Archdeacons, Medieval History, Nasrani History, Tomb of Archdeacons

I think you have a bit of confusion …

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to consider the subscription options.

Follow us on Facebook, or Twitter, or Google +.

Comment posted Role, Characteristics, List and Tomb of Archdeacons (Arkadiyakons) of Saint Thomas Christians by John Mathew.

I think you have a bit of confusion regarding terminology, Ethak.

Regarding 5. I think you are a little confused here. The Syriac Orthodox Church (i.e., the non-Chalcedonian Church of Antioch) is an Oriental Orthodox Church. There is also Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch which is Eastern Orthodox and *not* Oriental Orthodox. The latter Church has no connection with Kerala, so when I (or anyone else on this forum) says “Antiochene Church” we mean only one Church and that is the Miaphysite (Oriental orthodox) Syriac Orthodox Church. The Syriac Orthodox Church is the mother of the “Jacobites” in Kerala and their schismatic faction, the Malankara Orthodox. Both have **nothing** to do with the Assyrian Church of the East other than our people are genetic descendants of people who used to be of the Assyrian Church back before the time of Mar Gregorios. But the moment we *converted* to the West Syrian faith, we became Oriental Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox view the Assyrian Church of the East as heretics. (Not me personally; this is the official position). A major sticky point: The Assyrians are Dyophysites, whereas the Oriental orthodox (including the Syriac Orthodox) are Miaphysites. The Assyrians reject the term Mother of God, and instead say Mother of Christ–the orthodox reject this (and so do the Uniates)!

Again: you are mistaken in claiming the Oriental Orthodox includes the Assyrian Church of the East. Sorely mistaken. The Assyrian Church may be “oriental” in that it is in the east, but the term “Oriental Orthodox” has a very specific meaning which you are transgressing when you apply it to the Church of the East.

Re 4: The use of the word “primarily” is important to recognize there in your copy from Wikipedia! The *majority* of the Uniates were *primarily* from the Eastern Orthodox, yes. But there are Uniates (or Eastern Catholics if you want to use that longer term) from other Churches: the Uniates from the Church of the East (both in the Middle East — the Chaldeans — and in Kerala, the Syro-Malabar), and the Unitaes from the Jacobites (the Middle Eastern “Syrian Catholics” and the Kerala Syro-Malankara). And sure the Syro-Malabar have a *direct* counterpart: their brothers back in Assyria, the Chaldean schismatics! The only difference: the Syro-Malabar allowed themsleves to be Latinized, whereas the Chaldean Catholics retained their identity. And the syro-malabar only got the right to start using the original Qurbana in the 20th century — before that they had to use whatever their foreign masters told them to use.

Re 3: This is basic Christian history! You can trace all canonical Orthodox/Catholic Christian communities to the five original patriarchates–everyone *HAD* to get a valid episcopal ordination from one of the five. The Church of the East were originally under the Patriarch of Antioch and split during the Nestorian controversy; any historian knows this. This is not some far-fetched theory or opinion. Go and read the history of the Church of the East — their Catholicos asserted independence from the Patriarch of Antioch and become an independent Patriarch-Catholicos! I’m not talking about the Church in India being under the Patriarch of Antioch — I’m saying back up to the 4th century, the Church of the East was under the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Re 2: Fine, there were Catholic missions. But the Syro-Malabar started only after those missionaries started to target our community and kidnap our prelates. Before that, there was probably no big attempt at converting us to Roman Catholicism.

Re 1: From the looks of their site the The Assyrian Academic Society is an East Syrian Catholic group — note the term “Mother of God Church”! It is probably not a uniform Assyrian association at all! Otherwise they wouldn’t use the term “Chaldean” which is a hugely contentious term in the general Syriac community. If you want to read their position on history that would be akin to me reading a Mar Thomite history book for the history of the Nasrani community — it’s bound to have distortions.

The Church of the East most certainly does *NOT* refer to themselves as Chaldean. The term Chaldean was introduced by Roman Catholic missionaries to label their new schismatic fruit: the Chaldean catholic church. The Chaldean *patriarch* himself talks about this: he says “religiously” he is a Chaldean, but “ethnically” he is Assyrian and that the label Chaldean was introduced by missionaries. (You can search for this info yourself: the controversy in the Syriac community regarding labels is huge! Aramean vs Suryoye vs Assyrian vs Chaldean — these are loaded terms, Ethak.)

The Syriac tradition of the rogation of the Ninevites is a general Syriac thing: both the Assyrian Church of the East (including its Uniate counterpart, the Chaldeans) and the oriental orthodox Syriac Orthodox Church observe it. AND the other Oriental Orthodox Churches observe it too, to a lesser degree.