Medieval History, Modern History, Syro Malabar Church, Thomas Christians

Anto: Let’s not be extreme to the point of …

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 Major Arch Bishop Alencheril Mar Giwargis II Bava-The Patriarch of Syro Malabar Church and The Gate of All India- A Discussion on The Historical Hierarchical Status of The Church of Saint Thomas Christians by John Mathew.

Anto:

Let’s not be extreme to the point of distortion. The Syro-Malabar Church in its current form did not exist in Kerala from ancient times either. It uses the old original rite, but as Antony explains, bears the marks of the several centuries of contact it had with Western Catholic missionaries. I don’t believe those marks are necessarily bad or good; but they exist.

Also, to be complete, the Pazhayakoor consists of both Churches in India that use the East Syriac Rite: the modern day Syro-Malabar Church and the modern day “Chaldeans”, i.e, the Church of the East.

The original Church in Malabar, prior to the arrival of the Portuguese was the Church of the East, which was in the century before the Portuguese arrived, variously in communion with the (a) Church of the East, (b) the Chaldean Church of the East (which was in communion with Rome).

So, yes, we had connections with Rome prior to the Portuguese arrival. No, that connection does not extend back to the inception of Christianity in India.

The Syro-Malabar Church and the Chaldeans are the two descendants of the original Indian Church that are most faithful to the original rites. Hence the term Pazhayakoor is justified.

The Puthenkoor are the descendants of the original Indian Church that are not faithful to the original rites, except via whatever is common between East and West Syriac rites, and perhaps a more rigorously “eastern” aesthetic, which comes due to its affiliation to a completely Oriental Church. But they are not using the original rites, hence “Puthenkoor” is justified.

Finally, I’m sure “Meshiha Kalam” is a western innovation in India, coming via the Latin AD terminology. In genuine Syriac Churches, the era of Alexander is used (“year of the Greeks”), not AD or “Meshiha Kalam”.

And the statues one finds in old Nasrani Churches are also remnants of our affiliation with the Latin Catholics. They don’t prove anything.

I agree though that the priests of the Syro-Chaldean Church in India (not the “Syro-Malabar” which I think is an innovation, a recent term), such as Mani Kathanar, etc., were great fighters for the Syriac Christians. If the unity that Mani Kathanar and Mar Dionysius envisioned occurred, then all Nasranis would have been far better off. But let’s not forget that the “Syro-Malabar Church” also had a lot of people who tried to go in the opposite direction.