I hope those who criticize the Muringoor Centre will consider the good work that is done by DRC, Muringoor, in caring for those abandoned by society and families– the HIV/AID victims, terminally ill, cancer /kidney patients, the mentally ill, physically deformed, those suffering from chronic depression, those with suicide tendencies, schizophreniacs, those with a criminal past and those shunned by society, victims of rape, abuse, crime and violence, the poor, the needy, those who have lost all hope in life…

It requires compassion, selflessness, commitment, to care for the scums of society, and to help them to regain their hope in life or die with honor.

Society must be grateful to them for doing that–whatever be the religious beliefs that underlie such service to society. They do it as a service and not as a commercial enterprise.

Let not the critics throw away the baby with the wash tub. Even Mother Teresa was criticized for what she did for those abandoned on the streets or for those living in the slums of Calcutta (Kolkata).

India is known for religious tolerance. Hinduism is a religion of tolerance. All religions and beliefs have originated or coexisted in India for centuries. All religions share the fundamental values of truth, goodness and fraternity, as Mahatma Gandhi reminded us.

It takes a few moments to destroy what has been built with assiduous care over years.

Let not religious fundamentalism destroy our great Indian culture. Let not narrow feelings and passions destroy the good work of Muringoor.

Christians take suffering and criticism as a part of their life. So they may not respond. But it is time all right thinking people decry religious fundamentalism and support those selfless, self-effacing committed persons, but for whose service, our society would be full of criminals and violence and hopelessness.

The LDF government in Kerala is imposing awkward laws on Self – Financing Colleges(particularly Medicine and Engineering)run by nazrani people.
The situation in Kerala is such that they are reserving people of their own caste and creed in colleges funded by Nazranis.

Nazrani students who got higher ranks in Entrance Examination & Plus-Two can’t get admission in their own colleges.

So it would be helpful if global nazrani’s take necessary steps to financially support poor and lower middle class nazrani students in their own parishes in Kerala.It would be beneficial to their family and also the society.

Deepika, the oldest Malayalam daily which is still in circulation is in a sad plight now. It is the victim of one of the worst instances of media manipulation in India

Deepika which was the elegent mounthpiece of Church in Kerala for a century and a half is for all practical purposes the voice of Faction of Communist Party of India(Marxist). However, most of its readership is unaware of this position because of the cynical way in which it is done. The paper often position itself as the champion of Christian causes and engage in useless verbal duels with the powers that be to bolster its Christian credentials. It also has names of two prominent church functionaries printed on each edition to cover its real colours.

The catholic leadership, woken up to the fait accompli they are presented with late, is unable to do anything about it. In fact, in a recent issue of the well-respected catholic weekly Sathyadeepam, well-know Christian intellectual, Fr. A. Adappur has written an article on the situation. He has advised the community leadership, that is, Bishops to issue a pastoral letter informing their flok of the present state of Deepika’s affairs. That, according to him, is the only way to prevent a marxist newspapers entering Christian homes in a pseudo-Christian guise.

To all fellow Nasranis,

Are you aware of these facts:
1. That we are the last generation of Nasranis ?
2. And the Nasranis and Marthomites and Syro Malabar Church(closely followed by all other St. Thomas Christians churches at large) is in the extinction path ?
3. Within max. 20 to 50 years Nasranis, especially the Syro Malabar Church will exist for name sake alone ?
4. That we, the last generation of Nasranis are guilty for the extinction of a 1950 year famed Nasranis by our callous attitude and with it the resultant extinction of Christianity from Indian sub-continent either?
5. That we deteriorated and leading a life seeking basic instincts of animals: better food, dwelling, sex, wealth and in the process don’t give damn about preserving our tradition for the coming generations ?
6. That we Nasranis are divided for worldly reasons, keeping enmity between when an all out joint effort only can save us from abysmal extinction ?
7. That with the Parsi-syndrome already set and the terror of extinction is sure, unless an all-out effort; we are wasting time after worldly matters such as ‘Self financing education’ dog fight etc. ?
I appeal all those “Concerned Nasranis” irrespective of sect or Church join together making an Association or sort at the aegis of NSC or other to analyse and devise remedies to salvage Thomas Christians from imminent extinction may voice their suggestions in this forum.
It is our mission of life and consider seriously as the “apostolate of the laity” salvaging our tradition.

“The quasi-common heritage of the Gospel and the common duty of Christian witness resulting from it recommend and frequently require the cooperation of Catholics with other Christians, on the part of individuals and communities within the Church, either in activities or in associations, in the national or international field.”

The above is excerpts from the Vatican Council II (Decree on the apostolate of the Laity), which means such a joint move is not against but supported by Rome.

Shouldn’t we act NOW ?????

Thanks for your time reading the above.

If concerned, think of some action, let us pool them together.
Please contact with any suggestion:

Email: sunnyalanoly@yahoo.co.in

Dear Sunny

I echo your comments and you narrated the reality. But I don’t agree with your suggestion. An organization or association don’t do any help in a very deprave environment.

Lets look at the history of these kind of movements.

The ecumenical association, Nazrani Jathiaikya Sangham organized by Nidhiry Mani Kathanar and Mar Dionysius, the Jacobite metropolitan was one of the important happenings in our history. They even acquired property at kottayam for building a college in ca 1875. They planned for opening jointly colleges, schools, orphanages, library, bank etc. The Carmelite apostolic delegate Aiuti jeopardized every plan. In fact it was the leadership of Nidhiry that fostered a unity among Syrian Catholics with in and with Jacobites.

He was a man ahead of times and worked very much for the unity of Syrian Christians but the latin Bishop Le Vigne torpedoed every plan.

It was with the fight of Nidhiry that the Syrian Catholics got freed from Padroado jurisdiction paving the way for indigenous Bishops.

When they had to go out from power they appointed their lip service agents as Bishops and these ecclesiastical superiors tried to alienate Nidhiry and disowned him. He died at an young age because of unknown reasons.

If you ask about “Nidhiry” to any priest or Bishop today, they will tell Nidhiry was the founder of Deepika. They very well know Nidhdiry was the reason behind having indigenous Bishops here but if they acknowdlge that these people have to talk about the lip servicing generations of Bishops Syro Malabar had and some of them need to answer the reasons behind Nidhiry’s death also.

Nazrani Jathiaikya Sangham was a great movement but we only got stupid Bishops as a result, mainly owing to our nature of power hungriness.

That was history.Today even the communist party has four to five associations in every church. Other than that, there are many associations targeted for different purposes in every church like Almaya Veedhi in Orthodox, Priests Action Council in Ernakulam etc..

This Priests Actions Council is the most notorious organizations in any church in whole world. Even CITU can learn lot from these priests. They don’t know how to celebrate Qurbana in ideal way but they know how to target and defame people and how to conduct violent strikes and even how to burn crosses also.

This is today’s reality on associations. The worst is run by Priests in Ernakulam.

What benefit we can do in an already corrupted environment. All the best we can do is raise our voice in church forums and if you look at number of comments in NSC site you can see there are many people who are tuned to this from all denominations. Let people take the responsibility and let them active in church cornering all these disreputable, damaged, bedraggled and throwing them in dust bin for ever.

NSC team should continue sharing their knowledge, in the most perfect way they are doing and that’s the only thing which can help than any associations.

Being here for sometime, I tend to see this way even though I agree with what you narrated.

Dear Sunny,
Glad to see the spirit in you. How come I did not come across you on the ‘Hebrew heritage of the Nasranis’. May we have your views!

Sunny Alanoly and N.J.

Yes! It is important that the ‘Nasrani’ should stand united. I think the bonds are strong enough. But it is essential to first know who we are? This is the discussion that is going on in seriousnes in the latest NSC article.

I have this gut feeling that there can be more unity amongst us if we all agree that the main/tap root of the Nasrani is Hebrew rather than saying otherwise. Have you not noticed the incredible ‘resileince’ of the Jew/Hebrew. They have been persecuted over and over again down through history and yet they live on an on.

When we have this ‘resilience’ heritage in us, then why do we chase a Brahmin heritage which is not real. (Yes! we have some Brahmin blood in us, but not all of it is Brahmin.)

When we establish our Hebrew heritage, then we also have Yahoweh’s word working for us. We then subscribe to HIS promises for the Hebrew.

Dear NJ, George Mathew,

Thanks for the response.

I am new to this site, never thought somebody serious about Nasrai’s plight are out there, hence didn’t bother to browse NSC NET and the late reply !! Sorry.

About the great Nidhiry: Yes, I agree. He, like many upright Christian leaders, who talk truth are either tarnished as ‘against Church’ or thrown away into oblivion.

The root-cause is Portugese and their ‘Latinisation drive’ which resulted in:

1.Division in Thomas Christians
2.Degradation of Laity and hegemonial upgradation of Hierarchy, abolishing the great tradition of Deacon posts, who were handling the temporal part of Church (and leaving the priests just only for the liturgical sphere) also who was the vital link between laity and hierarchy.

THIS ABOLITION OF DEACON COULD BE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REASON in the plight and sorry state of affairs which even now happening among Syro Malabar Church, in other Churches too.

Priests become linked with money and worldly things become degraded to the present lot ! (Not all of them, of course, its a sin to say vice versa)

NJ, at least now no Portuguese is there to rule us !

We NEED laity leaders, from real Thomas Christians, with conviction, drive, knowledgeable of church history, moreover DARING to ask questions !

Well, British saved us from Portuguese, but taught us the ‘Divide and rule’ method. By which we are ruled now.
Past is past, Nasrani is no slave now. Remember: Priest when unbecoming a priest in character IS CEASED TO BE A PRIEST to (mis)guide laity.

MOST IMPORTANT: It is now the laity’s serious DUTY to preserve St. Thomas Christians.
Our conviction should be so convincing and inspiring, there may be even A RETURN OF MIGRANT THOMAS CHRISTIANS TO KERALA, like happened with Israel !
Only a UNITED move can do this.
Be positive, optimistic, action oriented: WE CAN DO THAT !
Reversing the trend of extinction of Nasranis !!

Regards
Sunny Alanoly

POC Bible is removing all the old Syriac and Malayalam words and replacing it with English and Sanskritised version of Malayalam.

POC has definitely done a great service in making Bible accessible to large masses. There has been confusions and questions raised in the translation process employed recently by POC.

In the website of POC, it is given that “The structure of the sentences, as a rule, is not changed. As regards translation no change is made.” ( For the third edition of Bible – Source – POC Website )

Xavier Kalangara has captured the issues in this beautifully written complaint.

Letter to POC

Can anyone share, why its being done and Who is deciding this ?

In the past we have observed that trend started by one faction slowly get in to use by others. Given that situation, can some one explain the reasons behind this ?

Thanks to Xavier for sharing the letter with all of us.

Nasrani’s are becoming extinct? Sure … 10 million people (dispersed throughout the globe) don’t go out that easily, unless Hitler/Stalin are around! Your alarmism is a little extreme.

If you want to preserve our culture, learn Syriac, and grab the priestly books, and preserve them.

But try to stop being silly and blaming innocuous things such as our natural drive for money, food, sex, and fun. Rather, we ought to write the history of our people (in a historical, scientific manner, as opposed to the standard pseudo-scientific religious method traditionally used) so that our children will have a good reference to understand their history and culture.

We are not the chosen people, and Jews aren’t the chosen people. If you believe in Christianity that is. All of this chosen race stuff is antithetical to Christianity, which, although owing a lot to ancient Judaism (which doesn’t exist nowadays anyways …) is *not* Judaism.

And if you are pissed off about missionary organizations re-writing the Bible for the ignorant converts of India (which is who they cater to, not us, the “old-timers”), then there’s a simple solution:
1. learn Serto (for the Orthodox) or Estrangelo/Madhenhoya (for the Church of the East)
2. learn Syriac vocabulary and grammar
3. buy a copy of the Pshitto
4. read it

Why rely on the POC who uses–of all things–the Vulgate as its basis?

Dear John

We ought to right our history in right way making use of the best methodologies available. That should not be done for simply painting a glorious past or for supporting family histories or just with the intention of making us proud.

History is what it is. Considering the approaches we use, I would say we are going on the right track. Like George Mathew mentioned, sometime back I am happy with what we unearthed so far.

On this “POC Bible issue “ I think it deserve attention and is important. POC is not a missionary outfit and all the St. Thomas churches uses Peshita as their base.You agree or not, thats the Bible a huge majority of Nasrani generations are going to use in their home.

I agree with the content in Xavier’s letter. There are lot of people including priests who think that all the names has been derived from English. I heard one of my Nasrani friend advicing an Eastern Christian that he shouldnot read Syriac or Greek Bible. He should get an English Bible because from it is everything originated. I can not blame my Nasrani friend, as that’s the general understanding and impression we have created.

What is the need and for what purpose all these beautiful Malayalam words has been replaced ? The old Syriac words I consider it as part of Malayalam. It is the best example of natural adaptation.It should be a reason to preserve than remove.

Are we too much interested in replicating Europe in Kerala ?

What benefit people are seeing by westernizing Bible ?

Dear NJ,

I use the Peshitto. I read it in Syriac. I couldn’t care less about the POC — when I go for a Bible, I get the Peshitto and read things from the source.

But if these people want to translate things in a certain way, that’s their business. After all, they are a Catholic organization, and Catholics (apart from the one’s that came from non-Catholic eastern churches) don’t follow the Peshitto — they, being Westerners, follow their Vulgate, and the translations they’ve made from it.

But I agree that many Nasranis are ignorant of their culture and/or religion. But the same can be said for any group of people.

Vulgate is translated directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint.
Peshitta is again translation from Hebrew. It is from the heart of Syriac Christianity Edessa. It is the one used originally by Church of East. All St. Thomas churches uses the same. Syriac Orthodox Church, Syrian Catholic Church,, Chaldean Catholic Church, Maronite Church etc all uses the same. Peshitto is almost same but has more Greek influence.

In POC Bible, the issue is not on what text its been used. The issue is with the approach used to remove the time honored Malayalam / Syriac words from Bible.

Most of the Syrian Catholic families were earlier using the translation from Nidhiry Mani Kathanar version. Its not just Syrian Catholic families, Bible did not had denominations at least to certain level in Kerala earlier.

On what basis and judgment these new age icons of Westernization can replace the time honored old words with English names.

Dear NJ,

You have Nidhiry Mani Kathanar’s version right? Use it! It would be more of an honor to our tradition to use a Bible translated by the hand of that sage than to use one by a committee (the POC) anyways!

Was the Kathanar’s version from the Peshitto/Peshitta?

One note: the Peshitto and the Peshitta are the same book. The West Syriacs make the end “a” sound into an “o” sound.

I agree with your sentiments: I deplore the westernization that is happening in our churches. Even the Orthodox Church (a true “eastern” church) is dealing with this issue.

A smattering of history will do a lot of good. It opens the eyes to see things within a wider frame of vision. History is for the lessons history offer. Our forefathers struggled with the Portuguese, the colonial regimes like Padroado (Mr John Matthew please take note that they NEVER revolted against the Pope). The mighty resources and clout of the Portuguese could not accomplish things being accomplished these days with such ease, that too by the very sons of the church. Today the faithful are not concerned. Some ‘bulls in a china shop’ are wreaking havoc with our traditions and culture. The very name of the church is today “Syro-Malabar”, an English epithet conferred on the native church by Westerners.

POC translation is a tell-tale example of the shallow culture of the children of the church. We have chosen to trade our heritage like Esau. We received the Good News when much of Europe was barbarous. We got our liturgy in Our Lord’s own language. Yet many think that our ancient Christian names are derived from English!

In answer to Mr John Matthew:
1. You are echoing the views of some non-Catholic Syrian Christians and your views on this topic (i.e. POC bible) are not in context. The majority of Nazranis belong to the Catholic Syro-Malabar community where POC Bible has now become the only translation in use This translation is not made by “some missionary organisation for the ignorant converts” but by a joint commission of the three rites of the Catholic Church in India. How can we be complacent? There is now a Pshitta translation of the whole Bible published by Deepika Book House (translated by Dr Fr Matthew Uppani). This translation had the blessings of the senior prelates of the Syro-Malabar church and also by the other Catholic and non-Catholic communities including the Orthodox Catholicos. Yet that is not used by the church.
2. Your suggestion for everyone to read the Peshitta in Syriac is no solution. The issue at hand is the preservation of the tradition of the nazranis. You deplore Western cultural invasion yourself. Is it enough that you read the Peshitta yourself?
3. Peshitta is pronounced Peshitto in West Syriac. However East and West Syriac had not evolved into different dialects when Peshitta was translated. Peshitta is in Estrangela not Serta or Madnhaya. Pronunciations in East Syriac conform to the original.

Peshitta (Pshitta) is a precious source for translation. The Jews who returned from the Diaspora at Babylon were not well versed in Hebrew. Hence a “simple” translation in Aramaic, their language was made; the Peshitta. Later came the New Testament Peshitta. The New Testament books especially are better understood in Peshitta than in Greek. Our Lord read the Peshitta. There is even a theory that Peshitta New Testament was the original and not Greek.

I wanted to put my views across. So I wrote that letter to POC. I felt that I should write irrespective of whether it was taken seriously or not. I will only be happy if someone of erudition and capability takes this forward. I was delighted to receive a mail from Fr Cyrus Velamparambil, Secretary of the Kerala Bible Society stating that although the opinion of the fathers of the church was to retain the proper names as they were, he would forward the letter to them. Will someone who cares for the church take this forward? God bless us all.

Blessed be Lord Jesus Christ!

Hello Xavier,

Nice to see you back.
Let me share something with you all. The Marthoma Syrian Church – Calgary, has taken on rent space for a church from the Luthern Church of Calgary. This same Luthern Church has taken the same space from the Roman Catholic Church. Some reasonable rent and fees are paid. But my point is that it is wonderful to see 3 different churches worshipping in the same complex owned by the Roman Catholic Church.

At times I even see Egyptian Coptic Christians also worship there and even at times I see Ethopian Orthodox Christians there. Ofcourse, I go about telling everyone about us Nasranis and the Malabar Syrian Christians.

I see lots of Ethopian Orthodox Christians in Calgary. I am told that there may be some Falasha Christians in Calgary. I am trying to meet them. The Falashas are Ethopian Jews and some of them became followers of Yeshua. Many went back to Judaism and most are now in Israel on Aliya (return of Jews back to their homeland.)

I even met a native Aramaic speaking Chaldean Christian. He was also very happy to meet me, but he was displeased when I told him that I am hoping to keep Saturday as Sabbath. The smile left his face when he heard me say that. It was joyous to hear someone speak in Armaic. He was with his sister and they spoke in Aramaic with each other. Oh!! wonderful. I told him all the Syriac words I knew. He understood them all.

I meet Arab/Syrian Christians too. They all know of the strong presence of the Syrian Christians in Malabar. We in Malabar seems to be much more ‘religiously’ organized and ‘developed’ than those in the Middle East. This is only my opinion and I will accept correction.

Why don’t you also come to Calgary? We will have a ball here.

Dear Xavier,

0a. “They never revolted against the Pope”
Sure, believe that if you want: show me the sources for this “fact”. Our Church was never under the Pope until the Portuguese introduced that novelty. Yes, a large segment of our community (who lived on the coasts and were subject to Portuguese domination) fell under that novel idea. But those of us who were not at the mercy of Portuguese power (i.e., those of us who lived inland under better kings) didn’t fall for it, preferring to be either independent or under the (far-older and canonically Orthodox) Patriarchate of Antioch. Just because “most people” believe something doesn’t make it true or right. The majority of the East Syrians in the Middle East are under the Pope (the so-called “Chaldeans”). But is that “right”? The Church of the East was an independent, free Church, never subject to the Pope (since the heresy of Papal Primacy only occurred rather recently)—so those schismatics are nothing more than schismatics (majority or not).

0b. “Syro-Malabar … epithet … native church … westerners”.
Very good introduction of Catholic propaganda! “Native Church”? Please! The Syro-Malabar are *not* the original native church of the Kerala Christians. The only Church that can claim that distinction with any credibility is the Church of the East, which is independent of the Pope and follows the authentic, unpolluted East Syriac liturgy. And even they don’t maintain a direct link … since their history begins as schismatics of the Syro-Malabar which are schismatics of the original native church.

1. “The majority of Syrian Christians belong to the Syro-Malabar”
Maybe, but not so fast. I don’t think population stats are kept to such a good degree as to make such comparisons valid. But if you add up the non-Syro Malabar (i.e., the non-Catholic factions), you’ll probably get a larger number, judging by the (loose) figures I’ve seen. You probably could add up the Syro-Malankara schismatics with the Syro-Malabar and that would be on par with the sum of the Orthodox (Syriac/Malankara), Mar Thomite (though … I hate to include them, as they are Protestants…), MISC, and the COE.

But who cares? Population doesn’t mean much. The Syro-Malabar, apart from a minority who seem interested in recalling their pre-Roman history, are generally as Latin as the Latin Catholics (minus their use of old Syrian names). Especially the ones in the West who generally assimilate with their Roman brethren. One quarter of my family is from that Church and they are culturally different from mine — but very similar to Latins.

2. “Your suggestion for everyone to read the Peshitta in Syriac is no solution”
Why not? If the issue is preservation of history and not translation, then the best solution is for everyone to learn Syriac and read the originals. How better to preserve history than to bring it *alive*. Translations are bogus. If I want to read an English Bible, I don’t grab the English Peshitto (a translation of a translation), but I get the best English translation from ancient Hebrew an Greek sources.

If you want to read a Malayalam translation, then scholars (as opposed to Church partisans) should produce a real translation from the oldest sources available (which is not the Peshitta/Peshitto).

3. “You deplore the Western invasion”
I don’t really care about the Western invasion. If they didn’t come we’d still be rather backwards. I deplore the injection of partisan division into an old Church by the Roman Catholics and the Protestants.

Dear Xavier Kalangara

It was really a worth effort to bring this issue up and inform the people concerned that they cant get away from this.

It is also heartening to see that there are people who care about our traditions. Keep up the efforts.

Do update us about the further happenings. There are actually no logical reasoning to change the translation methodology for the 5th edition.

Dear Christostam Thirumeni, the Metropolitan of the Marthoma Church – Tiruvella, Kerala

An Open Letter

Please would you inform that the Marthoma Syrian Church is not a ‘Protestant Church’ but a Orthodox Syrian Church believed to be planted by St. Thomas.

I write this, as some people consider us ‘Protestants’ this hurts our identity. We did not partake in any Western schism.

I do in person agree that Prof. Abraham Malpan and others were influenced by the Reformation in the West but while doing so they were very serious in keeping our own heritage, traditions etc. They never were Protestants but Suriyani Kristianies. They role model was to follow first century Christianity as taught by St. Thomas himself. This is what I believe and now please tell me if you agree to this.

Dear John,

I know too well that Thirumeni can’t reply for various reasons. Anyway, I thought I must put this matter forward.

I did spent some time discussing with a knowledgeable freind about the ‘Protestant’ matter. He is a Marthomite too and spent his entire life in Tranvancore. He jiust came to Calgary. He is also of the much stronger opinion that Marthomites are not Protestants. They have much of the traditions and practices of the other sister orthodox churches. Only that the Marthomites have cut down on certain practises which the other sister orthodox churches follow.

To get a clearer picture of the Protestant mattter, you must compare the Marthomites with t he Kerala CSI. There is a sea of difference. I know that one Wikipedia article calls the Marthomites as Protestants. I have tried my best to erase that but I have failed. Some simply love to consider the Marthomites as Prostestants.

I will agree with you that before the Portugesse came, we were all under the Church of the East. I am even informed that our famous late Metropolitan Yohanan Thirumeni even acknowledged that we were once Nestorians. I do not have any ‘documentary’ proof of this. But I am advised of this by a reliable source knowledeable of our Church history.

Many of our church leaders are infuenced by the Upanishads and the Vedas. Does this make them Hindus? They are stil Syrian Christians but less dogmatic. The late Marthoma Metropolitan Alexander Thirumeni’s doctoral thesis was the ‘Bhagawat Gita’ and he was a practitioner of yoga until the end. Does this mean he was Hindu?

The Messainic Jews have beliefs close to the Marthomites. Does this mean that they are also Protestants? I think you have oversimplified and over generalized the issue of ‘Protestantism’ (My spelling and grammer are horrible, forgive me, Xavier will second this as he always commented on my poor English)

Try to read more about the Mennonites and the Nazerenes of Urimiah. They are people with no truck with the Protestants but yet they have beliefs similar to each other and with the Protestants.

Greatness lies in taking in the goodness from others but still retaining our identity. I admire the stand taken by the Roman Catholic church regarding abortion and divorce and gay marraiges (this does not mean that I am a advocate of all hetrosexual marraiges). Does this mean I am Catholic? There is today no other church who so daringly stands against the above issues. I salute the Catholic Church for this. There is so much of reformation going on inside this church.

Dear Xavier,

Commenting on the letter from you to my hotmail ac. I am not happy to see the downfall of the Anglican or the Catholic Churches.
As earlier stated by me, I believe that the biblical prophesy of the Olive Oil and the Candle represent the Hebrew Christians and the Gentile Christians (I am well aware that the usage of the word ‘Gentile Christians is offensive to Christians, but I use it here to make a certain point clear)
The only business of the Hebrew Christian, that is you and John and me is to serve the GEntile Christians. I further believe that leadership must pass from the Hebrew to the GEntile as far as Christianity goes. For it is always wonderful if the Shishu surpasses the Guru.

You and me are put on earth for this purpose. The Catholic and the Protestant churches are in grave danger. You and me have to serve them. Period. The Messainic Jews are also comming up, they seem strong but I bet they are in enormous stress for breaking up from the mainstream Judaism. I saw pictures of Jewish people heckling/physically threatening Messainic Jews in Israel. Even in Calgary no self respecting Jew (I presume) will have anything to do with their brothers the ‘Messainic Jew’. John will fully agree with this.

Hello everybody,
This site and forum is great for the cause of Nasranis. I feel at home with the very name ‘Nasrani’ though a Syro-Malabarian.

As a student of Theology (at age 52 !!) had chance to study our history, amazed to see us as the descendants of oldest Church. But worried lot seeing the divide as Southists & Northists.

THE MOST IMPORTANT TASK can be handled by this site is AWAKENING OF NASRANIES of the imminent danger of extinction.

WE are now at the crossroads: we are in a time when the NEGATIVE GROWTH regime is set in among Nasranis. Pls see the charts:

Table 1
Population of Kerala by Community, 1901 – 2001

Year Hindus Muslims Christians Total
1901 4378305 1119473 891767 6396262
1911 4762393 1263602 1101289 7147673
1921 5052039 1360180 1376354 7802127
1931 6021982 1624112 1856024 9507050
1941 6699600 1883786 2263888 11031541
1951 8344351 2374598 2825720 13549118
1961 10282568 3027639 3587365 16903715
1971 12683277 4162718 4494089 21347375
1981 14801347 5409687 5233865 25453680
1991 16668587 6788354 5621518 29098518
2001 18230104 7680140 5928552 31838796
2011 19458965 8466992 6129781 34055738
2021 20300505 9031043 6142344 35473892
2031 20245930 9216134 5891171 35353235

Table 2. Syrian Christian Population of Kerala-1901-2031*.

Total Kerala Christians Syrians Non-Syrians
1901 6396262 891767 672124 219643
1911 7147673 1101289 794690 306599
1921 7802127 1376354 950922 425432
1931 9507050 1856024 1227945 628079
1941 11031541 2263888 1434625 829263
1951 13549118 2825720 1715777 1109943
1961 1690371 3587365 2088563 1498802
1971 21347375 4494089 2509948 1984141
1981 25453680 5233865 2806398 2427467
1991 29074052 5620666 2920779 2699886
2001 31838796 5928552 3018272 2910279
2011 34055738 6129781 3021403 3108378
2021 35473892 6142344 3016089 3126254
2031 35353235 5891171 2850793 3040378

Though the year of Negative Growth predicted is 2021, this statistics are of about year 2000.

“By the beginning of the 21st century, the Syrian Christian community has more or less completed its demographic transition. Women are a majority now; they outnumber men. Children constitute less than 25 percent of the total population. The community has very low levels of mortality and fertility rates. It has high migration rate and high average age at marriage. Most Syrian Christian women have full control over when and how many children they would like to bear in their lifetime. The Syrian Christians are now spread out, not only all over India, but also all over the globe. In the coming decades, relatively stable conditions are expected to prevail in their basic demographic parameters- fertility and mortality rates. But the effect of the past trends (of fertility and mortality rate) would become very apparent on the size and structure of the population. There is a very strong possibility that the Syrian Christian community would enter the ZPG regime (Zero Population Growth) or NPG regime (Negative Population Growth) within a matter of a decade or two. With very low fertility and in-breeding habits the Syrian Christians could experience the “Parsi Syndrome”.

The percentage of negative growth must have already set in, given the fast paced demographic and socio-economic transitional habits of our community.

If somebody think “Oh, it is not so fast, or “Christ won’t allow this to happen” they are wrong. There are lot of examples where God punished many who commit sins knowingly. If the chosen Israel is not spared, how can we expect to be ?

This site can handle very serious responsibility towards warding off the imminent danger, if able to spark off a mass-movement of enlightenment of Nasrani community world over.

It is high time we put-off all divide: South-North, Syro-Latin- Malankara-Knanaya, Jacobite-Orthodox, Methran-Bava etc.

Also any quarrel over Liturgy, tradition, caste, race, Hierarchical power equations etc. are secondary to the gravity of danger.

If it has taken 1958 years for the Nasranis to reach the present level of growth, it may just take a few 100 years to have wiped off, given the negative path we have chosen!
Why?

Analise the great chasm of- cultural, ethical, economic, religious, theistic- divide between our immediate past and future generations!

Given it that WE stand at crossroads, aren’t we alone guilty for the extinction( if we do not avert it when we can) than any of the generations of Nasranis?

Well, Im sorry if some of my fellow Nasrani become offended, but doesn’t help , it is statistics!!

With great regards,
Sunny Alanoly

Dear Sunny Achayan,

You are older to me by 3 years, hence the ‘Achayan’ for let us keep our basic Nasrani traditions and then go for the ‘advanced’ ones like our Hebrew heritage, Nasrani cross etc..

I have repeatedly told people and keep on telling people that our present life style is not conducive for large families, unless, we move to farming/agriculture.

Many or most don’t seems to grasp it. They kind of think that if you are an engineer with ‘Reliance in Gujurat’ you can be a good Nasrani. IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Land is very expensive in Kerala and not many can afford land. But fortunately a lot of good land is still with the Nasranis. We can atleast stop the migration from the land to Mumbai, Calgary and Cochin in search of ‘stock exchanges, gas stoves and English convent schools’.

Let us start saving our money now and better still start making more money to buy land. You may not achieve it in this generation, but you can plan for the next generation to be farmers. It sounds so naive and weird, I do agree but this is the only solution to save the ‘Nasrani Way of Life’ from extinction.

With intelligence, you can make farming viable to live a reasonably independent and dignified life – nothing more. Independence and dignity are two most important things in a human’s life. Others come later. Do I need to tell you how the Jews are making the deserts to bloom in Israel?

We can’t fish without wetting our hands, so if we want large families, then we should move back to farming. Please tell me if I am wrong and tell me why?

I have got so far no response from anyone about this very important matter. Is it because it is ‘too long term’? If so, then the Nasrani should start developing a long range vision. There are no simple answers to difficult problems.

Third International Conference on the History of Early Christianity in India will be held in Amman, Jordan, from 13th – 16th September 2008. Should be interesting; please see below for details:
_________________________________________________________________
ICSCI-Con(3)/2007
30-4- 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

Greetings to you in the Most Precious Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am happy to inform you that the Third International Conference on the History of Early Christianity in India will be held in Amman, Jordan, from 13th – 16th September 2008. The main aim of the Conference is to bring together research scholars and theologians in one place in order to promote academic discussions and dialogues at length on various aspects of the history of early Christianity in India and the Middle East.

The First International Conference on early Christianity in India was held in New York in August 2005. More than one hundred scholars presented research papers in this international meet and it was a resounding success. This was followed by the Second International Conference on the same theme with an Asian perspective held in January 2007 in Chennai.

The Working Committee is very happy to invite you to participate and present a paper,if possible, on any one of the topics given in the enclosed brochure of the Conference. If necessary, you may kindly suggest any other new topic related to the Conference theme.

A post-conference tour in Jordan is arranged on 17th and 18th to visit the sacred spots mentioned in the Bible. A separate tour programme is arranged to visit the Holyland (Israel) and Egypt. If you wish, you may kindly express your consent to participate in the tour programme.

If you are willing to contribute paper, you may send your consent at the earliest. Herewith the registration form is enclosed. It is our great pleasure to have your participation in this unique event organized for His Glory.

I look forward to our kind co-operation in the successful hosting of this significant Conference.

Thanking you,

With warmest regards,
John Samuel.

______________________________________________________________________

Hello!
My name is Jaisy Joseph and I’m doing research on the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in the US…specifically, I am studying the interactions between culture and religion and the differences between first and second generation immigrants…I really need all the help I can get, so if you will click on the following link, it will take you to the questionnaire.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=KD8bQywXyipLHehoaoVOYw_3d_3d

in the process, you will be entered into a raffle for a chance to

WIN ONE OF TWO $50 AMERICAN EXPRESS GIFT CARDS!

the questionnaire is in 4 parts and should take 10-15 minutes to complete.
Also, you don’t have to be a full-time member of the church…if your family in India is Syro-Malabar and you know of a Syro-Malabar parish near you, then you are qualified to be a part of this study.

Thank you so much!
Jaisy Joseph

Let me mention a couple of issues.

I am a Nasrani by descent, my fathers and forefathers were all suriyani or syrian christian even when a few generations back our family joined CSI in Kottayam (Madyha Kerala). It strange though, I still see the Nasrani customs in the CSI churches there and in the diaspora, and my mothers family is Indian orthodox as is my fathers mother. I do believe Nasrani traditions should be incorporated in any indian church when they can. Since I have a for lack a better word a bi-denominational perspective, I wonder about what it means to be a Nasrani. One of my thoughts has been, as well as preserving our history and culture, shouldn’t we also our heritage also be open to all malayali christians, whether of Nasrani descent or not? Nasrani should be open to everyone who are the spiritual descendants and fruits of the Faith in Kerala, the seed planted by St. Thomas the apostle and is the heritage of Kerala and even all of India and Asia. The wisdom of Jesus comes to mind when he say the last shall be first and the first last, so that there is no distinction between one who is a christian for millenia or one that found Christ recently. My hope that whatever background a christian in Kerala comes from he is welcomed into the Nasrani fold as a brother or sister and we all find happiness in the eternal grace that is our Lord Jesus Christ.

Dear Chacko,

I disagree… Christians are Christians, and more importantly (to me at least), humans are humans — all deserve respect and there is no legitimate claim that any one caste/tribe/nation is better than another. I certainly don’t believe that Nasranis are superior to CSIs or Latins (although, I believe that our form of Christianity is more faithful to Christianity’s origins).

However, having said that, there is no need to dilute things. Nasranis represent a unique group, as do Hindus, Parsis, Muslims, Atheists, Latin Catholics, CSI converts, etc — however, they are all distinct. I don’t think there’s any need to confuse a Latin or a CSI with a Nasrani. It is a given that they are all Christians (to varying degrees of fidelity to the original Eastern origins of the faith) — why introduce an artificial inclusion (since Latins and CSIs—apart from the Nasrani converts—are not Nasranis by definition)?

Dear Chacko,
Nasranis are an ethnic group .To label other christians as Nasranis is a crime we are doing against them because it will vanish their culture and traditions .This is same like the Anglicans which has done to your forefathers in the past .

Dear Benny, John, Chacko,

Are we just an ethnic group ? If we are an ethnic group, whatever the different religious denominational attachments are, they all are in the same group. That means those in the CSI with nasrani ancestry and those in the latin church with nasrani ancestry all should be included in the term nasranis.

Again, people who do genetic analysis should confirm that nasranis are different from the rest of the Keralites, to call nasranis as a different ethnic group from the rest of Keralites.

If we consider us as an ethnic group, that means we are claiming that we are a caste. Then there should be a comparison with other castes and there can be superior castes and inferior castes in the Keralan community- which is not a good behavior in the modern era and also according to Christian thoughts..
Can we call it as a socio cultural heritage/tradition ? If that is the case, all those following the oriental /east syriac cultural practices only are nasranis. ( If someone goes into very strict terms, then, only those following the east Syrian luturgy and practices could only be called as nasranis.)Then, new converts to the Syrian churches should also be included in the definition of nasranis.
An individual church does not mean that all it’s members are of the same ethnicity/socio cultural background. Church of the east spread from middle east over to India and upto China. Weren’t all these different people, of different ethnicity/ socio cultural background ? The binding force in them was the liturgy and rituals & practices.
Arch Bishop Joseph Powathil of the Syro Malabar church wrote defending the position of Syro Malabar church in the Communion of catholic churches in India when some Latin Bishops accused that SMC is an ethnic group- “An Individual church is not a cultural grouping, but is the inheritor of a spiritual tradition, an Apostolic experience”.( Arch Bishop Joseph Powathil, Clarifications given to the Paper presented by Archbishop Henry D’Souza of Calcutta in the CBCI Meeting held in Tiruchirapalli from 4th to 14 January 1982. Christian Orient (March June 1982) 50-59. )

Should we call the “Nasrani” tradition as a spiritual / liturgical experience of Christianity in the Apostolic tradition ?

I guess the question is tricky … Nasranis seem to be Syrian Christians who descend from a particular group of people who existed (by many accounts) as a separate group pre-16th century.

I don’t think you can associate Nasranis as East Syriac Christians, because there was a schism in the 16th century in which many left the East Syriac rite — but they obviously retained their cultural practices and the oriental ethos.

I don’t think you can say that Nasrani = Syriac Christian (East and/or West) either, since one can convert to Syriac Christianity if one wishes. And one can leave Syriac Christianity for non-Syriac non-Eastern forms of Christianity but still retain the cultural practices of your ancestors.

But I guess this highlights something — Nasranis, nowadays, are hard to isolate. Given a Syrian Christian, one can’t say for certain that he is a Nasrani (i.e., descended from the original community) since his ancestors may be converts that came over the last 500 years. And vice versa (i.e., given a Latin or a CSI, one can’t say he isn’t descended from the original community). Compound that with the fact that intermarriages occur, and it isn’t clear at all!

So in light of this, I stand corrected. I guess Chacko has a point … since the term Nasrani has no clear meaning, and no definitive manner of judging inclusion or exclusion, why not call anyone who wants to be one a Nasrani?

If (like Anthony suggests) that Nasrani indicates some connection to Apostolic Christianity, then I guess Latins are in, since they are Catholics and hence are connected to an Apostolic Church. Of course, this means that Anglicans and Pentecostals, etc., are out. Then what about quasi-Protestants in Kerala (the Mar Thomites): some Nasrani practices on the one hand, but Protestant doctrines and attitudes on the other?

Finally … if we take the idea that Nasranis are the followers of pre-15th Kerala Christianity, then there are only 10,000 Nasranis in Kerala — the members of the Church of the East who are the only *full* inheritors of the original Church (i.e., no modifications to their rite, in communion with the original Patriarch-Catholicos of the East Syriac Church).

Dear John,

By my words “Christianity in the Apostolic tradition”, I meant the tradition of St Thomas the Apostle only. So, latin catholics, CSI etc would not be included in the umbrella word “Nasrani”. ( I know that certain Latin catholics in Alleppey- esp Thumboly use the term nasranis. The church at thumboly has been documented as one of the churches participated in the Synod of Udayampeeroor. But there are no Syrian catholics/ non catholic Syrian christians around there. I presume, they may be a group joined the latin church after the synod of Diamper )

My point was, Nasranis are a group of Christians who follow a spiritual and liturgical tradition of Apostolic Christianity of St. Thomas. Therefore, Mar Thomites should be included as they claim that they are Syrian Christians, they follow syriac liturgy even though they have some ideas of Protestant reformation, but nasrani decendants in CSI may not be in, as Church of South India would never claim that they are a Syrian Christian church (even though certain individual people want to claim as Syrian Christians), and they do not follow any liturgical spirituality of syriac christinity.

Your comments about Church of the east in Kerala. They were part of Syro Malabar, they were latinised, they were under Roman rule for at least 300 years, they were not interested in joining the Antiochian Christianity- they preferred Roman catholic side rather than Antiochian Christianity for 300 years. They used an opportunity to join the Chaldean church when Melus arrived. Melus was in communion with the Roman Pope. Because of the influence of the Portuguese, Melus was excommunicated by the Chaldean catholic church. ( later in his life, we can see him in the history joining the catholic church again). But the followers of Melus, in the flow of politics, got connection with one of the Chaldean churches not in communion with the pope. How can we call them that the real ancestors of pre diamper Nasranis ?

Nasranis are Semitic people mixed with Indians who came to follow The great Nasrayan through apostle St thomas .
Nasranis are also called as Mappilas in kerala
Mappila are semitic immigrants to kerala . there are also muslim and Juda mappila other than nasrani mappila
Other christian groups in kerala not use mappila with their name .
Nasrani mappilas are treated as an upper caste in kerala . So they have no reservation in govt sector
In christianity there is no case of upper or lower castes every human is equal
But god divided man into different races, languages and culture . and bible not ask christians to mix each other ( physically ) and become a single race .Bible stands for spiritual unity .

Dear Anthony:

Regardless of the manner in which the Church of the East in Kerala came about (i.e., that they descended from the Catholics of Kerala who followed the modified East Syriac rite), what makes them the more faithful descendants of the pre-Diamper Nasranis is that they *follow* the original faith, undistorted, which is something no one else in Kerala does.

If I (a Syriac Orthodox individual) were to leave my West Syriac Orthodox faith and join the Church of the East, would you say that my faith is not of the original pre-Diamper Church simply because I was previously a Jacobite? That makes no sense! There is no genetic component to religion. Yes, I may have previously been a Jacobite, but if I join the East Syriac COE then I’ve become an COE member. SImilarly, yes, the followers of Mellus may have originally been Chaldean Catholics — but *now* they are under the Patriarch Catholicos of the *original* Church of the East: *exactly* like their ancestors in the pre-Diamper Church. That they were previously “Syro-Malabar Catholics” is of no consequence: they’ve finally left that Church and have re-joined the Mother Church.

You write: “But the followers of Melus, in the flow of politics, got connection with one of the Chaldean churches not in communion with the pope”

What you’ve written is strange to me. What do you mean by a “Chaldean church not in communion with the pope”? The so-called Chaldean Christians in the Middle East are none other than members of the (non-Catholic) Church of the East that left their mother Church and submitted to the Pope over various political issues. There is no Chaldean Church that is not in communion with the Pope—the term “Chaldean” itself (as applied to a Christian Church) was invented by Roman Catholic missionaries in the Middle East when they helped introduce a schism over there.

Do you mean the Church of the East? The COE is not a Chaldean Church; it is the mother Church from which the Chaldeans (and the Syro-Malabar Church) sprung. But it was never under the Pope. (They were originally under the Patriarchate of the Antioch, until they split due to the Nestorian issue).

Clarification of my previous point:

I understand that the Church of the East in Kerala calls themselves the “Chaldean Church”. This of course is a misnomer that arose due to their connection with Mellus who was a Chaldean (i.e., an East Syriac rite Catholic). They may have inherited that name–in Kerala alone–but everywhere else in the world, the Church of the East (i.e., the original East Syriac Church, never under the Pope) is *not* known by the term Chaldean (they may use Assyrian, and sometimes Babylonian, but never Chaldean). In every other place–other than Kerala–Chaldeans refer only to Catholics who split from the Church of the East.

As an interesting side note, there are some members/clergy of the Kerala Church of the East that joined with the Orthodox Church in the 1950s during the period of unity under Mar Augen. They continued to use the East Syriac rite, with the permission of Catholicos Augen.

Curch of the east’s patriarcate is in Chicago !! Their current patriarch was consecrated in England!! They attend lambeth conference !! Are they the real inheritors of our mother church ?

The Church of the East was heavily persecuted: not only by the Ottomans and the Arabs, but also by Catholic missionaries (and Anglican ones) who induced schism after schism. This has resulted in their current sorry state.

But they are not mere inheritors: they *are* the mother Church. The pre-Diamper Church was part of the Church of the East, and the current Patriarch Denkha (located in Chicago) is the successor of the old Patriarchate in the East before it relocated due to persecution.

No need for the incredulity … the East Syriac rite comes from them. The East Syriac rite just didn’t drop into the laps of the Syro-Malabar Church spontaneously: the SMC is a schism from that very Church, which is how you got the rites you’re using which you have—to your credit—maintained somewhat faithfully (although not as faithfully as your brothers, the “Chaldeans” of Thrissur) despite your schism, and acceptance of a rival head (the Pope).

It is historically correct to say that the pre-Diamper Mar Thoma Nazranee Church was part of the Church of the East (in spite of what certain vested interests have been incessantly trying to establish, otherwise). The (Assyrian) Church of the East, is one of the oldest Apostolic Churches in Christendom and shares a common Apostolic heritage with the ancient Mar Thoma Nazranees.

The following facts are also noteworthy:
“The Assyrian Church of the East has not and does not use images/idols in their worship, but only the cross”.
“The Assyrian Church of the East has never used and until today does not (and most probably will not) use the term ‘theotokos’ (i.e. Mother of God). The term sanctioned and approved by the Church is ‘Christokos’ or Mother of Christ”.

It is also noteworthy to mention:

1. No Christians use/worship “idols”. The images/statues used in the Orthodox/Catholic Churches are not worshipped. Moreover, they stem from artistic schools that developed after the “Nestorian” schism that separated the COE from the rest of Orthodoxy, and not from any vital difference of opinion between the COE and the rest.

2a. The different terminology regarding St. Mary is not due to any de-emphasis being placed on St. Mary and her importance. It is due to their different Christological formulation, which leads them to identify a separate human and divine nature in Jesus. Hence, they view Mary as the mother of the human part of Jesus. Whereas the Orthodox and Catholics have a differing formulation in which the human and divine are more closely “unified” which leads them to view Mary, being the mother of Jesus (both human and divine), as being the Mother of God (i.e., not as the progenitor of God at the beginning, but that of Jesus, who was God).

2b. Regardless of their different terminology regarding St. Mary, the fact remains that the COE’s reverence for Mary and the saints is no less than that of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches (ref: Sebastian Brock in his forward to Mar Jacob of Serug’s ancient book of poetry venerating St. Mary).

Dear John,

The history of the church of the east seems to be very complicated. By rejecting the resolutions of the council of Ephesus, church of the east was separated from the universal church. (Nestorian schism). There were pro Nestorians and anti Nestorians, but the Persian kings supported the Nestorians; they executed the pro-Roman Catholicos Babowai who was then replaced by the Nestorian Bishop of Nisbis, Bar Sauma (484). They shifted the school of Edessa to the Persian city of Nisbis. Bar Sauma was a Bishop of Nisbis and Babowai was the catholocos. With the help of Persian kings, Bar Sauma revolted with the catholicose and removed him and became the catholicose. In 484, Babowai was killed.
Later, the wars between byzantine and Persian empires changed the political situation and Assyrian church of the east lost many of its people to monophysites and became weak. They were not allowed to choose a new catholicose. Their theological tradition was undermined by henana. (The founders of Assyrian theology were Diodorus of tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia) Babai the great(551-628) and archdeacon mar Aba worked hard to revive the legacy of Theodore and established schools to defeat the monophysites and Origenist Henana, and developed the systematic Assyrian Christology. He taught that the two qnome (essence) are unmingled but everlastingly united in the one parsopa (personality) of Christ.

This situation continued until 15 th century when there was a split in the church, on the practice of hereditary succession of Patriarchs. Mar Shimun IV was the traditional patriarch and a rival patriarch Mar yohannan Soulaga VIII was elected in 1552. Then there were two patriarchates- traditional one at Alghosh and the rival one at Diyarbakir. This rival patriarch entered in communion with the Pope of Rome. In 1662, the Pro Roman patriarch in Diyarbakir Mar Shimon XIII Denha broke ties with the Pope of Rome and resumed relations with the Alghosh line and moved the seat to Qochanis in the Turkish mountains. Rome appointed another Patriarch at Diyarbakir and they continued in communion with Rome.( Chaldean catholic church)
In 1804, the Patriarch at Alghosh died and the hierarchy accepted the patriarchate at Diyarbakir. But the patriarch at Qochanis remained independent and continued as Assyrian church of the east.

Now, which group is the legitimate east Syrian church /mother church??

In 1964 another split occurred in the Qochanis line when Mar Thoma Darmo revolted against Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII on hereditary succession issue. Later, Mar Eshai Shimun got married in 1973 as there was nothing in the canon law of the Church of the east prohibiting the patriarch from marrying. He resigned but was asked to continue. Later he was assassinated in 1975 and Mar Dinkha IV was elected as his successor and he announced permanent end of hereditary succession. Mar Thoma Darmo line is now called as Ancient Church of the east and their patriarch is Mar Addai II.

It seems that the legitimate line of the Church of the east is Addai –Mari- Theodore- Babai the great- Alghosh line of patriarchs, who in 1804 joined the Diyabakir line of Chaldean Catholics. The Qochanis line is a rival faction in 1552 that broke away from the original line and joined with the Pope of Rome and later made ties with the alghosh line but remained as a parallel line in between catholic Diyarbakir line and the traditional alghosh line. The only qualification of the Quochanis line is that they oppose the Pope of Rome.

Christotokos was the idea of Nestorius, not of Theodore. By the time of Babai the great, they returned back to Theodore’s ideas. Currently, the Assyrian church accepts the term mother of god. According the Chaldean Catholic Church’s website, Assyrian church of the east does not use any icons because of the persecution -“they eschew all representational art in their churches, possibly under the negative influence of Islam”.

It should be noted that the last east Syrian bishops were Chaldeans, that means, church of St Thomas had connections to the Chaldean line in the immediate pre diamper period. Probably that was why, the Portuguese could take control of the St Thomas Christians and organise the synod of Diamper.
(Ref. Wikipaedia, website of the assyrian church of the east etc)

Dear Antony:

Ah but that’s the question: which one is the true Church?

There are currently many Churches that feel they are continuous with the original Apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholics feel they are, but the Eastern Orthodox would disagree due to the additions made by the Catholics in subsequent councils, rejected by the Orthodox as heterodox (e.g., the Filoque clause, Papal supremacy, etc.). A recently departed bishop of the Eastern Orthodox was quite (in)famous for his statement that the Roman Catholics were the first Protestants: i.e., the first to leave the Apostolic (Orthodox) Church into heresy.

The Eastern Orthodox position, similarly, would be rejected by the Oriental Orthodox who view all councils past Ephesus as being non-canonical and erroneous, straying from the teachings of St. Cyril (whom the Oriental Orthodox follow, more rigorously than either the RC or EO Church). The Church of the East would beg to disagree, claiming that Ephesus is wrong.

And we can’t complete the discussion without the most absurd claim: that of the Protestants who feel they, in some weird twist of the linear order of time, are the original Apostolic Church. Please try to contain your laughter!

Now, you claim that the Chaldean schism of the 15th century is the “true” East Syriac Church because they came in communion with the RC Church. That is because it seems you are a RC and you follow that Church’s teachings and dogma. I don’t. But, at the same time, I am not comfortable to say that my Orthodox Church is “universal” either, because I feel that the concept of “universality” is too subjective and not rigorously provable (i.e., do we really know the percentage constituency of God or Jesus in a scientific, rigorous manner? I don’t think so, but perhaps that’s because I’m a scientist.). So I am not going to take that route and say that “my Church says this” because I know no one else would accept it.

My point is merely this: the East Syriac rite was developed by precisely those “Nestorians” who split at Ephesus and created the largest Christian Church the ancient/medieval world knew, spanning from Cyprus to China. (Yes, it’s nice to claim that Addai and Mari wrote the liturgy, just like it’s nice to claim that St. James wrote mine. But anyone with even a shred of a scientific attitude knows that these beliefs are just beliefs, not provable). The Patriarchate of that line—the original line—continues to this day to Mar Denkha.

The Chaldean Church was a union with the Roman Catholic Church, which only came around recently (15th century) — in doing so, they diverged from the Church which had been independent of Rome for a millenia or so, introducing modification that had developed solely in the Western Church. To say that this line (the East Syriac Catholic line) is the “authentic” line is a stretch: they were clearly out of communion with the Assyrian Church of ancient times which was out of communion with Rome.

There was a thriving Eastern non-Nestorian Church—that was the Jacobite Church of the East, which was subject to the Catholicos of the East (Bar Hebraeus, etc.) which also claimed origin from St. Thomas. They were severely persecuted by the Persians at the instigation of the Church of the East. I don’t know of any ancient Eastern Church directly under Rome — I doubt it, especially since the Syriac East was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch and not the Patriarch of Rome. Please enlighten me if you have better info.

I’m simply arguing from history; I like to give proper credit where credit is due. The “heretical” Nestorians were responsible for the East Syriac rite, and the huge expansive growth of their Church: the people who brought Syriac Christianity to Kerala were not Chaldeans or Roman Catholics, but “Nestorians”—i.e., bonafide Church of the East members. To say anything else is misappropriating credit to the wrong source. And the Church of the East (i.e., a Church in continuity with the Church of Timothy the Great) is still living and continues with the Patriarchate of Mar Denkha—who, unlike the Chaldean patriarch, maintains the original rites, practices and teachings of his Church.

Yes, there were Chaldeans who came to Kerala in the pre-Diamper years. But for several centuries before they existed, we had Nestorians coming over.

(It’s useful to remember that, according to the old Tetrarchy/Pentarchy, the Church of the East was originally subject to the Patriarch of Antioch, and not Rome. (Of course, up to Ephesus, Antioch and Rome were in communion with one another.) Yes, Rome had primacy of honor in ancient times due to the political power of the Roman Empire, but never had authority over any other Patriarch. The idea that Rome had ecclesiastical authority over other Patriarchs began only after the East/West schism in 1054: i.e., it was never a teaching of the ecumenical councils. It was promptly rejected by everyone at that council, other than Rome.)

If we are interested in Syriac Christianity (being Nasranis) we should hold some respect, at least, for those Churches that maintained the old rites that formed the basis of Syriac Christianity. That is, the Church of the East (if you are East Syriac) and the Jacobites (if you are West Syriac), which are the only two truly independent Syriac Churches. All other Syriac Churches were formed due to interference from other sources, reducing the autonomy of once proud Churches. The oldest fathers of Christianity were Hebrew, Coptic, and Syriac. Next came the Greek fathers. And finally, much later, came the Roman/Latin fathers. To claim that Rome—a latecomer to Christianity—ought to have preeminence over the old Eastern Churches is somewhat disrespectful (or, at least, displays ignorance) of the Semitic origins of Christianity. That’s why, though I respect the RC Church, I can’t accept their claims of ecclesiastical primacy nor their claims of doctrinal purity, when there are plenty of living Churches that come from far higher-fidelity *Eastern* sources.

Dear John,

“Now, you claim that the Chaldean schism of the 15th century is the “true” East Syriac Church because they came in communion with the RC Church.”

No. Please read my posting. I said, the Alghosh line of patriarchs was the legitimate line, but they accepted the Diyarbakir line (Chaldean Catholic) when their last patriarch died. On the other hand, the Qochanis line is a schism(1662) from the Diyarbakir line which was in communion with the Roman Pope from 1552 .These schismatic’s did not chose to join the original Alghosh line but decided to continue as a parallel line. Mar Dinkha IV is the current Patriarch of that line.
How can they be the legitimate line? Only because they are the only line that opposes the Roman Catholics?

“…the people who brought Syriac Christianity to Kerala were not Chaldeans or Roman Catholics, but “Nestorians”—i.e., bonafide Church of the East members.”
The reason is, the Chaldean church was part of the so called Nestorian/church of the east at that time.

“Yes, there were Chaldeans who came to Kerala in the pre-Diamper years. But for several centuries before they existed, we had Nestorians coming over.”
We understand that the Chaldean Catholics were evolved from the Nestorians/Church of the east. (Church of the east would not accept that they are Nestorians. I think, From Mar Babai the great, Chruch of the east shredded off their Nestorian identity. I think their old rivals, the Roman Catholics and the Antiochians are accusing them as Nestorians, for obvious reasons.). The last East Syrian Bishops were Chaldeans. Therefore, would it be possible that our forefathers (Nasr anis) chose to tie with the Chaldean line rather than the Qochanis line during this evolution? Did we have Qochanis line of Bishops in Kerala at anytime?

“…I feel that the concept of “universality” is too subjective and not rigorously provable”
Universality is proved by the fact that the universal catholic church is a communion of several eastern and western churches. No other Patriarchates of the old tetrarchy or pentarchy can claim that communion. Antiochian church did not bother to take the Puthencoor Nasr anis as a church in communion with them; instead, they converted them to the Antiochian rite. But the Roman Catholics accepted the Pazhayacoor as a church in communion rather than converting them to Latin rite. All the eastern churches in communion with Rome are examples of this.

My comments are based on the information I got from various resources. I am not an expert in this field. Please enlighten me.
Could you provide more information about the Jacobite church of the east?

Dear Antony:

Your reasoning about the various “lines” of East Syriac Patriarchs seems to bring genetics and lineage into the discussion of Patriarchs. I feel this is one of the major problems that plagued the Church of the East — and resulted in the original schism of the Chaldeans from the non-Ephesian (let’s not use Nestorian, since they don’t like that inaccurate label) original line.

Mar Denkha and the Church of the East are the philosophical descendants of the original non-Ephesian Church. When the Alghosh line came to an end, they accepted the Chaldean Patriarchs — this means that *they* became Catholics. It does not mean that their successors retained any legitimate claim to the COE leadership, who were non-Catholic. The Church of the East followed very specific doctrines, and did not accept the council of Ephesus—that brought them *out* of communion with the EO, OO, and RC Churches. So if one of their leaders accepted the council of Ephesus (by joining the RC) then they are *no longer* in communion with the COE, but a schism.

What I’m saying is that the only Church in existence that maintains full continuity with the original East Syriac Church is the Church of the East. The other East Syriac lines may use the rites — but they do *not* maintain continuity with the non-Ephesian beliefs of the original East Syriac Church. The Chaldeans and the Syro-Malabar, by entering into communion with the Roman Church, accept all councils after and including Ephesus: this is not what the original East Syriac Church followed.

Re: universality. The Roman Catholic Church, prior to Vatican II was not so liberal in their attitudes towards the other rites! The heavy Latinization that *all* Eastern rite Churches had to suffer through are a testament to this. Even the Maronites, who are really the only ancient Eastern Catholic Church (i.e., they have an ancient heritage putting them in communion with Rome back to the 7th century) that didn’t cross over due to missionary/political interference, suffered due to Latinization of their rites—so much so, that in attempting to revert back to their original practices, they have to refer to the Jacobite texts to help them reconstruct their purely-Eastern rites.

Moreover, the Eastern Churches that have entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church have had to go through and have their books revised by Roman authorities to ensure that they are in communion with the Roman Church. They did not just spontaneously emerge as Churches in
communion with Rome! A central authority was required to bring them in line: this is forced universality if anything.

The Orthodox Churches claim to be universal, and I find their claim to be far more palatable than that of the Roman Catholic Church, due to the emphasis that the Orthodox Churches place on autonomy of the individual Churches. So within the Oriental Orthodox fold, each Church is independent, and follows their own creeds and practices. The Malankara Orthodox Church, due to historical reasons, follows the West Syriac rites. Of course, until the 19th century, the antecedents of the Orthodox Church in Kerala did follow a weird mixture of Roman, East Syriac and West Syriac rites — the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs didn’t immediately force a foreign rite on the Kerala Orthodox. (When Protestant missionaries started messing around with the Orthodox faithful in Kerala during the 19th century, the leaders of the Orthodox in Kerala asked the Patriarch for Malpans and bishops to help counter the heresy — and this led to the wholesale migration towards the West Syriac rite—the Antiochians obviously have no Malpans to assist with the East Syriac rite.)

It should be noted that when several East Syriac priests joined the Orthodox Church in the 1950s, they were permitted to retain the use of the East Syriac rite.

The Eastern Orthodox similarly have a very universal attitude — every one of their Churches are different, but remain in communion of their own accord. There is, as per the canons of the first councils, *no* central authority that maintains the communion (the Patriarch of Constantinople has only primacy of honor, no other authority): each Church strives to maintain adherence to the Orthodox faith. And when one strays (e.g., joins the Catholic Church, Protestant Church, etc) they are *out* of communion.

I`m personally looking for more info on the Jacobite Church in the East. Basically all I know is this: the Catholicate of Thomas-Addai-Mari-etc. eventually entered into schism and became non-Ephesian (this line continues to Mar Denkha). Orthodox claimants to the Catholicate were executed by the Persians at the instigation of the non-Ephesians. So the Orthodox lineage of the Catholicate lay dormant for a few centuries. Eventually, to satisfy the needs of the Christians in the Persian East who were still pro-Ephesian (and living!), an Orthodox Catholicate was revived by Jacob Baradeus. This Orthodox Church of the East lived as a parallel Church in the Persian East; their Catholicos resided in Mosul. I have no further details on this Church as they have not been treated adequately by history books! All I know: is Bar Hebraeus was one of their Catholicoses; two of their Catholcoses also came to Kerala in the 18/19th centuries and were buried their (Baselios Yeldo, Baselios Shakrullah); the Catholicate was reabsorbed into the Patriarchate in the 19th century due to the extremely low population of Orthodox in the East; the Malankara Orthodox Church claims continuity with this part of the Syriac Orthodox Church. But I don’t know much else.

Dear John,
My reasoning is simple. I said, Mar Dinkha and the current Assyrian church of the east-Qochanis lineage- is not the legitimate descendants of the Church of the east. The reason is they had lost their inheritance by joining the catholic fold by a schism in 1552. (what were the modifications they had undergone??) By another schism, they got separated from the catholic fold in 1662. It was a split and one faction continued in catholic fold keeping the chair of Diyarbakir and the schismatics, if they were returning to the CoE heritance (that means reverting the original schism by which they got communion with the Pope of Rome), they could have joined the Alghosh line, instead they remained a separate line. (If you argue that the Chaldean Catholics were formed only in 1552, the same argument applies to Mar Denkha lineage- the Qochanis lineage was originated in 1662 only)
The Alghosh line joined catholic fold not by a schism, but by a decision of the church hierarchy.

They did not become Roman Catholics. Instead, they retained their liturgy and practices and went in communion with another apostolic church established by St Peter. How can they lose their inheritance of the east Syrian church? It should be noted that even though they were under the patriarchate of Antioch in the past, they had declared independence and declared as an independent patriarchate in AD 498. On another occasion, the church hierarchy decided to enter in to the communion of the patriarchate of Rome. That does not mean that by doing that, the church of the east came to an end.

Autonomy does not mean that it is a separate church. It is decentralization. The so called communion of orthodox churches, all the constituent churches follows the same liturgy, then how can we call them as communion of separate churches? It is a single church with a decentralized authority!! (BTW, if that was the case, why the IOC does not want to be a part of it?)

People are changing. This is not AD 431. You cannot insist that every church should stick on to their principles of their ancient period in order to qualify for their legitimacy. After the Council of Ephesus, church of the east entered into Nesorianism. By AD 604, under the leadership of Babai the Great, the CoE got rid of their Nestorian principles. If your argument is correct, nobody can claim the inheritance of the CoE.
Even Roman Catholic Church has changed significantly after Vatican Councils. Antiochian church also might have changed. The St James liturgy was modified by the Greek. So, no church is sticking to its past. They are correcting themselves and changing.

Traditions and spiritual attitudes of an individual church are manifested by its liturgy. Liturgy of Addai and Mari is the hall mark of the church of the east. All these groups are using the same liturgy. There may be some modifications. You may know that in the liturgy of Addai and Mari, you cannot find the words of institution – this is my body…..this is my blood…- Adding the words of institution was one of the modifications of the synod of Diamper. Now, the RC church has accepted the liturgy of Addai and Mari without the words of institution. Does that mean that the current RC has lost its principles?? I do not know whether the asyyrian Church uses the words of institution.

Dear Antony:

You seem to be essentially saying that the leadership of the COE must have a certain genetic profile, that there is some sort of familial/tribal lineage that qualifies one to the Patriarchate. I don’t agree. The issue of hereditary succession in the Church of the East was a controversial one in that Church that plagued it and was responsible for several of their schisms. In fact, I *agree* with the political reasons for the formation of the Chaldean Church—they seemed to be unhappy with hereditary succession and so split: I would too. I just disagree with their acceptance of a foreign prelate to be their leader, and their entrance into communion with a Western Church. The East Syriac Church has a proud history, and I don’t see any reason for them to accept the supremacy of a Western Pope, whose faith, traditions and canons are far younger. I apply this to all Eastern-rite Churches: I fail to understand why one would cast of the old (i.e., Orthodox ways) in favor of the new (i.e., Catholic ways), since when it comes to a revealed religion, in my opinion, one ought to strive to maintain the *original* ways.

But if you agree with hereditary succession in the Church of the East, then do you agree with hereditary succession in our Church? If so, do you accept only members of the Pakallomattam family as your ecclesiastical leaders? Moreover, it was Thomas Pakallomattam (Mar Thoma I) who was the legitimate heir to the position of Archdeacon back in the 16th century, with De Campo not having any legitimate status to that office. Do you then believe that the Orthodox Church in Kerala is the legitimate descendant of the original Nasrani Church, since their leaders were (regardless of rite) the heirs of the Archdeaconate?

I don’t! I have a strong distaste for introducing a hereditary component into the ecclesiastical leadership and am happy to see that the Orthodox Church in Kerala cast of the old hereditary succession (note: in some ways the Mar Thoma Church formed because some members of Pakallomattam wanted to regain their old glory. So I ask again: do you think that the Mar Thoma Church’s adoption of Protestant heresy is legitimatized by the fact that many of their leaders are Pakallomattam?).

Patriarchs and Popes ought to (like in the majority of Churches) be decided on based on merit and adherence to the doctrines of the Church, and not familial connection.

The bishops who entered into communion with Rome did so for whatever reason. That’s fine, and they had a large flock of people who followed them: people ought to do as they wish. But there were bishops in the COE who decided that they wanted to fully maintain continuity with the old ways, retaining their independence of other Patriarchates (as was their right) — those are the authentic heirs of the Church of the East, by definition. The Church of the East lives on most fully through the Church of the East which still exists today.

Regarding the communion of Orthodox Churches (no reason for the “so-called” terminology; the Churches are in full communion with each other—*and* I stress, are far more ancient than the RC Church). The Oriental Orthodox Churches don’t all use the same liturgy. The Coptic use St. Mark. the Syriac use St. James, the Armenians have their own hybridized liturgy (incorporating Syriac, Greek and even Latin forms). Moreover, there are hundreds of liturgies that individual parishes may chose to use at the discretion of the priest (e.g., for various feast days, or for other reasons). The IOC is a part of the communion of Oriental Orthodox Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox may all use the same Byzantine Liturgy; this is no different from the RC’s use of a common Latin rite in general. The presence of different rites in the modern RC Church is only due to its absorption (via missionary interference) of other, originally Orthodox/Eastern, Churches. It is not because the RC Church started out as a communion of different Churches — it most certainly did *not*. For over a millenia, the RC Church was a monolithic entity with no different “rites”, apart for the various European rites they had. There were no “Eastern” rites in the Catholic Church until the Crusades and subsequently the European “Age of Discovery” where they started to travel to different parts of the world and assert their will on formerly independent Orthodox Churches.

You write: “People are changing. This is not AD 431. You cannot insist that every church should stick on to their principles of their ancient period in order to qualify for their legitimacy.”

Yes, I can! I’m Orthodox and so do not believe in changing the faith. What you’ve written opens the door to Protestantism. If you believe in change with respect to the faith, doctrines and canons of the Church, then you have no defense against Protestantism. An Eastern Orthodox Church bishop is famous for expressing this sentiment (“The RC are the first Protestants”) — and I agree with it.

I don’t believe in change. I believe that, given a particular Church, the “authentic” version is the version that adheres to the original ways. So with the West Syriac Church, it is the Syriac Orthodox Church that maintains the old (and the Syriac Catholics, Maronites, etc., are schisms from that source). With the East Syriac Church, it is the Church of the East that maintains the old (and the Chaldeans, etc., are schisms). With the Byzantine Church it is the Orthodox Church (with the various “Greek Catholic” / “Melkite” Churches being schisms). And of course with the Western Church it is the Roman Catholic (with the Protestants in schism). Now, as for Christianity as a whole, that’s another issue, and I won’t comment here since my position is biased by Orthodoxy and it’s greater historical antiquity; others would not accept this and would claim differently (so there’s no point in my making a controversial statement).

At any rate, there’s probably little point in continuing this debate. Since I reject that “lineage” has anything to do with legitimatizing a Patriarch and you don’t, and both points are mutually irreconcilable.

Sorry John,

Please read my post well and then comment. You are misinterpreting my comments. I have never argued that mar Dinkha lineage is not a legitimate lineage because they do not have genetic/familial heritage. You are just jumping into conclusions.

Well Antony, perhaps I was mistaken in my reading of your post — your use of terms like “lineage” did not help.

You are claiming that the authentic heirs of the CoE are those members who agreed with the decision of *some* hierarchy (i.e., the Alghosh “line”) to join the Catholic fold. I’m saying that the authentic heirs of the CoE are those who continue to follow the original dogma, rites, etc., without a shred of modification: i.e., no acceptance of the filoque, no acceptance of post-Constantinople councils, no anathemization of Nestorios or Theodore, no acceptance of Papal supremacy, etc. Are you saying that the Church of the Alghosh line is 100% identical to the pre-schism Church? Do they still use the Anaphora of Nestorios? No Filoque? Please; of course, they had to modify themselves in order to get in communion. The Alghosh line is a schism from the CoE, regardless of what the hierarchy decided (in this case, they all decided to split—doesn’t change the fact that they *split*).

But again, regardless of my mis-interpretation of your convoluted argument, the fact remains that our perspectives are irreconcilable.

You have a lax attitude when the hierarchy of a Church decides to leave their original independent status and enter into communion with Rome, e.g., your statement:
“The Alghosh line joined catholic fold not by a schism, but by a decision of the church hierarchy.”

Ok, fine, if that’s your perspective, do you have a similarly lax attitude when the hierarchy decides to reject Rome en masse? By your reasoning, the Anglican Church is a valid Church because their Church formed when their hierarchy rejected Rome. Do you concur?

Who cares about what the hierarchy of a Church decides: there are plenty of examples of Church leaders making poor or self-interested decisions/mistakes. Those members who joined the Catholics (or the Protestants, or whatever) *left* their original faith. For example, the Syro-Malankara may use the West Syriac rites, but in entering into communion with the RC Church—and thereby accepting their canons and dogma—they have left the original West Syriac *Orthodox* faith, regardless of rite. The same argument applies to *all* Churches that united with Rome due to missionary or other interference: they left their original Churches. Now that’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that: but they should stop pretending as if they were the “original” Church (e.g., the absurd claims by the Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, the Maronite Patriarch, and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria, and so on and so on throughout the East). Entering into communion with Rome is not just a simple switch. You make it seem like the Chaldeans just switched heads. That’s incorrect: they introduced all sorts of dogma and practices into their faith that the original CoE never had.

Dear John Mathew

There is a view that comes out strongly in your comments. It would be something like this:

‘As long as a church is in communion with Rome it loses its claim to be the true inheritor of the ancient church, irrespective of lineage or anything else for that matter. But if the church changes its communion and attaches itself to another oriental church (like say the Antiochean communion), its claim to lineage is valid!’

One cannot help noticing the strong antipathy you have towards anything Roman or Catholic. This idea is evident not only in these present comments but also in several views of yours earlier. According to you, as long as the COE is independent of Rome no matter what their history, their claim to the original lineage is valid! You make the Catholic faith far removed from the Orthodox faith which is also not true. Your views on history reflect the typical view non-catholic eastern churches of Kerala in attributing all that the Portuguese did to Nazranis as having been dictated by the Pope/Catholic Church. We Eastern Catholics make a very clear distinction between the Latin Church and the Papacy. You can see that it was the Pope and the Sacred Congregations that have come to the rescue of the Eastern Churches from the Portuguese on several occasions. It is again Rome that is vigilant in protecting the legacy of the Eastern Catholic churches.

Whilst it may be true that the in the first centuries Eastern Churches were more autonomous they at the same time acknowledged the supremacy of Rome. “Autonomy” is not “Independence”. Today’s centralised administration was not possible in those days. The pre-Diamper church of India owed its allegiance to the Pope although they were not ruled directly by the Pope (even Chaldean bishops did not ‘rule’ them). There were several reference to the supremacy of the Pope in the Babylonian Church. For instance Niceno-Arabic canon accepted by the Persian Church acknowledged that Pope had authority over other Patriarchs. It was impossible for the church to be in full communion with Pope. The arch rivals Roman and Persian empires would never allow anything of the sort. Later Patriarch Mar Abdiso who succeeded Mar Sulaqa participated in the Council of Trent. He was the one who sent Mar Joseph (1558-69), a saintly and learned bishop to Kerala. All the bishops post Sulaqa episode were also Catholic. How can you justify your churche’s position that Catholicism was imposed on us by the Portuguese based on historical evidence?

Jesus wouldn’t leave his church to the without a central authority. No organization neither human nor divine is possible without a central authority. In Matthew 16:13 Jesus clearly appoints Peter as the head of the church and vouchsafes divine protection from the gates of hell. In John 21:15 Jesus asks Peter to “Feed my sheep”. The entire Christendom is moving towards unity under the Pope. If one is to take your points of argument, your church wouldn’t need the authority of the Patriarch or the Catholicose to protect you from errors or govern your church. One does not need keen observation to see the plight of churches that have moved away from the Catholic fold. We have a multitude of splinter groups today. While the Protestants have disintegrated into uncountable sects including independent churches centred around charismatic leaders, each interpreting the Holy Bible in his own way, Oriental churches are seeing alarming dwindling of their flock, dissention and vertical splits.

If the individual Churches came together at Ecumenical Councils at the beginning of Christianity shouldn’t they at least come together even today?

Dear all,

WHO IS A NASRANI ?

When we dig to find who is Nasrani or who else are Nasranis based on “original faith” and Orthodox faith etc. aren’t we on a wrong path?

Isnt it better & correct defining “One who believe and practice Christ’s ideals can be a Nasrani” ? -because it nourishes justice, idealism, unity and importantly Christ-wardness.

1. How can West Syrian faith better than Catholic or vice versa, more than just claims ?
2. How is Antiochian Church is better than Roman/Catholic, rather than dates of origin ? Is it pre-St. Thomas (pre-Apostle) ?
3. Is there any Church that is altruistic or infallible for that matter the Pope infallible ? (Pope need to be infallible on liturgical matters as supreme authority to avoid splits, politically he is not, he cannot).
4. If we set a date or ancestral lineage as yardstick, then we will have to admit Muslims too are Nasranis !! (In Kerala many of Muslims are Thomas Christian (Nasrani) converts, whose lineage could originate from Jews.

Isn’t it wise and just to accept “One who believe & practice Nasrani cherished values” is Nasrani” rather than one of “Oriental’ or West Syriac Orthodox etc.?

Isn’t such demarcation the reason of splits, divide, fight and wither in Christianity ?

What is big issue of Mary ‘Christ-the-man’s mother’ or ‘Christ-the-God’s’ mother if one accepts Christ as Man and God ? (Think of killing each other on such comparatively trivial issues !!)
If we decide ancestry the yardstick we extinct much faster; if decide and accept one who believe and practice we will grow and avert the disaster of extinction.

Hi Sunny ,

Haaretz
A certain scenario as per what being rigid to dates and less rigid to humanity can do for a community
is given in the article above

Sunny,

I am in total agreement with what you said. This is the solution I think, for the present crisis of syrian christians/nasranis as mentioned in the article of the demography of Nasranis. The population and fertility decline could be averted if we make Nasrani a spiritual designation in that we all are followers of Christ why at the same time acknowledging the history and recognizing the previous genetics of the community.

This will reinvigorate a community with new blood and cut away some of the negativiities that have been associated with the community (past casteism, elitism, etc). We are all Nasranis in Christ, whether descended physically or descended spiritually. That is my personal feelings, please no one take offense at my opinions.

Letter to the Synod of the Syro Malabar Church from ‘The Nazrani’

http://thenazrani.org/Synod%20Fathers.htm

“The problems of Marthoma Nazranis began with the arrival of foreign colonialists. They are gone. But their by-products (latinised Bishops and Priests) create trouble now. Today’s problems are the creation of past four hundred years. Our forefathers struggled hard to preserve our identity. But today, many try to destroy our faith, our identity, our Indianised Syriac Christian spirituality, our Church itself. Whatever His Eminence, Cardinal Tisserant and Rev Fr Placid Podipara had restored after laborious study and research is being systematically destroyed by the hierarchy of this Church today.

To conclude, our East Syriac liturgy is a treasure which ought not to succumb to compromised and accommodated solutions that have no effect on the overall growth of the Church.”

Very informative characterization of current situation from “ The Nazrani” , which would be of interest to friends here from Syro Malabar Church.

Dear Xavier:

I don’t want to continue this argument, but I want to state clearly that I did not say that the “Antiochene” Church was the mother Church of the pre-Diamper Christians. I did say that it was the Church of the East, and not the Chaldean (Catholic) Church.

I have no antipathy towards the Roman Catholics or the Church. However, I, like most Orthodox, strongly disagree with the concept of Papal supremacy, as the Roman Catholic Church came to define it around the 11th century. Prior to that, the Church understood the position of the Bishop of Rome to be primacy of honor, and not ecclesiastical primacy (and this primacy of honor was due to Rome’s political power, not due to any vital contribution to Christianity by Rome or the Romans. Indeed, in the early Church, the Pope of Alexandria seems to have had quite a bit more authority (in terms of dogma, and spiritual teaching) than the Bishop of Rome (the term “pope” coming into use much later for the Bishop of Rome).

To say that the Eastern Churches (including that of India) owed allegiance to the Bishop of Rome is wrong. The old Church was quite fastidious about ensuring that the authority of the various ecclesiastical territories were properly attributed to the proper bishops, and there was most certainly *no* central administration of the entire Church.

You say: “Jesus wouldn’t leave his church to the without a central authority. No organization neither human nor divine is possible without a central authority.”

What you’ve written is not a fact; there are plenty of examples of decentralized control in nature and artificial systems that contradict your statement. In fact, decentralization is more often the rule, not the exception; if you’re a scientist or an engineer, a look at modern cybernetics, systems biology, control theory, etc., can give copious examples.

Anyways, I’ve had enough of this. It’s an article of faith for Catholics that does not apply to the Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental), who have existed and nourished Christianity, far before the Roman Catholic Church attained it’s state of prominence. Again, your dogma of Papal Supremacy is not to be found in the Canons of the early Church Councils, and are merely, like the Filoque clause, an innovation added in during the 11th century. And with most articles of faith, it is futile to continue arguing.

(I’m not anti-Catholic, at any rate. Despite your annoying Western dogma of Papal Supremacy, original Sin, etc., I find your Church to be far more refreshing compared to other Western versions of Christianity like Protestantism, Evangelical Christianity, etc.)

Hi everybody,

There have been lots of discussions regarding our mother church. Everybody agree that the Church of the East was our mother church. This was the teaching of the SMC. Ordinary Orthodox/ Jacobites still think and believe that we were Antiochian Christians in the pre Diamper period. Now, many recognize that it was the Church of the east

The Church of the East underwent evolutions/changes over the period of time, branched into different groups like Chaldean catholic and Assyrian church. Which group did we have connections after those splits/ schisms? If the last east syriac bishops were Chaldean Catholics, then we have to consider that we, the pre Diamper Nasr anis, joined that particular branch.

Legitimacy depends upon one’s perspectives, as seen in our forum. I have never suggested that Chaldean Catholics are the mother church. I put a point that Alghosh line was the legitimate branch. Diyarbakir branch was a rival faction that went into communion with Roman Pope. Qochanis branch was formed later as a rival to Diyarbakir branch but they never joined Alghosh. When Alghosh joined Diyarbakir without a split, how can the legitimacy automatically switched to Qochanis branch ? This is what I cannot understand. When John Mathew support Qochanis branch consistently, he is not giving an answer to this question. If my argument is wrong, explain it to us. I am learning from everybody here.

It is not an argument just because I am a SMC. If you read all my postings, I have never argued anything blindly in favour of Catholics. To be honest, most of my postings were condemning the Portuguese Roman Catholics and even I have condemned many of the SMC leaders also. Knowing and learning our past is important. I have learned a lot from here. I believe that most of our readers are also learning from this forum. But stating that “It’s an article of faith for Catholics that does not apply to the Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental), who have existed and nourished Christianity, far before the Roman Catholic Church attained it’s state of prominence” is not healthy.

Regarding: “Ordinary Orthodox/ Jacobites still think and believe that we were Antiochian Christians in the pre Diamper period.”

First, the term “Antiochian Christian” is not appropriate. The Syriac Orthodox Church does not use this term, nor does anyone who wants to describe members of that Church in an accurate scholarly manner.
The Syriac Orthodox Church, however, claims to be the legitimate descendant of the See that Peter established in Antioch. But it’s ethos and customs are grounded in Edessa, since it is a Syriac Church, comprised mostly of Assyrian/Aramean peoples.

Now, most history books that I’ve read by members of the Orthodox Church (by credible authors and not propaganda documents) acknowledge that the pre-Diamper Church was the Church of the East. Some Jacobites claim that the old Church, back in the mists of time, was under the Patriarch of the East, and then later came (by the time of the pre-Diamper era) under the influence of prelates from the Church of the East. In one sense this is strictly true, since the Church of the East was originally subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. But that was very long ago, and making such claims seems to be in an attempt to mislead people into believing that Antioch ruled the Church in Kerala in a direct sense; this is not what the available historical evidence suggests, and so such statements seem to be simplistic propaganda. I certainly have not claimed that the West Syriac rite in Kerala predates the East Syriac rite.

Regarding this business about branches. My point is this: consider the Church of the East during the early 15th century, before John Sulaqa joined the Catholic communion (over his disagreement with the hereditary succession in that was introduced in the CoE). Let’s define this as the bonafide, undivided Church of the East (with good reason: this was the only East Syriac CoE for several centuries before the 15th century). Some characteristics of this Church would be: no filoque clause, the rejection of Ephesus and every council after Constantinople, honoring Nestorios and Theodore, autonomous and autocephalous, rejection of iconography, etc. The only Church that exists nowadays that maintains this faith and these properties is the Church of the East under Mar Denkha. And they can claim a continuous lineage up to Mar Thoma. Regardless of the schisms of the 15th-16th centuries in Assyria, this Church still exists and still maintains the old ways—completely—with the highest degree of fidelity to the pre-15th century Church of the East. That is *my* point.

By the way, if you look at many Churches in Christianity, east or west—even the Roman Catholic Church—there are breaks in the succession of bishops. There are many cases of corrupt or heterodox (heretical) Popes, Patriarchs, etc., being elected to (or taking) the position. Then later, when orthodoxy is re-established, the new Pope anathemizes the old heretic and business continues as usual. There are few, if any, “pure” lines of Popes/Patriarchs which are undisturbed by such unfortunate events. But, does anyone reject Pope Benedict as the legitimate Pope because of such breaks? No, not really (well, Mel Gibson and some fringe Catholic groups excepted). Then why apply a double standard to the CoE? The CoE is a definite entity: for one, it is non-Ephesan. The Chaldeans and the Syro-Malabar are Ephesan. Hence, the latter are not completely equal to the former.

Regarding: “But stating that “It’s an article of faith for Catholics that does not apply to the Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental), who have existed and nourished Christianity, far before the Roman Catholic Church attained it’s state of prominence” is not healthy.”

Why is this not healthy? It is a fact! This is one of the major sticking points that plagues Orthodox/Catholic dialog! The Orthodox are very conservative in their interpretation of the councils, assigning “primacy” of the Bishop of Rome to be one of honor and not one of authority; the Orthodox are generally disinterested (with some isolated exceptions) in centralized authority, as evidenced by the plenteous “autocephalous” (i.e., self-headed) Churches in its communion. The Catholics, after the 10th century, became more liberal in their interpretation, extending the concept of Papal primacy to be one of authority. And regarding the antiquity of the Orthodox Churches, and their contribution to the development of Christianity, one need only consult a history book.

Maybe you can answer one question for me: does the Syro-Malabar Church subscribe to the teachings of Augustine, and does it believe in Original Sin? If so, then these are purely Western doctrines: no Eastern Church subscribes to these ideas.

Submission to the bishops of the Syro-Malabar Synod by laymen of Ernakulam-Angamaly Major Eparchy. This was submitted to the Major Archbishop, Mar Varkey Vithayathil on 20th August 2008 at the Synod venue, St Thomas Mount Kakkanad.

http://thenazrani.org/Marthoma.pdf

These words of prayer express the desire of faithful, their prayerful hope and at the same time their pain. This petition which encourages hope for unity and unified practices in line with the tradition of Nasranis would be of interest to friends from Syro Malabar.

I am very happy to read the news. I congratulate the persons involved. I can see Mr Xavier Kalangara among them who are one among us in this forum. I request them to make further attempts to educate our ordinary Nasrani Catholics about the poor situation in our church and the deliberate attempts by a section of Latin partisan priests and some laymen, -some of them are well known for their anti church propaganda in the media,- to hijack our great church to the western fold.

Sadly, this is happening when we have our own synod and a head of the church with autonomy!

As suggested in the memorandum, a section of priests are deliberately trying to bring our people rally behind the movement against restoration of our traditions and culture. The Bishops are not doing anything.

I have lived in Trichur area in 1994-96 and I have witnessed many parish priests preaching on Sunday Qurbana against our attempts for restoration of our original traditions. One of the priests described the situation as a split in the church and appealed the people to rally behind the anti restoration section and declared the other party as enemies!

I think the ordinary Syro Malabar Nasr anis are ignorant. They need to be educated well through the media. Let them question those priests celebrate the Holy qurbana in the wrong way by adding things and deleting things clearly against the teachings of the church.

I think we should ask our church leadership and the synod to explain us what is the position of the church in these regards. On looking at the ignorance of the church leadership, one would think that the leadership also is favouring the movement.

Wow, every word of the resolution is true to the point and I feel sorry couldn’t participate in it. Mr. Alanchery is a friend and colleague of mine.

But very skeptic of the outcome.Seen many such grievous, anguish and distressful, heartrending cries and prayers to it’s way to waste bins of the Church.

Neverthless such initiatives and bold steps are the need of the hour.

But will SMC and other churches go back to Syriac ethos by feeble propaganda or prayers? Never.

A vested interest is ruling and running the Church with Portuguese powered autocracy.

To a close study it consists of a handful of laity beneficiaries of Church money and a few ‘executive’ clergy who teamed up to hijack the Church. Laity shameful of the plight is demoralized and migrating to charismatic demi-god start-up “Neo-Christian” outfits.
The supreme authority is helplessly silent, and the majority of pious clergy are slavishly Canon law bound, cannot speak out. Laity is termed “sinners”, those dare to speak dubbed anti-Church.

Vat II has emphasised laity for predominant roll; theologians say it exhort “You are the Church” to laity. Church implemented many reforms but sidelined this call and continued with the Portuguese hegemonic rule; not only that, all property till then with Parish committees transferred to the clergy. Money spoilt many of them, worse the image of Church ‘Light of the world’ is tarnished to an ‘establishment’ or ‘Christian Organisation’. It is a vicious circle, a true copy of our political farce in Kerala- who copied whom doesn’t matter.

It’s not my invention, every concerned laymen knows, but doesn’t realise what to do.
There should be a concerted movement of laity and true clergy with martyr zeal. No Question is WHO will take initiative, to lead a ‘peaceful’ revolution ?

Well I think, an NSC like initiative can alert and team-up many those are painful of the plight of Church to organize and lead a movement, we are all duty-bound to Christ to do it.

Church-sponsored effort or movement can achieve this, obvious reasons.

A holy war, an upraisal of Laity alone can make a change, AND THAT WILL CHANGE SMC and other Churches with similar symptoms. It is not an anti-Clergy/Church movement but to persuade clergy to ‘go to Theology than commerce’.

There could be rumblings and near-split situation but the movement should never break-away(the real test of faith in the Church) but stick to the Church till reinstating real Nasrani Syrian ethos.

Historic Mar Sabor and Proth Church attacked

Two churches, one of them among the oldest in India, were vandalised by unidentified people in the early hours of Sunday at Akapparambu in Nedumbassery panchayat, about 35 km from Kochi city.

A seven-foot statue of Christ in the cemetery of the 467-year-old Garvasis and Prothasis Church, belonging to the Syro-Malabar Church, was broken and knocked off its pedestal. Next door, at the Mar Sabore Afroth Syrian Cathedral Church, the glass windows of a chamber that houses the sandalwood cot used by St. Paulose Mar Athanasius were smashed. The cathedral, said to have been built in 825 A.D., is one of the ancient churches of the Jacobites.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/22/stories/2008092256011300.htm

Although Christians were described as internal enemies in Guru Golwalkar’s catechism of hate, “Bunch of Thoughts”, they were not targeted by the Sangh Parivar – the right-wing Hindu nationalist political grouping – as systematically as at present.

Now, however, the wrath of the saffron brotherhood, led by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), has turned on the Christians with attacks against them by the Hindutva warriors in states ranging from Orissa to Karnataka to Kerala.

Economictimes

Dear Admin,

Hatred does not exist only amongst the ‘Hindus’, there exists hatred from some Christians and others towards the Marthomites. It is such recent unbridled writings in the ‘NSC’ tarnishing ‘Marthomites’ as non-Nasranis, heretics etc. which leads to all kinds of violence and ultimately to genocide.

Personally, I am the least perturbed by such ‘bigotry’ on the part of Mr. John Mathew, but I must warn such bigotry always leads to undesireable ends.

Little does he realize that when he publicy calls ‘Marthomites’ as non Nasranis and heretics he is expressing his own inner fear and complexes. I also see that there are others to complement the poor soul that he is doing a good.

Dear George Mathew,

Yes,I share your view that the Marthomites are Nazranies and they have same culture and traditions(with certain exceptions related with belief-who cares about belief !)You should put your points straight to John Mathew and I think he can understand.Also I want to state that Marthomites understood the futility of foreign prelates unwanted involvement in temporal matters much earlier than the Mother church(even though the motivation was something else).

Thanks

jeevan

Dear all,
Let us all say sorry to George if he felt discriminated, by anybody for that matter.
I don’t think John really meant it, he may have just mentioned what respective factions say.
Well this differentiation occurred very long back say post-Diamper or so, based on beliefs. Some say Christ is more God-less man, vice versa and thus Mary is mother of God or man etc.
Those think Christ is son of God ( SMC, Marthomite, Jacobite almost all Christians I think(if any exception pls teach me) are :
1. superstitious idiots for atheists,
2. Enemies, invaders and converters for Fanatic Hindus
3. Kafirs for Fanatic Muslim.
All above are braying for our blood.

Should we stand united to face or fight in between to make it easy for them to finish.?

Dear Sunny and Jeevan,
Thanks!

Dear All,

On one thread we all speak of “unity” and on the other we condemn and label people as “heretics”.

Heretics are people who hold beliefs contrary to “established” beliefs, to whatever extent.

Going by that, those who hate and condemn and pass judgements are also heretics AS PER CHRIST, then whatever line of Church institution they come from. Because they have contradicted the very core and “established” message of Christ who has said he came not to condemn. So, many of us are already loud heretics deaf to our ownselves, (in the guise of established institutions of faith and so-called self-proclaimed bearers of “uncorrupted and pure faith” ), who judge and condemn our own Christians brothers.

When one Christian brother speaks against another in the name of beliefs, then the person who judges, himself/herself stands questioned, as to what values are his/her Church denomination imparting to them, be it Catholic, Orthodox, Marthomite or any XYZ. And condemnation and hatred are surely not Christian Orthodoxy nor Catholicity values ! Such things are bigger heresies than the length of our priest’s beards and robes or prayers !

Who gave us the right and such teachnigs then, if not Christ ?