Marthoma Metropolitan. He can be seated on it,however he cannot claim the lineage from 1653 since Marthoma metropolitans start only in 1893. Kokkarani

KokkaraniMalankara church came under the complete control of jacobites and patriarch of antioch only after the 1876 synod of mulanthurathy . By that synod malankara church just became a dioceses of syrian church. consecrating six more bishops and dividing the malankara church into seven dioceses of syrian orthodox church was the after effect of the subjugation or subordination of jacobites. the faction under malankara maetropolitan mathews mar athanasious never compromised on churchs independence and integrity. this faction was not represented in the synod of mulanthurathy .The official committee of many churches never attended the meeting it was only the rival priests and their committee who was presented in the synod. In 1889 the malankara church informally completed its split. two malankara churches ,one under patriarch and one independent as before.Many antiochian bishops who came to malankara were rejected and deported from malankara . Majority of marthomas are independently coronated without ecclesiastical support or leadership of Syrian orthodox church. Moreover metran faction marthoma church official organised themselves into a independent church only after one or two decades later after 1889.
Kokkarani the relationship between malankara church was that of co existence and mutual respect. malankara church has never been as a subordinate church. this list comprise of primates that ruled malankara church as a independent and soverign heirach of malankara church and not as a diocesan bishop or as a subordinate metropolitan. Even the jacobite church later split into orthodox and jacobite.where the orthodox faction claim the st thomas throne from cotholicate (reestablishment of catholicate throne of st thomas of tigiris) and is independent to patriarch ,however marthoma church claims the st thomas throne of malankara from marthoma 1 after establishment of the independent ecclesiastical heirarchy in malankara . (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Mar Athanasius of Palakunnathu was the Malankara Metropolitan at the time of Mulanthuruthy Padiyola (1876).However inspired by the western missionaries cooperated in the old seminary at Kottayam, he wanted to inculcate reformist ideas in the traditional syrian church. A parallel group under Dionysious V was working against the ruling Malankara Metropolitan's reformist ideas. During the later half of the 19th century there occurred two factions in the community; the minority faction that favored reformation and supported the Malankara metropolitan( Metran Kakshi- Reformists)and the majority faction who were against the introduction of new changes which was against the Syrian tradition of the church got stood with the Patriarch of Antioch (Bava kakshi- Syrian traditionalists ) . This invited a closer interference of the Patriarch of Antioch. Mar Dionysius V stood with the Patriarch of Antioch against the ruling metropolitan, Mathews Mar Athanasios of Palakkunnathu .A series of court cases followed there after. The Travancore Royal court on 14th July 1889 declared that Palakkunnathu Thomas Mar Athanasius and the Reformist faction has no rights in Malankara Syrian Church as they were not willing to accept the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. Later the Reformist faction organised themselves as independent Marthoma Syrian Church.Kokkarani

Then how do you claim Marthoma church is another Malankara Church? The Travancore Royal court declared that the minority reformist faction has no legal rights in Malankara church and Thomas Mar Athanasius was evicted from the seat of Malankara metropolitan. Later the reformist faction organised themselves as a separate independent church and named it as Marthoma Syrian Church in 1893. From this we can see the following--

  • Before 1889 Royal court verdict, the reformist faction was a part of the Malankara church.
  • After 1889 court verdict they organised themselves as a separate independent church with protestant theology.
  • The reformist faction formed a separate church only after 1889 court verdict.
  • If you see the history you can see that there was no name for the newly formed church in 1889.
  • Since deprived of any rights in traditional Malankara Church,they decided to name the church as Marthoma Church in 1893.
  • Thus we can see that Marthoma church was separated from traditional Malankara church in 1889 with the Travancore Royal Court verdict.
  • See the tree diagram of St.thomas christians for better understanding.

The first metropolitan of Marthoma church is Thomas Mar Athansius who was evicted from the seat of Malankara Metropolitan with the Travancore Royal court verdict in 1889. All other marthoma metroploitans before Thomas Mar Athansius follows the lineage of Oriental Orthodoxy and belongs to the Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite & Orthodox). Marthoma church is a reformed church, which protested against the tradional Malankara Syrian Church and walked towards the Anglican protestant tradition.

If Marthoma church is an independent indigenous church, why it uses "Syrian" in its name which is a foreign connotation? If Marthoma church an independent indigenous church, why ain't using the traditions before the Synod of Diamper? Reformation to what extent and to which direction? The present reformed liturgy is based on what? Tradition or purely on bible? If tradition, which tradition? If you find out an answer, you can see that Marthoma church is using a variant of west syrian liturgy, which you can't call it indigenous. It is nothing but a mixture of West syrian liturgy & Anglican protestant liturgy. The ratio of the mixture varies in Marthoma church and Evangelical church.Kokkarani

DEAR Kokkarani
The influence of western missionaries in malankara started much earlier . It was at the time of Col Munro and Marthoma X . malnkara church cannot ignore the role of missionaries in establishment of pazhaya seminary . and getting getting back niranam church and piravam church from roman catholics.. Marthoma X have officially decreed Macaulay and munro as God Sent prophets to malankara.. However Missionaries and malankara church parted their ways in Mavelikara padiyola. The bishop daniels suggestions and mavelikara padiyola details only the administrative reforms and not centered to any theological inculcation. Marthoma XIII Mathews mar athanasious got ordained from patriarch elias , he never said or claimed that malankara church was under antioch.however he always said that since his ordination was from patriarch he said his apostolilic kaiveppu was complete. similarly Marthoma I got his apostalic kaiveppu from pATRIARCH OF JERUSHALEM but malankara church remained independent.mAPHRIAN Mar ivanious Hidhayathull ordained Marthoma 6 and 7, MALANKARA CHURCH WAS NOT UNDER HIM . Punnathara geevarghese mar dionysious (marthoma XI) and Cheppadu Mar Dionysious (Marthoma XII) was consecrated by Kidangan Mar Philoxinos Of Thozhiyoor church but malankara church was not under thozhiyoor church.

wHAT WERE THE REFORMIST IDEAS OF mathews mar athanasious?

Pulikootil joseph mar divaniyos II went to court not for theology but to regain the malankara assets (see article section independence of the church). he used the mulunthurathy synod deliberations and the false kappi kanon to establish that fact. till that time no court or royal decree favoured or agreed malankara churchs subordination to antioch... see oath of koonan cross, Arthat Padiyola, Cochin Court Verdict aganist Yuyakim Mar Koorilos Reesh episcopa,1863 the madrass high court verdit in favors of thozhiyoor church as a independent church, Royal Proclamation in favour of malankara Methran Mar ATHnansious, Deportation of Abdul Mar athanasious in 1825 etc ,in all this verdict it again and again reiterated that malankara church is independent apostolic church.tHE WESTERN SYRIAC THAKSA WAS FIRST INTRODUCED TO MALANKARA BY MAR ivanaious hidthayathulla maphrian, the first set of complete Western syriacnisation was intiated by mathews mar athanasious and completed by yuyakim mar koorilos... Many of the jacobite practices that jacobite church follow now was rejected and condemned in ' PATHRIYARKEESINTE nADAPADI KrAMAM'. In the Hariji to British resident and maharaja of travancore (popularly called as trumphet call for reformation) starts like this "sthuthi chovakkapeeta malankara sabhayode chethuvechu nadathi porunnna vedhathinum, suriyani kanonum malankara maryadhyaykkum ethiraya 24 apa maryadhakal"
Abraham malpan was not the first to destroy wooden statues in malankara , it was mar ivanious hidayathulla the maphrian who is entombed at chenganoor church. it was not the reformists who destroyed the tombs inside the church the patriarch who came for mulanthurathy synod had destroyed the tombs in side kolenchery church and asked faithfuls not to kneel down before tomb. fearing that the patriarch may destroy the icon of st marys in manarcad church the parishoners covered the icon with a wooden plank. till 1920s marthoma church and jacobite church thaksa differed in only absense of the hail mary prayers . it was the thaksa reform committee of 1927 under kn daniel made all the corrections which you see in marthoma thaksa now. At 1870 and 1890 the main difference was methran faction performed worship in malayalam and stopped the pratice of kurbana at tombs and kurbana when there is no one to recieve.
1889 COURT VERDICT DID NOT made much difference to methran kakshi only loss of property and the Malankara metropolitan position and had to start from scratch, the same situation faced by marthoma I
Marthoma church continued as a monolithic church under a single primate under the malnkara throne as before.
Marthoma church still believes it is the single parish of st thomas in malankara (reason why marthoma church donot consecrate metropolitans for bhadrasanams , only episcopas to assist the marthoma metran)
Titus I marthoma was consecrated as a continuation and in position of marthoma XIV .
Marthoma church lost churches , but were able to make the same churches in same location from where they were evicted.But maintains all historic bonds of malankara church ie with malabar independent syrian church, travancore royalty (from mathews mar athanasious onwards the felicitation of the metropolitans coronations to malankara throne is witnessed by the travancore king or king designate (post independence)
whereas Jacobite church post 1876 came under the control of anthiyokya, the dependence in ordination and other ecclesistical fuctions to antioch was amplified, stopped the ordination to lineage of marthoma metrans.( orthodox faction claims the the marthoma throne of catholicate of tigris and not from the marthoma episcopacy of malankara).however later adopted many of marthoma reform ideas, worship in malayalam, duly elected representative, schools associated with church, placing of church income for audit, explaining bible in between qurbana, organising gospel conventions, upholding marthoma tradition and independence of malankara church (orthodox faction).
Marthoma church uses syrian , in its connotation of syriac backround . before western syriac it was eastern syriac used in malankara. marthoma church use many ecclesiastical terms in eastern syriac accent .
After the Coonen cross oath, the majority people in Malankara stood with the Archdeacon Thomas.However planned and persistent ways of the Roman Catholic church regained much people to their fold. The Roman Catholics persistently challenged the validity of the ordination of Marthoma . People believed it and majority people rejoined with the Catholics. This necessitated Marthoma to regularize his ordination. Thus he sent request to the Church of Antioch and Alexandria. Antioch responded by sending its Jerusalem Bishop , Gregorios Abdul Jaleel. It was he who regularised the Kaiveppu of Marthoma. People had no opposition in accepting the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of the Syrian Church. Malankara people always believed that their supreme spiritual leader is the Syrian patriarch of Antioch. In the 100 years war in the Malankara Church, ie. between the Orthodox and Jacobite faction, the learned Supreme court of India declared that the supreme spiritual leader of the Malankara Church is the Patriarch of the Syrian Church.

You mentioned that Malankara church was always independent. This is your point of view. The learned supreme court of India declared that Malankara church is Episcopal in spiritual matters and congregational in some extent in temporal matters. It is true that many foreign bishops wanted temporal control of the Malankara Church. However this doesn't negate the spiritual authority of the Syrian Patriarch in Malankara.

The British missionaries helped the Malankara Church a lot. Their motive was not good for the Malankara Church.They had a hidden agenda. They gained a lot of people from the Malankara Church as CMS, Marthoma, Evangelical etc.These all churches were formed only because of the association of British missionaries.

Why Mulanthuruthy Padiyola?

The British missionaries started to reform the Malankara Church to their side ie. protestant way with power politics. How ever the traditionalists smell the danger of going to the protestant side. They publically reaffirmed their faith and loyalty.This cannot happen with out the consent of the Malankara people. The British missionaries got it and they parted away. How ever the Metropolitan , Mathews Athanisius was already influenced by the British missionaries.He was a kind of slave to the British missionaries. That's why he dared to remove intercession prayers to St. Mary which was a tradition in Malankara. This was a clear move towards the protestant tradition. However a lot of people in the newly formed church were not happy with this alone. They moved further towards clear protestant theology and thus formed the Evangelical church and Pentecostal churches.

Marthoma Syrian church was a part of Malankara Syrian church until 1889 Royal court verdict. Then on wards it is a newly formed church with lesser degree of protestant theology and grater degree of west syrian theology.

Any how Marthoma church cannot claim a lineage before 1889 since it doesn't exist before that. Only the Malankara Syrian Church existed.

Marthoma Metropolitans using the name Marthoma is not a big deal. why? Because it started only in 1653. If Marthoma I was from 1653, what kind of lineage is that to the apostolic throne of st. Thomas? It means no body before 1653 claimed about any apostolic throne or any lineage. They only believed that they are in Marthoma Margam or in the faith of St.Thomas. All other things are fabricated to establish that Malankara church was independent from its inception.

We all know that so many western bishops came to Malankara and rest in peace in the altar room of many churches.Why the foreign bishops were buried in the Altar room? This clearly shows that spiritually we were served by many foreign bishops at different points of time. This negate the view that Malankara church was independent and indigenous.

If you mean administratively, may be true, how ever spiritually we were not independent ie. We accepted the supremacy of the Church of Antioch or Church of the East at different points of time. However the history before the Synod of Diamper is obscure.::Kokkarani


Pulikootil joseph mar divaniyos II went to court not for theology but to regain the malankara assets (see article section independence of the church). NOT TRUE WHY?

Mathews Athanasius was clearly influenced by the protestant theology of the British Missionaries and the hidden agenda of the Anglican missionaries were to take Malankara Church to the Potestant side using the Metropolitan. This hidden agenda was easily understood by Pulikkottil. He thought he could save Malankara Church from this danger by evicting Mathews Athanasius as Metropolitan. Because British missionaries & Mathews metropolitan was using the Metropolitan power to take Malankara Church to the Protestant side. So Pulikkottil wanted to take power to save the church from this wrong move. He was not greedy of the assets. The Metran faction and Thomas Athanasius was greedy of the assets. It was very difficult to evict them from the old syrian seminary even after 1889 Royal court verdict. Also they illegally possessed the cheppeds from the old seminary( see the history).::Kokkarani


Western or Eastern doesn't matter much. You might be known about the Eastern Catholicate of the Syrian Church in Tigrith, Iraq. However our Qurbana was in Syriac which means we had a spiritual tie up with the Church of Antioch(I mean Church of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome & Jerusalem). We had relationships with the church of East. These all points out that before 1653 there were no Bishopric in Malankara. We always send request to the west Asian churches for spiritual needs. Administratively we had an arch deacon . However we were spiritually dependent on West Asian churches.

Reformation in Marthoma Syrian Church[edit]

see deliberations of Synod of diamper...there was no icons or statues in malankara churches other than a cross, there was not confession to priest ( kumbasaram is a word of spanish -portugeese origin), TO BUIlT TOMBS and its veneration, marian dogma and special veneration of st mary as co redemfrix and many other... see the 24 apa maryadas pointed out by abraham malapan . Marthoma church church say that its reformation is return to the faith of original apostolic church devoid of nestorian, monophysite , catholic influences and hereasy. the primacy of bible is in the sense that marthoma church do not follow a tradition, practice or belief negated by bible. but follows all the other traditions and beliefs co compatible with scripture. Marthoma churchs reformation base is that, its followings have to be truthful to its scripture. Juhanon marthoma had said that Marthoma church is not advising many of malankara tradition not because it is sin ful but historical in some point oftime church was deviated from true faith to superstitions because of the emphasis on this faith. Marthoma church in sense as the church of st thomas is a church which is influenced by many belief streams from time to time ,,west syriac tradition is one among them. Jacobite church is a malankara church which is completely antiochinised or jacobitised, Orthodox church is a jacobite church which is jacobitised and trying to reclaim its independent roots . however the constitution of 1934 and it article of spiritual supremacy of patriarch is a hindrance..Marthoma church is the first malankara church that introduced anglican and western church administration principles in managing the church affairs maintaining strong indian ethos, and eastern heritage. Marthoma church is based its christology and faith formulations of trinity as per the first three synods.See friend the christology of anglican church is as per the 7 ecumenical synod and follows the filloque faith.Marthoma church have not official or any contracted linkages with syrian orthodox church or its patriarch ,however till now marthoma church has not disrespected the patriarch position and always holds him in high regard .unlike other jacobite churches which later joined catholic or claimed freedom. (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

PersistING editS[edit]

Dear Kokkarani
It is seen that you are persistently engaged in edit war and other edit efforts which deteriorates the article in whole. Any dispotes or points of difference may kindly brought to Talk Page. Kindly dont engage in Edits without consensus or edit summary .Iravikorthanan (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Kokkarani
  1. Marthoma Metropolitans in malankara throne, counting and installation to the title do not start from 15 onwards. Marthoma thirumeni aka Marthoma Metropolitans are installed to the title of Marthoma 's. reverted your deletion
  2. deletion of Thomas Mar Athanasious Marthoma XIV and marthoma Faction Priests (Indian christians of St thomas, W J R ichardson) is reverted. Marthoma priests have used Vatta thoppi and black cassock till 1930s. see pictures of yakob kattanar, chandapilla kathanar, kurutholickal kathanara etc. Moreover this picture is taken entire for that book .
  3. Certain columns of the table that details the influences that brought in changes or paradigm shift in Church of St Thomas has been changed for greater understanting and preventing biased interpretation .
  4. Illustartion of Division of sYRIANS bROUGHT back, it is in refernce to evolution of Present day marthoma Church

Thanks and expecting your cooperationIravikorthanan (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Iravikorthanan
  1. Marthoma metropolitans enthroned in the Malankara throne is the proper heading. And it started only in 1893. All previous metropolitans listed were Malankara metropolitans and NOT Marthoma metropolitans as heading says, and hence removed. It is not proper to list Malankara metropolitans under the heading of Marthoma metropolitans. This gives a factual error to the readers.
  2. I agree with you about the Kathanars in the photo were Marthoma faction and it was a mistake.
  3. Your illustration is appreciated. However we had one already we use in St Thomas Christians and Malankara Church and is widely agreed. Then why we go for another illustration diagram if we had a better one to use? If you have any disagreement with the illustration please talk.Kokkarani(talk)
Dear Kokkarani
  1. There is no evidence or historic linkages to prove that Church of Malabar and St Thomas Christians were under or in direct fellowship with Syrian orthodox church or Antiochian see in the first five centuries .none of the traditional churches of Malankara has narrated a history like this except the Jacobite church. Hence it is felt that the edit of you showing Marthoma church in first centuries under Church of Antioch as Biased and inappropriate.So It is being changed as narrated by church historians IN GENERAL
  1. If you can appreciate the chart and finds no issue in its contents why to change it. As the earlier chart do not give reference to the exact faction formation donot give complete facts. So for marthoma wiki page it is necessisated. Reinstating the chart. I am open to your suggestion and i can make changes if it is fact based.
  1. Numbered list itemIravikorthanan (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Iravikorthanan
  1. As you know all churches in the world were were ecclesiastically attached to See of Rome/ See of Constantinople/ See of Antioch/See of Alexandria/See of Jerusalem. Among these Indian church was in relationship with the See of Antioch. See of Antioch is not the Jacobite church. In order to understand more on early Christianity, please read some good books.
  1. In charts we don't need to give complete information. Charts are just a general guidance at a glance. If you want to make a better chart I mean an improved chart, its OK I appreciate it. However you cannot make it only for Marthoma church. Make it for all St.Thomas Christians. If you want any help, contact me.Thanks Kokkarani(talk)

Persisting Edits to suite Jacobite Version[edit]

There is no historic evidence to show Church of St Thomas Christians till 5th century was in any relation under the church of Antioch. Similarly the relation ship of Church of St Thomas Christians with church of east is also not categorically mentioned or narrated ,bUT THEY DO RECEIVED BISHOPS FROM THAT CHURCH. All churches of the world need to be attached to any of the 5 sees is not a fact for rest of the world , it is only applicable for the churches of erstwhile roman empire.Kokkarani is repeatedly in the spirit of inscribing the jacobite version of church of st thomas Christians under church of antioch. The information given in info box is totally nonsense and not accepted by any main stram churches of kerala. Hence all passages related to that interpretation is moved.

And moreover the interpretation of the name syrian christian because of their belonging to church of Antioch is also totally wrong .pls refer encyclopedia , for your ref " The present Christian population claims descent from this early origin, though there has been much scholarly debate over the date of Saint Thomas's arrival. They are popularly known as Syrian Christians in view of the Syriac (classical form of Aramaic) liturgy used in church services since the early days of Christianity in India. They are also known as Nazaranis (followers of Jesus the Nazarene).""" hence it is also removed (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Chart inclusion[edit]

The chart which is needed in the article is a chart that shows time line details of faction formation and other church related events in relation to Marthoma church. and not a generic one, it can find place in topics like Malankara church, st thomas christians . christianity in kerala etc which are macro topics. Marthoma syrian church is a micro topic or a sub head level article which needs detail. hence the chart is re instated (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church[edit]

Dear Kokkarani pls see the official website of marthoma churchIravikorthanan (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC) also see (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC) ___________________________ Website is not an authentic reference for thisPhantom (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

move page[edit]

Dear Kokkarani what is more authentic than church records and official church website? now give the refernce of name in official church books like thaksa and other prayer books ,pls see Seems that these three reference of the usage of malankara marthoma church is sufficent for the move page justification. Waiting for your comments to show or prove that Marthoma church dont have a name Malankara marthoma syrian church"Iravikorthanan (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC) ______________________ We will check authentic published books or encyclopedia for finding out this. Until then please don't make any changes. Phantom (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Dear Kokkarani Is it required? Official name of the church is as per the official church records, church names, church websites, church institution and church deeds. It is established that mARTHOMA CHURCH HAS THE OFFICIAL NAME AS "mALANKARA MARTHOMA SYRIAN CHURCH" DISCUSSION IS VALID IF ONLY YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THIS CHURCH IS NOT KNOWN BY THE NAME mALNKARA mARTHOMA sYRIAN cHURCH oFFICIALY.Hence till you bring the refernce or citatations for that .the page will be moved as per official name.Iravikorthanan (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC) __________ Please bring the church Constitution and we shall check itPhantom (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kokkarani

you see Malankara marthoma syrian church in constitution, hope now i can revert you editIravikorthanan (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

________ Why r you in a hurry? The official name of the church is Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar as per the Constitution. See the titlePhantom (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kokkarani

have you not seen the art 318(i) which mentions of the church members. however preface of same constitution mentions the name of the church as " Malankara Marthoma syrian church" and more over the Chapter 1 para one of the constitution which defines the church mentions its name as "malankara mar Thoma Syrian church". The discussiobn here proves from the church thaksa, church directory, church hq name plate, church constitution that the Name "Malankara Mar Thoma syrian Church" exists as official name for the commonly called marthoma church. plse see hOPE NOW YOU CAN AGREE WITH mALANKARA USAGEIravikorthanan (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Page moved to original name and move-protected. See WP:RM for how to open a move discussion. --NeilN talk to me 11:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been a recurring problem for years here. What matters for Wikipedia is the subject's WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. In this case, "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church" is substantially less common than "Mar Thoma Syrian Church". The church appears to use both interchangeably. At any rate, as this move is clearly controversial it shouldn't be done without a requested move discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

DEAR Kokkarani AND Cuchullain

Your opinions in the Name is highly biased and without any background information. Malankara marthoma Syrian church, Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar, St Thomas church ,Marthoma church are all used as the names of Marthoma syrian church. All Church periodicals and news letters come with the name "Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church". pls see

The Marthoma church constitution has the name "Malankara Marthoma syrian church" in its article and numerous articles. The Church name registered with Travancore Religious endovmwnts society is " Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church" All the churches and church organisations and institutions carry the name "Malankara Marthoma syrian Church" IT IS WELL PROVED AND PROPERLY WITH REFERENCE AND CITATATIONS.

mISSIONERY REGISTERS HAVE MENTIONED THE Jacobite church or the Malankara church as "Syrian Church of Malabar" .As the rift strengthened and after 1889 they started to refer marthoma church as Marthoma Church of Malabar in opposite to Syrian church of Malabar.

Every one in the state of kerala knew Marthoma cHURCH is known by "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church", Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar, Marthoma Syrian Church, Marthoma Church, Malankara Marthoma Suriyani Sabha. WHY CANT THE NAME WHICH IS OFFICIAL AND USED IN WIDE BE NOT THE THE NAME OF ARTICLE??Iravikorthanan (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Iravikorthanan, nothing is going to happen unless someone opens a formal move discussion. If you want the article moved, I suggest you read the directions and take the initiative. --NeilN talk to me 04:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that the current title is what the church is most often called in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Syrian ChurchMalankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church – "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church" is the official name of Marthoma Church as per official records, Church website, Church books, churches and church institutions. "Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar is also used for Marthoma Church. St Thomas Christians were called as St Thomas/Mar Thoma/ or Syrian Christians of Malabar in chronicles of Jesuits and Anglican Missionary Registers. In that sense Mar Thoma Church is also referred as Mar Thoma Syrian Church Of Malabar In opposition To Syrian Church Of Malabar Which Came under the Administrate control of Patriarch of Antioch. However Constitution of Mar Thoma Church Uses both the the names intermittently. pls see and look for art 318 and preface of constitution.It is desired that the name of article be moved to "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church " which is the officialy used and widely known Iravikorthanan (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't move Per WP:COMMONNAME the name the church calls itself is irrelavent, what matters is the name by which is is most commonly called. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed title is much less common in reliable sources: it gets 604 Google Books hits compared to 2940 for "Mar Thoma Syrian Church". In fact, the actual common name appears to be "Mar Thoma Church".--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

_______________ Oppose move 1) Marthoma Church constitution has a heading as Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar 2) Most of the earlier published sources refer this church as Marthoma church which is the name the church accepted in 1893. 3) At the time of the split,they wanted to distinguish the new church from the existing Malankara church and hence accepted the name simply Marthoma Church. Hence in my opinion Marthoma Church or Marthoma Syrian church of Malabar is the apt name. Phantom (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear all

Malankara Marthoma Syrian church is not what Church calls its self. See what the leading English and Malayam newspapers reported events of Marthoma church. this news papers have circulations of 10 lakhs or more
Pls see the following links Mathrubhumi news paper Business Standard Hindu News paper
hence the contention of Stuartyeates that Its only Marthoma church that calls itself "Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is not true and standing.
The Name Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church didnot figure in Reliable source as contended by Cuchullain is also not true. Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church figures in all church publications, for more than 100 years ex Malankara Sabha Tharaka (1893) , Marthoma Constitution 1901, Thaksa for Marthoma Syrian Christians of Malankara (1848 printed and published by Palakkunathuthu Mathews Mar Athanasious The Malankara Metropolitha), Church Website all details,
From all this sources it is well referred that Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church, Marthoma Syrian Church oF Malabar, Marthoma Church , Mathoma Syrian Church is all used for this church.

Google hit is not a criteria to decide the name , Marthoma CHURCH is a unique name for any church, Just by searching Marthoma itself the details in google pops. In normal literature Marthoma Church is used to save space and time in printing or conveying.

Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is the name as per official Kerala state records(registration), Church records.
EVEN AFTER THE SPLIT OF 1876 the faction with patriarch (Malnkara) Church was commonly and widely called as Jacobite church. JJ HUNTER 1893 in his book to distinguish between two factions of malankara he used Jacobite syrians for (Patriarch faction) and St Thomas Syrian Christians(FOR MARTHOMITES). However W j Richards 1898 used the word Jacobite faction of Malankara (FOR PATRIARCH FACTION)AND reforming Mar thomas Faction of malankarA (FOR MARTHOMITES).
Hence it is desired to use(Request MOVE) Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church to comprise its fullness117.208.216.176 (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)



WHICH SHOWS THE NAME Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church in page 343117.208.216.176 (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That comment is almost impossible to follow. Please see the reliable sources guideline - Wikipedia goes by reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject. As we've shown, the proposed title "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church" is less common than the present title.--Cúchullain t/c 17:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cuchullain What is impossible to follow? Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is commonly called as Marthoma church. Similarly Jacobite Syrian Christian Church JOSC(official name) is commonly called as Jacobite church ,also Malankara orthodox Syrian church MOSC is commonly called here as Orthodox church. If you are searching Orthodox church or Jacobite church IN GOOGLE OR GOOGLE BOOKS, the details that pops in Google or any search engine is Details that of Eastern orthodox church( for Orthodox search) and that for Jacobite search will be that of syriac orthodox church and not that of Malankara jacobite church.Since Marthoma name is a unique identity attached with a church so search becomes possible even with its common name . Here Marthoma church has two official names which is used intermittently 1. Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church and 2. Mar Thoma Syrian Church Of Malabar. out of these two the first one is the most commonly used in official publications. The name figures in cENSUS OF iNDIA 1961 , IS IT NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE.Cuchullain may please go through the links given above. Mathrubhumi . hindu , Business Standard all are secular newspaper of this country and not church publications Mar thoma church is detailed in all those news papers as Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A cursory look at Google Books results for "Mar Thoma Syrian Church" and "Mar Thoma Church" suggest that the vast majority of uses are referring to this church, not any others. Your suggestion wouldn't clear up any confusion anyway, since "Malankara" is much more widely used in Indian church names than "Mar Thoma". Again, reliable, published, third party sources use your proposed title much less frequently than the current title.--Cúchullain t/c 15:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cuchullain
A cursory look at the Google books hit cannot be taken as a criteria to decide the title. Because the Google search doesnot include Title search alone . It includes sub title , para search and many others too. Hence it is customary or common to refer Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church as Marthoma Syrian Church or as Marthoma Church In inner pages or in sub para or in sub titles. Jawarhal nehru in google book hits are 225000 but when searched with Nehru ALONE IT COMES TO AROUND 350000.That means Jawarlal nehru is shortened to Nehru in inner pages or other areas .does that mean the the wikipedia on Jawahalal nehru has to be renamed as Nehru which is more common. Similarly in many other cases too.The name of the church we are referring is PROVED TO BE OFFICIALLY Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church in Census of India, Religious endowment registration society, Constitution of The cHurch, as in news paper reports officially covering a church event. Hence Strongly desire for a name move to Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian ChurchIravikorthanan (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Surveying reliable independent sources is exactly what we should do to determine the WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain t/c 18:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________ Oppose move

The reform party in the Syrian church came to be known as MarThoma Syrian church of Malabar Ref:

1)Dr.Alex Thomas;A history of the first cross- cultural mission of the Marthoma Church 1910_2000;page 34.

2)C.B. Firth;An Introduction to Indian Church history;page 174_177.

3)Alexander Marthoma;The MarThoma church:Heritage and mission ,Thiruvalla, 1985, page 14-22.

These are independent published sources which says the name of the church is Marthoma Syrian church of Malabar. Phantom (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

request Move the name to Malankara Marthoma syrian church

The references pointed out by Phantom are not truly independent Dear Phantom 1) Dr Alex Thomas is a Marthoma syrian and his book is about the Missionary and ashrama movement of Marthoma Church out side travancore. The book details and calls Marthoma church in its detailed name name many places as Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church

2 ) third book Quoted by Phantom is written by the Marthoma XIX , THE primate of Marthoma syrian church. The crux of the book itself is that the bishop with logic and evidences is proving that the present day marthoma church is the true successor of the church of Malabar established by St Thomas.

3) more over secular or govt publications like a) Census Report b) Pathanamthitta District Gazetteer, C) NEWS PAPER NEWS COVERAGE d) Marthoma Church Thaksa and other publications e) Marthoma church Constititution f) Wiley Online Encyclopedia h) pOPULAR ENCYCLOPEDIA OF cHURCH HISTORY , dAN MITCHELL PAGE 255

and THE REFORMS OF THE METRAN KAKSHI also include reclaiming the independence and integrity of malankara church from subjugated identity. For your clarity again .Malankara MarthomaSyrian Church is known by many names like Marthoma church of malabar, st thomas church in malabar, Marthoma Syrian Church, marthoma church, Marthoma syrian church of malabar.

Do you now agree that Marthoma church has a name 'Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church'? the basic issue is any edits to contain Malankara in it is repeatedly reverted by you. Moving the name is a different one. (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma church has no spiritual lineage of Malankara Church. Malankara Church has been Oriental Orthodox from 1665. However Marthoma church is NOT an Oriental Orthodox Church instead it is a Reformed Syrian Church with Syrian and Anglican mix. What is the point you are trying to prove that Marthoma church is another Malankara Church? This is quite confusing for the readers. The Reformed Syrian Church was different from the existing Malankara Syrian Church and they got organized as a new independent church later named it as MarThoma church. Phantom (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Official Name 'Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian CHURCH'[edit]

The details of other names of Marthoma church officially and commonly called detailed in Definitions .hope now we have a consensus that the name Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church exists after the discussion on WP:RM .Iravikorthanan (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma church has NO official lineage of the Malankara Syrian Church[edit]

Reference: Travancore Royal Court verdict in 1889. Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


Because as per royal court verdict, The metropolitans and bishops have to consecrated with the consent of Patriarch only, and supremacy of Patriarch in administrative matters is paramount. Indian orthodox do not consecrate their catholicos, MM or any bishops with the patriarchs consent. Moreover they say The patriarch authority in Malankara is Null .

  • whether Jacocobite church is a Malankara church?

As per jacobite church constitution and other official records the so called JSCC is only a Archdioceses of Syriac orthodox church in india. Precisely Malankara dioceses.royal court order still holds good for them , but not the supreme court verdict.

  • the origin of malankara church was to desist foreign authority in malabar. During royal court trial Mavelikara padiyola 1836,Mulanthurathy padiyola 1876 ,the False canon affidavit (kappi canon) exhibit 15 was the document which aided the verdict against Marthoma and brought Malankara church and its assets and bishops directly under a foreign authority .The result is that still the cases have not end.
  • whether Malankara catholic church can use name malankara? pls be rational and logical
  • you have been given links of
  1. Census report 1901 and 1961
  2. Church Website
  3. Church Constitution
  4. church publication like hymn book. thaksa, hasha order, eucharist order,etc
  5. links of leading news papers reporting the mar thoma church events
  6. and other wiley , popular christian encyclopedias

which are self evident and self defining that marthoma church has a name malankara marthoma syrian church accepted widely even then you are repeatedly reverting which is a bad practiceIravikorthanan (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The reformist faction was a part of the Malankara Church/Malankara Syrian Church until the Royal Court verdict in 1889. The Travancore Royal court decreed that the reformist faction has no claims over the Malankara church. Then the reformist faction organized as a separate church with the name Reformed Syrian Church. In 1893 they adopted a new name for the church called Marthoma Church or Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar.

Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite&Orthodox) is a different church still existing. Why are you claiming the lineage of this Oriental Orthodox Church after seperating from it and organized a new church with different theology, creed and beliefs (Syrian & Anglican mix).Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma Metropolitans[edit]

In this church context, please use Marthoma metropoltan limited to Marthoma church. Please don't extend your claim and lineage to Malankara Church in this context. This will confuse the Wiki readers.Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits regarding 'malankara inclusion[edit]

Dear kokarani pls do not revert edit without any ref or justification. Marthoma Church has the name and is referred many times from 1890s as Malankara Marthoma Syrian CHURCH. cENSUS REPORT OF 1901 and census report of 1961 (govt reports) infact show that the Marthoma church is called as Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church. Whether you accept or not Marthoma church is formed because of the issues of intepretation of Independence of Apostalic see of St Thomas In Malankara and reformation in Malankara? if the majority verdict favoured Metran Kakshi (Marthoma FACTION) ,it would have been the jacobites who would have to move out of Kottayam seminary and 59 churches of Malankara.

The lineage of marthoma metropolitan is counting from the marthoma metrans and subsequent malankara metropolitans who argued and advocated the independence of the malankara church. the Consecration of titus 1 as Marthoma XV is the proof . subsequently all marthoma metrans were numbered and called accordingly .The present one Joseph Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma XXI. It is a fact. Your reverts seems to create some sort of propaganda. For sake of your argument even if its is accepted that Malankara cannot be used for a Syrian+anglican mix ( which is not true) then how can Malankara Be used for Malankara Catholic Church which is (Syrian +roman mix. Kokarani needs to understand that ,nothing quoted is artificial . it is proper ref. Discussion with you is non ending.

pLS REVERT THE EDIT , ONLY IF YOU HAVE PROOF THAT mARTHOMA cHurch is Not Called as Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church . It is for the sake of the integrity of wiki page and stopping edit war.Iravikorthanan (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


The earliest families within the Jewish community to accept the path of Christianity through St.Thomas, later intermarried with the ethnic local community and Brahmins of the 6th century. This led to the upbringing of marginal class or 'sambandham' brahminic family clans like Pakalomattom, Sankarapuri and Kalli to a different socioeconomic status, they are now widely accepted as the first families who adopted an emigre way of life or 'Christianity' in Kerala. According to recent DNA research by Dr. Mini Kariappa, a significant number of Syrian Christians and Knanaya's share their ancestral roots with the West Eurasian gene pool of Jews.[1][citation needed]


Saints Statues in an Orthodox Church?[edit]

Mar Thoma Church comes from an Oriental Orthodox Church Background, how a catholic saint statue was there?. (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Syrian ChurchMalankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church – As per the official website of this denomination, the english name is Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church. Source: This is also the name that is used in all published books and materials of the church. And this name is also used in common parlance among the members of this denomination as well as several other denominations. Note: Both the existing name of this page and the proposed name is used interchangeably in common parlance. Additionally, the church is registered under the Societies Registration Act and other relevant acts in force in India, with this name. Source: I could not find an online source for the official list of Religious Organisations of India. The existing name Mar Thomas Syrian Church is only used a short form of the official name. However the name currently in use in this page has been used as a source of several arguments and offensive attacks against members of this church, to denote them as not an official Malankara Church, but just as a outcast church. Note: If anyone would like clarification on the historical position of this church, please contact my talk page. Baseleious Nikephoros (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I am totally against it. The reformist faction separated from the Malankara Syrian Church and for some time were called as Reformist faction. Later they were legally evicted from the Malankara Church and they accepted the name simply Marthoma Church or Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar. The true intention behind this claim is that the Marthoma Church wanted to prove that Marthoma Church members wanted to prove that or claiming that they are/were the true successor church of the Malnkara church formed in 1663. How ever actually the Marthoma Church started with the missionary activity of the Anglicans with the Malankara Syrian Church.Please red the lead sentence of the Marthoma Church and also the references. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose per my comments the last time this exact move was proposed just 3 months ago, and previous discussions going back years. The proposed title is far less common. "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church" receives only 100 Google Books hits compared to 1120 for "Mar Thoma Syrian Church" currently. The church itself uses both version interchangeably. There's no policy or evidence based reason to support this move.--Cúchullain t/c 01:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reasons for considering Mar Thoma Syrian Church as one of the remnant church of Malankara Church[edit]

I would like to discuss this topic and come to a common consensus. First of all i would like to state a few statements which are commonly the source of the disputes and specifically the events around 1870-1890:

1) Malankara Church was not subject to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch: The main essence of the Coonen Cross Oath was that the Malankara Church in India is Independant and shall remain independant and will not submit to any foreign Bishops authority. Further when the Patriarch of Antioch tried to consecrate bishop ‘Abraham Mar Koorilose’ as the successor of ‘Metropolitan Mar Dionysius I’ in 1772, he failed and this consecration was not accepted by the Malankara Church and this resulted in the formation of the thozhiyoor church under ‘Abraham Mar Koorilose’.

Which brings me to the next point:

2) Power to choose successor of the Metropolitan: The existing Metropolitan had the power to choose his successor and not anyone else. Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasius is acknowledged as the Marthoma XIII by all the present factions, i.e. Orthodox, Jacobite and Marthoma. Further he was the one who ordained Parumala Thirumeni. :) Anyway, the aforementioned Mathews Mar Athanasius appointed Thomas Mar Athanasius as his successor and head of the Malankara Church.

So when the court of Travancore ordered that Joseph Mar Dionysius is the successor to Mathews Mar Athanasius in 1889, this succession would be invalid. Further, nowhere at anytime in its history has the power to choose the head of the church been given to a Court of law by any of the Christian denominations.

3) Synod of Mulanthuruthy – 1876 The party that opposed the existing metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasius convened a synod and submitted themselves to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch (in opposition to the Coonen Cross Oath). This faction later developed into the Jacobite and Orthodox Syrian churches.

Based on the above information it would seem that the successor of the Metropolitan Thomas Mar Athanasius would be considered the successors of the Malankara Church.

However this faction made many changes to the liturgy and practices in an attempt to restore the beliefs that existed prior to the Synod of Diamper, and named themselves the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church.

Which brings me to the final point

4) The church that existed after Synod of Diamper and Coonen Cross Oath was different from the church that existed before the Synod of Diamper. The Malankara Church of the Coonen Cross Oath was a highly Latinized form of the pre Synod of Diamper church.

Hence it would seem there is no true single successor to the Malankara Church, The closest successor in terms of continuous leadership would be the Malankara Marthoma Church, however they themselves claim that they try to emulate the Pre- Synod of Diamper church.

The closest successor in terms of common forms of practices/ and liturgy would be the Jacobite and Orthodox churches. However they submitted themselves to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch, and hence could be seen as only a branch of the Antiochan church in India.

I hope this would resolve the disputes going on among the Syrian Christians.

An additional point which is commonly discussed about the Marthoma Church due their Anglican influence is that they are an Anglican church. However:

5) Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church is not an Anglican church:

The main common practices among the Anglican Churches around the world are as follows:

1) Book of Common Prayer 2) Feasts and Saints of the Anglican communion 3) Bishop of Canterbury is the spiritual head. 4) Anglican divines 5) Rosary prayers, Intercessory prayers and prayers to the dead.

Based on my research Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church does not have any of these practices, and in fact some of these practices were explicitly removed from their beliefs.

Therefore the claim that the Marthoma Church is the Anglican church of India is incorrect. In fact there is a small church called the Church of South India which fulfils that position. However both these churches have acknowledged the independence and validity of the other, and the aforementioned CSI church and Marthoma church are in communion with each other.

Further, all of the beliefs and practices of the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church can be traced to the West Syrian Liturgy and beliefs. A few of the beliefs of the West Syrian rite have been ommited. However nothing additional has been added. The majority is exactly the same as the West Syrian Rite.

If anyone disagrees with the above information, please do reply. It would also be helpful if the replies can be directed specificaly to each point. Once consensus is reached, maybe a final version of this page can be agreed upon and the edit war might stop.

Regards, Nikki. Baseleious Nikephoros (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I am totally against it. The reformist faction separated from the Malankara Syrian Church and for some time were called as Reformist faction. Later they were legally evicted from the Malankara Church and they accepted the name simply Marthoma Church or Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar. The true intention behind this claim is that the Marthoma Church members wanted to prove that or claiming that they are/were the true successor church of the Malankara church formed in 1663. How ever actually the Marthoma Church started with the missionary activity of the Anglicans with the Malankara Syrian Church.Please read the lead sentence of the Marthoma Church and also the references. Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Nikki(Former user:Iravikorthanan):

1) "At the arrival of the Portuguese on the West Coast, the Syrians had bishops sent by the Nestorian Patriarch of Babylon. The Portuguese were pro- bably not aware of it, and within fifty years these bishops died out. At this time, there was a movement among the Nes- torians for reconciliation with Rome, and a large body of them submitted under the leadership of Sullaca who went to Rome, and in 1553 was proclaimed by Popq Julius III as John, Patriarch of the Chaldeans. "From that date the word 'Chal- dean' has been applied to those Nestorians who have abjured the Nestorian heresy, and are in communion with Rome, and their Patriarch is called the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon in distinction from the Nestorian Patriarch of Babylon."

Syriac and Chaldean are sister languages as are Tamil and Malayalam- Syriac is spoken in the country about Antioch and Damascus, and Chaldean is spoken near Babylon and Bagdad. Roman Catholics in Syria use the Chaldean language, and Jacobites use the Syriac"* (Milne Rae,George. The Syrian Church)

"therefore from the date of the diocesan synod of Diamper, the diocese was severed from the Patriarchate of Babylon, and was placed under a bishop nominated by the King of Portugal, and afterwards under a Vicar Apostolic sent directly by propaganda, These are in- dications that the Romo-Syrians disliked this system. They had their own oriental rite, but they longed for an oriental bishop, and they looked to the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon as their quarter from which this oriental bishop should come. There was one such movement in 1709, and another in J 787 under Thomas Pareamakal in the same direction (India, Orientalis Christiana)". 1

2)"The Syrian Church was closely connected with the Patriarch of Antioch for more than 200 years, and during the long period one Metran was consecrated by delegation of the Patriarch, and the other by the Patriarch's own hands. All the rest were, so far as documentary or legal evidence is concerned, without any authority, and there was no proof that they were bishops at all."

Milne Rae,George. The Syrian Church, pp. 270-270

Dear all Baseleious Nikephoros is not Iravikorthanan Iravikorthanan (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Marthoma title[edit]

There is no point in adding MARTHOMA XX in my opinion. There is no reference for this claim. Marthoma is a honorific title taken by the metropolitans in the Malankara church. (please see 'Malankara Metropolitan' in wikipedia).There were 9 Marthoma titles, Marthoma 1 to Marthoma 9. Thats it. Afterwards the metropolitans of the Malankara church did not took this title.(no more Mathoma 10 or Marthoma 11). So its a false claim when some body saying Marthoma XX, however they could easily say or add simply 'Marthoma' with out any numbering. I object adding the number 'xx' to 'Marthoma' title because there is no such numbering exist after 9th Marthoma. Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

dear mr mandrake pls go through this links to understand the usage of Marthoma EXISTS IN MARTHOMA CHURCH (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

dear mandrake also go through (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Marthoma title is accepted , however numbering is not accepted.The reference you provided are church websites which is not acceptable ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

dear kokkarani this is not church publication
eastern christianity by leucian n leustan (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree Marthoma Church as

as a Protestant church as it says?Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


This edit could be changed from Mathews Mar Athanasious to Thomas Mar Athanasious per

Clarification required in usage terms of Malankara and Malabar. An explanation shows Marthoma church equals to Malankara church. Other church related registration[1] and alliance[2] documents say Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar. There is this Gokaranam mentioned is it Gokarna, Karnataka.

  1. ^
  2. ^