Talk:Saint Thomas Christians/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Introduction

Clarifcation solicted about sources used for this Introduction- About the Authors, book with Page numbers and supporting evidences which they used to arrive at this conclusion before requesting POV .

TomThomas123 (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Saint Thomas Christian traditions are followed by Saint Thomas Christians of Malabar coast (now Kerala) in Southern India. At the time of Synod of Udayamperoor (Synod of Diamper) in 1599 July 20-27, Mar Thoma Christians of Kerala were known as Mar Thoma Nazranis and belonged to the Margam, a word when translated is ‘The Way’.[1] At the Synod they were addressed as belonging to the Pazhaya Margam having Indian Traditions with Hindu names,customs and practices(The old Way) and the Catholics the Puthiya Margam (New Way).[2] When more people were directly converted to the Roman Catholic Church without being christian still inside hinduism, they became Latin Christians and the others the Syrian Christians. Now various Church denominations add Syrian in their names. Sometime later (in 1758?), due to some twist, Pazhya Margam (Old Way) became Puthenkoottu (New House) and the Puthya Margam (New Way) became Pazhyakoottu (Old House).[

Dear Tom Thomas,

Here is a very brief explanation. But for more details please read the references given.

  1. Udayamperoor Sunnahadosinte Kaanonukal. (Decrees of The Synod of Udayamperoor A.D.1500. Malayalam document). This will show that at the time of Synod, Marthoma Nazranis were referred as Pazhya Margam.(eg. Canon No.3, 3rd meeting, Session V) and the Catholics were called Puthen Margam (eg. Canon No.1, on the 2nd day, 2nd meeting)
  2. Today the original St. Thomas Christians are called Puthenkootukar (New way or new house). When did this change happen? Referring the letter from Cochin dated August 30, 1758, by the Dutch authorities, probably it was during this period, the twist must have had happened. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Neduvelilmathew and Further request for sources

I am aware that you are source less and a person who doesn’t know have much idea about what you are talking. Why are you trying to misrepresent history ?

As source you give me, (Decrees of The Synod of Udayamperoor A.D.1500). I am not aware of any such worthwhile titled book. Who has written this ? Who has published this ? Based on what MS ? Is it a translation of the original synod of diamper decrees.


The conclusion as claimed by you is derived from two decrees of Synod of Daimper and you stated the decree numbers. Here are the decree details, full text of the decrees you claimed which talk about this.

1. Canon No.3, 3rd meeting, Session V- This decree is about “None to Receive before Confession to a Lawful Priest

The following is the full content from decree 3 from Session V-

- The Synod doth declare and teach, That no Christian, how contrite soever for his Sins, may lawfully come to receive the Divine Sacrament of the Altar, being guilty of any Mortal Sin, without having first confessed all his Sins entirely, to some approved Priest that has Authority to receive his Confession, that being the Tryal and Examination that the apostle speaks of, and saith a Man ought to make of himself, and being so approved and confessed, let him eat of the Divine Bread, and drink of the Divine Cup; For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, and with a Conscience of sin, eateth and drinketh judgment and condemnation to himself; for which reason this Divine sacrament must not be given to publick sinners, without they have left their sins, as publick witches, and common women, and such as keep concubines publickly, and such as are in open malice, before they are reconciled, and all other open sinners whatsoever. In which Matter the Vicars must be extreamly careful, being sensible, that as it is a grievous sin in such to receive the Divine sacrament, before they have forsaken their sins; so it is like-wise a grievous offence in them to give the Sacrament to such publick sinners, and who are known by all to live in such sins, and not to have forsaken them, notwithstanding they should have been confessed by others, and should bring a Note of their being absolved. This matter ought to be laid home to the Consciences of the Vicars by reason of the great dissoluteness that there is in this Bishoprick in giving the Communion to publick sinners, and especially to those that keep Concubines, and are Married, but will not live with their Wives, and to others who live in open Malice, without any Body to hinder them, of all which the Vicars must give a strict account to God; but at the point of death they may give the Divine sacrament even to such as have been publick sinners, if they are not finally impenitent.-

2. Canon No.1, on the 2nd day, 2nd meeting- There is no such decree in Second meeting. The decree starts with No:2. First was The Metropolitan’s Speech.

The following are the full content,

-On the second Day after the singing of the Antiphony, Psalm, Prayers, and Hymn, as they are in the Roman Pontifical, the most Reverend Metropolitan being seated in his Chair, said, Venerable and Beloved Brethren, the Priests, and you my dearest Sons in Christ, the Procurators and Representatives of the People, We having done little more Yesterday than celebrate the Divine Offices, and Preach to the People, it is fit we should begin to Day to Treat of Matters appertaining to the Synod. In the first place, of those that belong to the Integrity and Truth of our Holy Catholick Faith, and the Profession of the same; which before we go about, I do again admonish you in our Lord Jesus Christ, that all such things as you shall judge to stand in need of Reformation in this Bishoprick, or any part thereof, may be signified to us, or to the Congregation, that so with the Divine favour and assistance, all things by your Diligence and Charity, may be brought into so good Estate as is desired, for the praise of the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.-


These content are taken from the book of GEDDES titled ”A SHORT HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF MALABAR TOGETHER WITH THE SYNOD OF DIAMPER”

Does anyone read anything this Neduvelilmathew mentions here from these Syond of Diamper decrees ? This guy Neduvelilmathew claims he is preparing some history books. Is he a propagandist ? Anyways this name was not there in 1599. It came in to use after 1653. There is not even any remote possibility for this name to have any relation to Syond of Diamper as , the Syond was attended by Saint Thomas Christians not new converts.

His next quotation is about a Dutch letter from Cochin dated August 30, 1758, by the Dutch authorities. Can he quote the letter and state where the MS is and who has published this..


The Name Pazhayakuttukar and Puthankuttukar doesn’t have any relation to Syond of Diamper decress. The Syond happened in 1599. From 1599 till 1653 all the Saint Thomas Christians were under Latin Bishops. The origin of this name is after 1653. Pazhayakuttukar represent Catholic Saint Thomas Christians and Puthankuttukar is a term to represent Jacobites. This has been explained in all the sensible books written by Catholics and Non Catholics. If this Neduvelilmathew has read any of those, he would also know the sources this is based of. These are information with sources, that is contained in old MS documents and published in books.

Wikipedia discussion page is not a forum and if Neduvelilmathew has some sources, he may please state that with page numbers, author and publisher details. I would recommend him to use forums to develop basic idea. TomThomas123 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I disagree with tomthomas, many Saint Thomas Christian churches defied Alexi De Menezis threats and Portuguese soldiers and never even showed up for the Synod risking their lives. The church in Kunnamkulam is an example.
Many churches in the highlands were also hostile to the Roman Catholics and were never under their sway. There existed many churches and regions which were inaccessible to portuguese mercenaries and they fiercely resisted Synod of Diamper's execution in Kerala.
D'Orsey BD, Knight Commander of the Portuguese Order of Christ, tells us how some mountain dwelling Saint Thomas Christians forcibly ejected some troublesome Jesuit priests from their presence(Page 190, Portuguese Discoveries, Dependencies, and Missions in Asia and Africa). And this event happened before 1653, and some 40 years after the Catholic Inquisition began some few hundred kilometres up in the portuguese colony of Goa in western India.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard reconstructing history. I was told elsewhere, that "trusting" (naive) Christians brought original documents to the Synod certifying to their connection with Thomas/Syria, etc. These were all gathered up and burned. But above we are told that Christians in the hinterland, smarter than their city cousins, did not attend. And therefore their documents were preserved intact? Something is wrong here. Not sure why the people up in the hills were so terribly smart and the people in the city were so stupid. Does not make sense. I would not be surprised if the bishop burned anything he didn't like, given the times. I am perplexed as to why copies weren't made beforehand, just as we do nowdays on computers. They can't have been that stupid.
This implies to me that documents relating to the past alternate history either survived or never existed in the first place. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your doubts about The synod of Diamper (Udayamperoor) are genuine. What MathenKozhechery has written above also is true. Here are some explanations to your questions.

At the time of arrival of Portuguese to the shores of India, Kerala was divided into many small states ruled by kings. Saint Thomas Christians spread all over Kerala and were loyal to their own kings. They were there at Cochin also. Note that Cochin became a port only after the arrival of the Portuguese.

This “Synod” of July 1599 was convened by Archbishop Alexius de Menezes by the support of the ruler of Cochin at Udayamperoor, a village few km from Cochin. Neither the king nor the Archbishop had any power over neighbouring countries. Moreover Cochin king was not in good terms with some of his neighbours. So Saint Thomas Christians from other parts of Kerala need not and did not attend this Synod, (except Edawazhikal Kurien Kathanar from Kottayam Knanaya Church, who had migrated from Kaduthuruthi, Cochin). Kandanad church just about 2 km from Udayamperoor did not attend this Synod. Arthattu Church where there were Christians from first century did not even allow the bishop to enter their premises.

The “Christians in the hinterland” you are mentioning, were living outside Cochin. They had their original books and records kept in tact. Arch bishop was not able to destroy neither their documents nor their church buildings. A copy of the old Bible kept in a parish was given in 1806 (two hundred years after the Synod) to Rev. Claudius Buchanan which is now kept in the Cambridge University library.

You have mentioned, “That "trusting" (naive) Christians brought original documents to the Synod certifying to their connection with Thomas/Syria”. I can’t trace any document supporting this statement. Most probably it must be an “improved version” of what the bishop told the Synod, “to bring the Syriac documents to the bishop or the priest for verification”.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good information! Thanks. The fact that many (most?) Keralans could not be compelled to attend Diamper and in fact, did not attend, is a point that I have not noticed before in Keralan-related histories. Probably should be there (or I should read more closely!). Also, the fractured nature of the various kingdoms should probably be at least alluded to somewhere. One would imagine that this has to have either aided or retarded religious inter-relations with their neighbors, as you have mentioned here for Diamper. Student7 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical references to St. Thomas

I suppose, like everyone else, I should give up trying to bring sanity to these pages. This particular subsection "proves" supposedly, that St. Thomas preached in Karala. Not. It suggests that he preached in Parthia which, given the transportation of the day, is nowhere close to India, and perhaps today's Pakistan. But nowhere close to South India, where the editors had hoped to place him. The entire subsection, in a sane world, would be deleted. Here? Who knows? Fiction is the order of the day. As Tom Clancy once said, "Fiction is hard to write: it has to make sense." Not true with history, apparently. Student7 (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Rough chronology" falls into the same category of trying to prove by clobbering the reader with combined facts and fiction from the past, so many items that he cannot "deny the truth." And the truth may not be contained there. The bullets are not individually cited. They probably should be. No one else's history is told in bulletized form. This shouldn't be either IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is really unencyclopedic.historians not affliated to the church have also said thomas never came to india.recently in 2007 pope benedict says thomas preached in syria,persia.,and perhaps western part of indian subcontinenti.e pakistan.this article is full of non sense .how is vaishnavism connected to christianity.nambudiri brahmins are neither vaishnava or shaiva.they follow mostly the advaita of shankara.this article is seriously far from truth.and more importantly nambudiri's never appear in kerala until 5th century C.E.Linguisticgeek (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The pope was perhaps speaking extemporaneously. He was not attempting to make a historical point (well perhaps he was but anyway). He recanted his position later, restoring the targets of his remarks as spiritual rather than historical. So the pope, per se, cannot be quoted as an authority on where Thomas was or was not as if it came from the Catholic Church or something.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that his original remarks weren't true! But we need statements and WP:RELY citations to support your remarks. Student7 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Having said that, I'm not sure that the "tradition" part of this article can't cover mere beliefs as long as they are labeled as such. "Tradition" doesn't have to be based on "truth" which is sometimes elusive, in any case.
In fact, in most religious-oriented articles, an editor can say, "People believe that....." and the belief can be nearly anything as long as it can be proved that it is truly a belief. Student7 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


There a lot of references in early christian writings by church fathers of Saint Thomas having visited India. Pantenus, the alexandrian monk wrote that Saint Thomas preached to the "brahmins and philosophers of India". There were no brahmins in syria or parthia. Also, no other church in the world claims the tradition that Saint Thomas was martyred in their region. We also have a living community of 5 million people and several 2 millenia old churches who believe in this tradition of their Apostle.
Similarly to substantiate Saint Peter visiting Rome, we have no "historical" proof, only similar quotes from tradition. Recently some archaelogists unearthed the supposed tomb of St. Peter in Israel.
The Pope's comments are nothing new. In 1952 the Pope denied the Syro-malabar Catholics permission to celebrate the 1900th anniversary of the arrival of Saint Thomas in India. Neverthless the outraged Syro-Malabar catholics in kerala went ahead and celebrated it unofficially, disregarding the Pope's comments. One recent Antiochean Patriarch was also known to have made statements trying to discredit the Saint Thomas tradition of India. Saint Thomas Christians of all denominations in kerala just view it as attempts by foreign christian centres to maintain power over kerala churches. The tradition of the Apostle is the symbol of autocephaly of the community and foreign centres fearing loss of authority in kerala try to discredit it and try to give more popularity to Petrine traditions in Syria and Rome.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New Party, old party

While the use of this today is considered offensive, it was historically used and should be mentioned here along with the disclaimer as to why it is no longer used. We shouldn't be changing historical fact. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It is historical fact that these names were used; it is not historical fact that they are good names to use. I have no objection to mentioning their historical usage, but I have a strong objection to the use of them without qualification, as if they were agreed names that all are happy with. Tb (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Historically this name has been used by roman catholic historians. They referred to themselves as "old party"(despite the fact that they arrived in India only in 16th century) and the dissidents under the age old Nasrani institution of Archadyakon as "new party"(despite the fact that we have historical references showing rule of indigenous archdyakons over malankara atleast since 8th century AD).
It is only a one-sided view of history that was intended to mislead people and that is why its offensive to non-catholic Saint Thomas Christians. However i have no problem in letting it be mentioned, if the corresponding popular Nasrani versions of names for the two parties are also mentioned to balance it. The roman catholic section were referred to as "Paranki vedakkar"(followers of Portuguese veda) and the Oriental Orthodox section were referred to as "Jacobites"(the church of Yakob Burdana- Oriental Orthodox) among the non-catholic Saint Thomas Christians.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it not better for wikipedia to be neutral and use the names known at the time of Dutch hegemony in Malabar (AD 1663-1795) : ‘’Syrian Christians’’ and ‘’Latin Christians’’? These names were based on their liturgical language. Can anyone tell when did they start using the adjectives “old party for Catholics & New party for St. Thomas Christians?” Any reliable source to support this?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what those terms mean. "Latin Christians" refer to Christians who use the Latin Rite; "Syrian Christians" refers to Christians who used the Syrian Rites. In the context of India, "Latin Christians" does not refer to Saint Thomas Christians, but rather to immigrants, converts, etc. who are Latin Rite Catholics. "Old Party", as it is being used here, refers to those Saint Thomas Christians who formed the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, which is an Eastern Catholic Church but uses the East Syrian Rite used by the Thomas Christian community since at least the 6th century. "New Party" refers to those who forged a relationship with the Syrian Orthodox (aka Monophysite, West Syrian, etc.) Church in the 16th century. I can't see that the terms "Old Party" and "New Party" have any authority to them, but the basic idea is accurate: the original division within the Saint Thomas Christian community was between those who maintained their old rites and hierarchical structure but went into communion with Rome, and those that remained independent of Rome and later forged a relationship with another foreign church. Wikipedia's treatment of the subject is shoddy on all levels; this needs to be remedied if any progress is to be made.--Cúchullain t/c 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


The assertion that the terms "New Party" and "Old Party" were used on the basis of liturgical language is wrong. The revolters who forged a relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church in 17th century continued to use the East Syriac liturgy for atleast 1 and a half century more. It was only at the time of Mar Thoma V and Mar Thoma VI that West Syrian liturgy started to be introduced on a big scale and west syrianisation among the Orthodox was complete only by early 19th century.
Secondly there was nothing called a "syro-malabar church" at the time suceeding the schism of 1653 or even in that century. The Syro-malabar hierarchy was introduced only in 1920s and they got dioceses of their own only in 1880s. They were under latin dioceses and ruled by Latin bishops until then.
Thirdly, the catholic section after 1653 did not use an East Syrian liturgy. They merely used the Latin Mass transalated into East Syriac language. Just like how the Latin Catholics in Kerala uses the Latin mass transalated into their local language of malayalam. The Syro-Malabar Catholics do not have a uniform liturgy even today and are reeling under the impact of heavy latinisation. Many dioceses such as the Ernakulam diocese use a latin form liturgy with the priest facing laity. While few other dioceses like the Changanacherry diocese uses a more eastern liturgy nowadays with priest facing east. If you observe the 21 eastern rite catholic bishops standing together, all others barring syro-malabar have their own peculiar vestments. The syro-malabar bishops just use the latin vestments.
In Saint Thomas Christian community, the Archadyakons or chief bishops(Mar Thommen) came from Pakalomattom family. The Oriental Orthodox section continued to rally under the pakalomattom bishops even after 1653. While Roman Catholic section substituted pakalomattom leaders with foreign Latin bishops. In my opinion, the term "Old Party" ought to refer to the section that stood by the older traditional hierarchy of Archadyakons(of whom we have historical records from atleast 8th century AD). But it is better to avoid that usage as a whole, as it is considered derogatory.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be getting confused by terminology. I don't know what the original Dutch of "Latin" vs. "Syrian" distinction entailed; I would have thought it applied only to the non-Thomas Christian Catholics. But even if not, it should apply to all Indian Catholics, whether they are Saint Thomas Christians or not. On the other hand "Syrian" should apply to all Thomas Christians, whether they are Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, etc.
As such I don't think these terms are any better (or better known) than the others. The real issue is over the divide within the Thomas Christian community. The first divide was between those who went into communion with Rome (the church now called the Syro-Malabar Church) and those who didn't (the ones who forged a relationship with the Syrian Orthodox Church and later split off into various factions). According to this book the Catholic faction did retain the East Syrian liturgy, though it was subject to a process of latinization over the years. In more recent times the church was given its own Major Archbishop and has made attempts to re-Syrianize its liturgy. The other faction, which also used the East Syrian Rite initially, later adopted the West Syrian Rite, and in modern times none of the branches seem to be moving towards switching back. This said, the terms "New Party" and "Old Party" do not seem to have any authority regarding the split in the Thomas Christian community.
Sadly, Wikipedia's treatment of all of this is horribly confused and confusing.--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am confused about when the Catholics went to Syrian liturgy and why. If they did immediately after Coonan Cross (or after the Portuguese authority waned), this would imply that previous liturgy was Syrian. Why would the Latin mass be translated into Syrian for Keralans otherwise? This would make no sense without some prior connection. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That is correct, all Saint Thomas Christians used the East Syrian Rite prior to the arrival of the Portuguese, as they were part of the Church of the East. After Coonan Cross, in 1661 the pope sent a mission of Carmelites and Chaldean Christians (the part of the Church of the East in Syria that entered communion with Rome) to set up a new church structure for the Saint Thomas Christians that included the East Syrian liturgy. According to the book I linked to above, this new church structure (what we know as the Syro-Malabar Church) was still subject to latinization under the influence of the wider Catholic community of India; In the 19th and 20th century there was a push to revitalize the historical East Syrian liturgy.--Cúchullain t/c 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good book that you have quoted. Hope everyone read Page 16.No secular books have the names 'Old' and 'New' . Another Secular source this one, even here I couldnt see 'Old' and 'New' Fyodor7 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


student7, Saint thomas christians in all denominations used to worship in the Syriac language(either East Syriac or West Syriac)until end of 19th century or start of 20th century. Around that time most denominations transalated the syriac into the local tongue malayalam.
The original East Syrian liturgy is used by the Assyrian Church of the East in Kerala. The Syro-malabar uses a liturgy which has no similarity with this assyrian liturgy. Attempts to revitalise East Syriac in Syro-malabar church by changanacherry diocese are met with accusations of "chaldeanisation" by the ernakulam diocese which seems to be in favour of a latinised liturgy.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be incorrect about the liturgy. The book I linked to discusses the issues in some detail. this chart groups the divisions quite nicely by the rites they use: East Syrian (aka Chaldean/Church of the East) vs. West Syrian (Antiochene/Oriental Orthodox). It lists the Syro-Malbar Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East as using the East Syrian Rite, the others all use the West Syrian Rite. That isn't to say that there haven't been changes to the East Syrian Rite over time; there is quite a bit of discussion on the issue of latinization on the East Syrian Rite, and what is being done about it in the 20th and 21st centuries.--Cúchullain t/c 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the use of the (incorrect) names "old/new parties" should be dated and attributed to Catholics. I thought I had read 1738 elsewhere, but we really need a source for that. And yes, the "secular" names that didn't seem biased, and were used before that time, should be given as well. If we can determine what they are! Student7 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


cuchullian, i have attended the eucharist of both the assyrian CoE and that of both warring dioceses of Syro-malabar catholic church. Assyrian Church of East eucharist, Latinist eucharist of Ernakulam diocese Syro-Malabar catholics, and chaldeanised liturgy of Changanacherry diocese syro-malabar cathtolic were all different from each other. The original East Syrian liturgy had no words of institution. I think all three groups mentioned have added it now. The one used by Assyrian CoE is the closest we have to the old East Syrian liturgy in 16th century and before. As far some dioceses of syro-malabar are concerned, theirs is same as latin liturgy. While some others seem to have taken an effort to add some feautures of the liturgy of the chaldean catholic uniate in iraq.
Tb, The "secular names" are just plain Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox. Why do we have to complicate things? Both sides used derogatory names for each other. RC called Orthodox as "puthenkoor" or new party. And Orthodox called the RC as "parankivedakkar" or followers of portuguese veda. We can mention both if we want.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No one has said that modern Syro-Malabar Catholic liturgy is exactly the same as the pre-Portuguese liturgy; clearly its liturgy was subject to a process of latinization over the years. But nonetheless, sources tend to refer to its liturgy as "East Syrian". The book I cited discusses the issues of the liturgy in the modern Syro-Malabar Church in some detail, especially on p. 148. Especially since Vatican II the church has made a lot of liturgical changes. Essentially the author frames the debate as over the best course to finding an authentic Indian Catholicism. One faction wants to acomplish this by returning to the liturgy used in the past; the other faction wants to look to the present and develop something new.--Cúchullain t/c 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution by the Portuguese and forced conversions into roman catholicism

No mention is made in this article of the horrible persecutions suffered by the Saint Thomas Christians under the Roman Catholic Church and Portuguese colonials.
The Goan Inquisitions are also not mentioned.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


From the "Land of Perumals" by Francis Dey, page 221:- "..it was found impossible to convert the St.Thomas christians(nasranis) by religious exhortations or speeches(1537). It was understood that only force or tactic could work. It was decided to use force and their "metran"(bishop) was arrested and taken to Portugal."
The "Indian Empire" by William Wilson Hunter , page 242 (also quoted in Nestorian Missonary Enterprise, page 125): "Inorder to convert the Nasranis into the Roman Church, the Portuguese influenced the local rulers. The assets and land of Nasranis were confiscated and they were persecuted in other ways"
According to a Christian historian, Dr. T. R. de Souza: " At least from 1540 onwards, and in the island of Goa before that year, all the Hindu idols had been annihilated or had disappeared, all the temples had been destroyed and their sites and building material was in most cases utilized to erect new Christian Churches and chapels. Various viceregal and Church council decrees banished the Hindu priests from the Portuguese territories; the public practices of Hindu rites including marriage rites, were banned; the state took upon itself the task of bringing up Hindu orphan children; the Hindus were denied certain employments, while the Christians were preferred; it was ensured that the Hindus would not harass those who became Christians, and on the contrary, the Hindus were obliged to assemble periodically in Churches to listen to preaching or to the refutation of their religion. A particularly grave abuse was practiced in Goa in the form of 'mass baptism' and what went before it. The practice was begun by the Jesuits and was alter initiated by the Franciscans also. The Jesuits staged an annual mass baptism on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (January 25), and in order to secure as many neophytes as possible, a few days before the ceremony the Jesuits would go through the streets of the Hindu quarter in pairs, accompanied by their Negro slaves, whom they would urge to seize the Hindus. When the blacks caught up a fugitive, they would smear his lips with a piece of beef, making him an 'untouchable' among his people. Conversion to Christianity was then his only option."(source: Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity - edited by M. D. David Bombay 1988. page 18-19).
I think the persecution of Saint Thomas Christians by the Portuguese and forced conversions into Roman Catholicism must be mentioned in a separate section of the article.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot that needs to happen for this article to ever improve. Our treatment of all related subjects - the Church of the East, the Saint Thomas Christians, and the various churches that emerged since the 16th century - is currently very poor.--Cúchullain t/c 16:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of work

Our articles on the Saint Thomas Christians, all of the offshoot churches, and associated articles like Church of the East need a total overhaul. Currently they are extaordinarily confusing and duplicate each others' information. For example we have articles on Saint Thomas Christians, Syrian Malabar Nasranis (which is just another, less common name for the Saint Thomas Christians), Malankara Church (which just duplicates information at those articles), and many more. We are going to need to perform some major surgery to get this right.

  • We need 1 main article on the Saint Thomas Christians. This should be located at Saint Thomas Christians. Syrian Malabar Nasranis, Malankara Church, and many more should be merged in.
  • We need to be clear that the Saint Thomas Christians were part of the Church of the East, under the Patriarch of the Church of the East, until the late 16th century. This is currently hinted at in various articles but is rarely said directly.
  • We need to greatly improve our coverage of what happened in the 16th and 17th centuries that resulted in the split. We need to do this neutrally, without partisan accusations or claims that one faction or another are the only "true heirs" of the historical church.
  • We need to hammer out our terminology as to what to call the two factions after the split of the 17th century. We also need good articles on the two. Discussion of the Catholic faction should be at Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, but we need a good article for the other faction (the one that Mar Thoma became the head of, and which later entered communion with the Syrian Orthodox Church). Currently this is discussed all over the place due to the various splits that occurred over the years. We need one good main article tracing the history of this faction and all its descendants from the split to the present day.
  • We need to be consistent in all the sub-articles and, explaining the interconnections and linking appropriately. Currently you'd never know that the Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church and the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church were ever related, or were part of the same Oriental Orthodox body.

That'll be good for a start. Once we hammer out the framework the details will hopefully fall into place.--Cúchullain t/c 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Common history

Very often comments appear in Wikipedia under the assumption that Saint Thomas Christians, before the arrival of Portuguese, had a common history, without realizing that there is no such history. The St. Thomas Christians before 1500, consisted of at least four groups: and so they have their own histories. At a close study of these groups, even today their differences in worship and beliefs are clearly visible. All these groups try to put their history and their beliefs into these articles with the result that all related articles become confused.

    1. . St. Thomas Nazrani (Known as Marthoma Nazrani at the time of arrival of Portuguese) - The original converts of St. Thomas. They had their own elders to lead them.
    2. . Syrian Christians, Northists. – Children of Knai Thomman by his first wife. (who arrived in AD 345),
    3. . Syrian Christians, Southists. – Children of Knai Thomman by his second wife.
    4. . Syrian Christians who arrived from Persia in A.D. 825. It is believed that with them came two bishops.

Visitors from Persia and Middle East used to visit Malabar to meet their friends, relatives (who came earlier from Persia) and their descendents. Whether they were bishops, priests or laymen, most of them were addressed as “Bava” (bishop). These visits made others believe that Syrian Christians were ruled by bishops from Persia. Neither knowing the language nor the culture, these visitors lived at the mercy of the Syrian Christians and spent their time teaching their mother tongue, Syriac. Some of these visitors returned, but most of them lived and died in Kerala.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


There were no such rigid divisions known, as you mentioned. You seem to have created an imaginary classification. All Saint Thomas Christians were under the Archadyakon(archdeacon) before portuguese arrival, and he was the only leader of whom we know of. He also had military and legal powers.
There were no separate churches for knanaya(southists) until portuguese eta. Reference to Northists as Knai Thommans children from "first wife" is an assumption, which i doubt anyone here will agree with or has any historical proof. Northists generally like to think of themselves as converts from high caste hindus. Southists are the only ones who associate with the Knanaya immigration story.
However i will say that Saint Thomas Christians prior to portuguese arrival cannot be rigidly classified as Assyrians(nestorians) or Orthodox. Thats because we have proof for a Syncretic past. Saint Thomas Christians had many hindu customs and practises before portuguese arrival. They believed in concepts like reincarnation, warriors heaven, karma, astrology, black magic etc. They also practised polygamy and took wives from other religions. This is what one understands from the Decrees of the Synod of Diamper(1599). The author Varghese in the book "Malankara Nasranikal" also mentions this fact of a syncretic past.
The Assyrian role was limited to liturgy and they dont seem to have made much effect of the social life or beliefs of Saint Thomas Christians. Saint Thomas Christians didnt seem to care much about the doctrinal differences among the churches in Middle East(Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian Church of East, Eastern Orthodox Greeks etc). They were more concerned about preserving their culture, social traditions, caste status and maintaining their independence. I dont think pre-portuguese Saint Thomas Christians can be grouped into any denomination. But by liturgy they were Assyrians(Nestorians).

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Neduvelilmathew's divisions appear to be artificial. However, the Saint Thomas Christians were certainly part of what we would call the "Assyrian Church", "Nestorian Church", or Church of the East. The liturgy was directly taken from the Church of the East, and the hierarchy was under the church and the Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. After the 7th or 8th century the Saint Thomas Christian community was organized as a province of the Church of the East; locally the community was governed by an indigenous archdeacon, but there was metropolitan archbishop (thereby his superior) in charge of the province and appointed by the Patriarch. However, the archdeacon and the local community had a great deal of autonomy and do not seem to have cared very much about theological differences, and there certainly was a higher degree of syncretism than has occured in other Christian communities. But they were certainly part of the Church of the East and the East Syrian Christian tradition.--Cúchullain t/c 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Cuchullian, i think you are being too quick in your conclusions. There is no proof that the Saint Thomas Christians were part of Church of the East during most of their history prior to 16th century. There is only proof for a high prevalence of east syriac at the time when portuguese came to India. There are more historians and sources from kerala which oppose the CoE connection, that ones who support it.
There is a scholarly work of Blessed Mar Ivanios who is the founder of Syro-malankara catholic uniate in kerala, titled-- "Were Syrian Christians - Nestorians?". It says: "Thus from internal - external and circumstantial evidences, it is evident that the church in Kerala was nothing but Syriac Orthodox(Jacobite) before the 15th century". Mar Ivanios wrote that he had proof that the Assyrian CoE connection existed only from 11th to 15th century and that before that the church was Syriac Orthodox.
There is ample proof for both west syrian and east syrian connection of the Saint Thomas Christians before portuguese era. One of the most ancient churches with the Syro-Malabar Catholics is a St.Thomasine shrine in Malayattoor hill. Funny thing is that the inscriptions there are in West Syriac! Many historians in ernakulam faction of Syro-Malabar catholic Church are also of the view that the Indian Church of Saint Thomas had an indigenous liturgy of its own and was never subject to any foreign churches until portuguese arrival.
Saint Thomas Christians welcomed Knayi Thomman, Sapor Afroth and Vasco da gama all in the same way and honoured them as guests. They welcomed all foreign bishops and leaders with equal dignity and did not care about doctrinal differences among them. But it is unlikely they were subject to the rule of any foreign bishops. The Archadyakon was a very powerful figure and having the support of the rulers and the community, having legal privileges and a medium size military force. Foreign bishops could not have any sort of interference in the temporal and administrative structure of the church of Saint Thomas Christians.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that the Saint Thomas community was historically tied to the Church of the East. Mar Ivanios, a West Syrian, has a vested interest in making it seem that the community was part of the West Syrian tradition, but there is no evidence of West Syrian liturgy until well into the 17th century. Britannica says this: "The origins of the Christians of St. Thomas are uncertain, though they seem to have been in existence before the 6th century and and probably derive from the missionary activity of the East Syrian (Nestorian) Church... centred at Ctesiphon. Despite their geographic isolation, they retained the Chaldean liturgy and Syriac language and maintained fraternal ties with the Babylonian (Baghdad) patriarchate..." This book says that the available sources all agree that after the establishment of East Syrian Christianity in India, "The Ties between the Thomas Christians and the Church of the East remained in place throughout the Middle Ages". Of course, the community was highly autonomous and diverse, and the local archdeacon wielded substantial power, but it is impossible to argue that there were no ties to the Church of the East.--Cúchullain t/c 16:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


It is one thing to say that Saint Thomas Christians were using East Syriac liturgy. But to say they were under the Assyrian Church of the East during most of their history before colonial era is unsubstantiated and fiercely contested by most historians and there is no consensus on this issue. Remember that a Syriac Orthodox Maphrianate under the Patriarch of Antioch existed side by side the Assyrian(nestorian) church in Persia(Iraq-Iran). Assyrian(nestorian) faith seems to have made an effect on Saint Thomas Christians, if any only much later, few decades or one century before the Portuguese period.
There are lot of historical evidences that challenge the view that the Saint Thomas Christians were under the Church of the East, which professed "Nestorianism". There is a Bible written in Estrangela script during the time of the great Patriarch Michael (1199) is still kept at Cambridge University. This book, which was in Malankara from the 13th century, was presented to Dr. Claudius Buchannan, one of the earliest protestant missionaries who came to Kerala in 1807, by the then Oriental Orthodox Malankara Metropolitan Mor Dionysius the Great. It contained special Gospel portions for reading on the feasts of the Mother of God and the Gospel readings for the Holy Mass on Saturdays in lent. There are in the notes contained in the book, very respectful references to Mor Sevarios, the famous Patriarch of Antioch. This would show that this book was not Nestorian because they do not venerate Mor Sevarios who was a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, nor do they call St. Mary as Mother of God.
Another proof is the 7th century Persian Cross kept at Knanaya Valiyapally in Kottayam. The inscriptions in 'Extrangela Syriac' and 'Phalvi' on them revealed their workmanship was Persian and at the same time, the Phalvi inscriptions hints that they were made by the Syrian Jacobites. The interpretation of the inscriptions in Pahalavi by Dr. Burnnel (former Archaeological Director of India) reads as follows- "In punishment by the cross (was) the suffering on this one; He who is true God and God above, and Guide ever Pure." These inscriptions are against the basic faith of Nestorians, who believed that the God was never crucified (punished) in the Cross and only the Jesus the man was crucified. Moreover Phalvi was never, the language of Persian Nestorians.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have provided several reliable sources testifying to the links between the Thomas Christians and the Church of the East. You have provided nothing except your own opinions and interpretations. As a point of interest p. 57 of this book discusses the Valiyapally cross you mention, and others like as evidence for the connection with the Church of the East. However, as I've repeated several times now, most of these sources stress that the Thomas Christian community was very autonymous. In fact, they never seemed concerned at all with Christological disputes or with "Nestorianism" as a doctrine. But their hierarchy, liturgy, and fraternal connections were all with the Church of the East.--Cúchullain t/c 19:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Southists and Northists – This is what the St.Thomas Christian Church historians have written:

About Knai Thomma and his wives.

P.V.Mathew, ‘’Keralathiley Nasrani Christhianikal (Nasrani Christians of Kerala)’’. Vol I, page 277-281, Here he gives the details from the book,’’ Symposium on Knanites’’, published by, by Dr. Jacob Vellian (1986) (Pages 6, 11, 18, 21, 22-25). Also please read the following books by the Southists. Joseph Chazhikad. ‘’History of the Southist (Thekkumbhaga Samudaya Charitram)’’. 1961; E.M.Philip. ‘’The Indian Church of St. Thomas.’’ Kottayam 1907. Also read P.V.Mathew, ‘’Keralathiley Nasrani Christhianikal (Nasrani Christians of Kerala)’’. Vol I, page 305-308. They are of opinion that Knai Thomma had two wives.

But Rev.Dr. Joseph Cheeran, Adv. P.C.Mathew and K.V.Mammen in their book, “History of Indian Orthodox Church” (2002). Kottayam. (page 95) mention that there is no evidence to this claim by Southists. Their opinion is that the St. Thomas Christians lived on the north side (and are called the Northists) and Knanites on the south side (and so Southists) of the river.

Knanites – their churches. St. Thomas Nazranis were under the Malanakra Moopen (Portuguese called them Archadyakon -archdeacon). Please note that he was not a bishop and their method of administration was different from that of the western churches. The Knanaites also joined the St. Thomas Nazrani in worhip, but in their social sphere they kept their own identity. They also had their own churches and Nazranis also joined them for worship in those churches.

According to the records of Kottayam Knanaya Valia palli, established in 1550, belonged to the Kananites who migrated from Kaduthuruthy palli near Cochin. Nazranis were worshipping with them till 1579. Then they moved from Valiapalli and established their own church on the other side of the road, now known as Kottayam Cheria palli.

Upto fifteenth century, Nazranis and Knanites were worshipping in the Changannur Palli (now Chengannur pazhya Suryani palli) that belonged to St.Thomas Christians, In 1524 Knanites built their own church and moved to the nearby place, Mazhukeer. When bishops from Persia (or Antioch) visited they joined the Knanites in their worship. In 1794, Mar Evanios Yuhanon a bishop from Persia died while on a visit to Chengannur parish, he was entombed in Chengannur Pazhaya Palli.

Syrian Christians. After the coming of Thomas of Cana , ‘’Malabar Christians’’ were called Suriyanis. They adopted the rituals and practices of the immigrant foreigners in the worship of God. Ref: Dr. C.V. Cheriyan. Orthodox Christianity in India. 2003. Kottayam. p 61 & 80.

It is mentioned in the verdict of Seminary case (1879-1889) that, “The descendents of Knai Thommen are known as Syrian Christians.” Ref: P.V.Mathew, Keralathiley Nasrani Christhianikal (Nasrani Christians of Kerala) Vol 3, p 49, and he gives this reference from “Majority & Minority Judgements” pub. Orthodox Church Book House, Kottayam Page 51.

Persian crosses. The language is Pahlavi written only with consonants and the vowels have to be supplied by the imagination of the reader. So these inscriptions have been deciphered in widely different ways.

Other comments: About the comment that the church was under a Patriarch of some other church, Though I have read these stories in a number of books, I did not get any reliable sources about these relations between St. Thomas Christians and Assyrian Church, Nestorian Church, Church of the East etc, Dr. C.V. Cheriyan, in his book ‘’Orthodox Christianity in India’’ mentions these as “Doubtful relations with Antioch”.

Now a number of Indian historains are searching through primary sources to find out the real history. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those sources. One note: the "doubtful relations with Antioch" mentioned by Cheriyan refers to the Syriac Orthodox Church, based in Antioch. Relations with the patriarch of the Church of the East are well attested. For example, p. 57 of this book refers to the Metropolitan of India, who was ranked 15th among the bishops of the Church of the East in the time of Patriarch Yahballaha III.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
While it is nice to come to an accord on all matters, some can be presented both ways if documented by WP:RELY sources. Nestorian, for example. If you can agree on which argument is best, great. If not, present them both. Student7 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Cuchullian, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the book source of Mar Ivanios which i provided is biased? And the source you provided is not?I think user:Neduvelilmatthew is trying to say that the Church in India was independent of any foreign Church and it would be wrong to call it as part of any foreign church prior to portuguese era. The sources you provided seem to speak from the view of the Church of the East, and not from the Indian Church view and i think they maybe the biased ones.
Roman Catholic sources seem to push the nestorian view. However if cuchullian is referring to the East Syriac Church it is better to refer to it as the Assyrian Church of the East, rather than Church of East, because the latter includes chaldean uniates after 16th century. Most RC historians also take the view that Mar Ahatullah who was murdered by the portuguese in 1653 was a nestorian. But he was a Syriac Orthodox Bishop. Page 695 of the Travancore State Manual (the Government directory of historical records), it is mentioned that "in AD 1652 there came to Malankara a Bishop sent by the Patriarch of Antioch".
Prof. Sreedhara Menon, a renowned historian in his book, 'A Survey of Kerala History' explains, "In 1653 the Jacobite Patriarch of Babylon sent to Kerala, in response to a request by the Syrians, a Bishop named Ahatalla". Some Catholic supporters say that Mor Ahatulla was a Nestorian, but this theory is believed to have been build up to safeguard their vested interests. However most other historians including Mackensie, Hough, Ittop writer, and E M Philip emphasizes the fact that Mor Ignatius Ahattulla Bava came from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and this is what believed by most of the historians, and the Church.
The Saint Thomas Christians accepted semitic bishops from Persia and West Asia without regard for their denomination. They also welcomed the RC prelates. But they rejected domination by any of them and fought to retain their indigenous traditions and autonomy. They were an independent Church of indigenous christians with syncretic beliefs within the Hindu caste structure before 16th century, and they welcomed bishops from Middle-East. It would be a blunder to say that Saint Thomas Christians were part of CoE, because they accepted bishops from all churches in the holy lands and persia and accepted ordination from them. The term for Middle East in kerala nasrani usage is "Sheema" and "sheema methran"(semitic bishop) is used to refer to all and any bishop from any denomination in ME.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be safe to say that the Saint Thomas Christians predominantly used an East Syriac Liturgy prior to portuguese era and had close relations with churches in the middle east, particularly the Church of the East. This is a body of christians who did not take doctrinal allegiances seriously, had much syncretism with hinduism, practised polygamy and caste, had marital relations with non-christians, had a high position in the hindu caste structure, led by an indigenous christian hierarch who had an army, and accepted ordination from bishops of various middle eastern christian denominations before 16th century. It was fully independent, unique and very different from any christian sect in the rest of Christendom.
It would thus be wrong to say they were part of any foreign Church because many bishops from CoE arrived in Kerala before 16th century. The only sources you have to claim so is some references from the CoE and none from the Indian Church. It seems only like a claim from a foreign church, like made by many others. Some of the bishops who came before 16th century are Syriac Orthodox bishops and possibly even Coptics or Armenians as well. It were Armenian merchant settlers in India who supposedly directed the portuguese to the tomb of Saint Thomas in Mylapore according to various sources. There are too many conflicting sources regarding pre-portuguese Saint Thomas Christian history from different historians and churches. Indicating Saint Thomas Christians as part of the CoE would simply open this article to more disputes in the future. It would be better to indicate a relation between the two, rather than say it was "part of".

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Indian church was undisputably linked to the Church of the East prior to the arrival of the Portuguese. The sources I've linked to (I'm not going to link them again) are not affiliated with any church, they are mostly just standard history works published in established presses. This is vastly preferable to 100-year old books by church figures, who necessarily have a vested interest in promoting a particular view of history. This is what Ivanios is.
For the fifth time, the archdeacon was a regional leader who wielded considerable power, but ecclesiastically he was not a bishop and he was a subordinate to the metropolitan bishop supplied by the Patriarch. After communications were broken in the 14th and 15th century, he did emerge as the effective head of the Indian church. That is not the same as saying that India was always totally independent, and just sort of had a passing aquaintance with the Church of the East.
I don't know who Sreedhara Menon, but he is talking about a Syriac Orthodox bishop arriving in the 17th century - long after the arrival of the Portuguese and after the collapse of the Church of the East elsewhere. No one disputes there was a Syriac Orthodox presence at this time.
You are right, we don't want to overstate the level of control the patriarchal hierarchy had in India, especially in the later centuries. But you are in danger of overstating the level of independence the Indian church had.--Cúchullain t/c 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indian Orthodox

This conflict is clearly just a matter of terminology. Britannica is obviously referring to the branch historically referred to as "Syrian Jacobite"/"Jacobite Syrian", that is, the Oriental Orthodox branch, which includes both the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and the Indian Orthodox Church. It is not referring to one over the other. This is why we need to get out terminology strait, as I said here. Currently we don't have a consistent title to call this branch.--Cúchullain t/c 13:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is understood for Indians that what Jacobite is referring to is Orhtoodox church both combined. Howver the link to Jacobite goes to one faction along, leaving a much bigger counterpart. Instead of Jacobite, the term "Orietal Orhotodoxy can be used, or split it into two. Clearyl what is mentioned in the Britannica is a blunder( of not using the word Orhtodox ) and here in wiki another blunder of linking the word Jacobite to one particular faction. As I told above, either, direct to Oriental Orthodoxy, or split it into two.. Thanks ..Fyodor7 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously not a blunder by Britannica; they are using the traditional nomenclature "Syrian Jacobite" to refer to the entire Oriental Orthodox faction, as indicated by this line: "[T]he [Thomas Christians who did not join the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church] joined the Syrian Jacobite (Monophysite) Church, brought to Malabar in 1665 by Bishop Gregorios from Jerusalem." Once again we need to hammer out our terminology, and to have one good main article for the Jacobite branch following the split. This can be a new article, or we can rework the Indian Orthodox Church article, or whatever, but this can't be resolved until we get our terminology straight.--Cúchullain t/c 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacobite is again not the right terminology, thats why I called the Britannica article a Blunder. The official name of the church is Syrian Orthodox Church. Other Christians in the middle east, mock the syrians for being followers of Jacob Baradeus, hence called Jacobite. My second comment was on the link and not the terminology used.Either, point it to Oriental Orthodox or split it into two. Britannica is talkin about the main branches NOW. What is the logic in avoiding a church which is twice bigger than, Jacobite(Syrian Orthodox), Mar Thomas and Syro Malankara. After Syro- Malabar, this is the second largest church in Kerala. It is not about setting the terminology right.Fyodor7 (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jacobite", "Jacobite Syrian", etc., are common historical terms for what is now called the Syriac Orthodox Church. Britannica is very clearly talking about the entire branch that is affiliated with Syriac Orthodox Christianity, using conventional terminology - it's not at all derisive; it has been used by the church itself. On your second point, you are correct that we shouldn't just link to the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, but "Oriental Orthodox" is an even worse link. What we need is a good main article for the whole branch. That can be a new article, or we can expand an existing article such as Indian Orthodox Church, but currently Wikipedia has no solution.--Cúchullain t/c 03:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Jacobite is not a term used by the Syrian Orthodox Church, outside India. The term clicked only in India. The Syrians(apart from Indians) consider it derisive. Still in India, the name is popular only because, both the churches are Orthodox and thats an only way to differntiate between the two. Fyodor7 (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Cuchullian, The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not "monophysite" and Assyrian Church of the East is not "nestorian". Both are misleading and insultory terms invented by Roman Catholic historians to insult and stereotype the Eastern Christians. The Christology of Syriac Orthodox and Indian Orthodox churches is Miaphysite.
Yes Oriental Orthodox seems the right title. "Jacobite" is not the official name of the universal syrian orthodox church and it was just popular usage in india. Its better to go with simpler and more common names. We can explain that the pro-patriarch faction is also referred to as jacobite in kerala inside the article.[User:Mathenkozhencherry|Mathenkozhencherry]] (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Cuchillian

Two solutions were rendered, don’t give up saying there aren’t any solutions.

Solutions

1. Remove the entire line, already a detailed list is given below. 2. Change Jacobite to Oriental Orthodoxy ( Do not say its bad page, that’s your opinion) 3. Mention names of both churches.

The Britannica Article has even more blunders, not this one alone. With the present link you, are avoiding a church which is as big as combined Syro Malankara + Marthoma + Jacobite. Discussions are to solve the problem and not to give up saying, there aren’t any solution’s in wikipedia….. By now, that one line has confused many many wiki visitors. Fyodor7 (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy is a bad link in this instance because Oriental Orthodoxy includes the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and others that have no association with the Indian churches. The Indian churches are specifically associated with the Syriac Orthodox Church. Removing a line that has a reliable source and replacing it with a totally unsourced list is not acceptable. The best thing to do will be to build a good article that discusses the entire history of the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) faction in India; as I've said repeatedly, this can be a new article or we can expand an existing article.--Cúchullain t/c 16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless used by adherents, we really should try to avoid the term "Jacobite," thought there is nothing wrong with presenting an explanation of its use as a deliberately derisive term that is used, but then avoid it in the remainder of the article.
This word is particularly confusing for some English speakers because of Jacobitism being a (probably) derisive term for the supporters of two Kings James of England and covering several European countries with their political adherents. This is the better known term to these people (including me, BTW). Note that the term is "owned" by the English political division, not the Indian religion. Student7 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Would agree with Student7, the term Jacobites is used by the Syrian Orthodox Church, in India ALONE. It is not considered derisive in India, however it was used by the other Christians in ME, to mock the Syrians and degrade them to mere followers of St.Jacob Baradeus. The term is presently used in Kerala, as a differentiator between Indian Orthodox (Malankara) and Syrian Orthodox (Yakobaya or Jacobite), (However both are Part of Oriental Orthodox). The correct term to use is Orthodox and link it to any article, either Syrian Orthodox or Indian Orthodox. Thoroughly confusing to anyone abroad.Fyodor7 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is what one of the Orthodox Syrian Christian historian has to say. These are the names given in Church and Government records.

In the Semiary case the final judgment of 12 July 1889 was against the followers of Thomas Mar Athanasius. (After this final judgement), The party of Mar Athanasius called itself the Malanakara Mar Thoma Suryani Church and the party of Joseph Mar Dionysius called itself the Malanakara Jacobite Suryani Church, which later came to be known as the Malankara Orthodox Suryani Church. Thus what had hitherto been two parties in the Malankara Suryani Church became transformed into two distictly separate Churches. Refer: Dr. C.V. Cheriyan A History of the Malankara Ortodox Church AD 52-2002. Academic pulications, Kottayam. 2003. Page 267.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I didnt mention that , the word jacobite was never used, see the Indian Orthdox church page, I have never removed that line from their till now. All I meant was the word Jacobite is confusing to anyone abroad. It is well understood ONLY in kerala. Student7 has already mentioned about another group of Jacobite, in England, which is more popular than the Jacobites in Kerala. Thanks Fyodor7 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Also the Britannica article talks about the main groups NOW, not the names used in the 19th century.Fyodor7 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Can people be educated on what MALANKARA CHURCH means?. All the churches, that uphold the St.Thomas Tradition are part of Malankara Church. That is the universal name, and all other churches are subsets of this universe. Fyodor7 (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There are now multiple sources in the article Malankara Church describing exactly what it means. The term initially refers to all Saint Thomas Christians, but after Coonan Cross it is used specifically for the branch that followed Mar Thoma I. That is, the ones who later formed a relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church and adopted the West Syrian Rite. After this they are often called the "Malankara Syrian Church" or some variation. They make up the majority of Saint Thomas Christian churches, but not the majority of Saint Thomas Christians - the term is generally not applied to the branch that became the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church or to Latin Rite Catholics.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the link to Syriac Orthodox, which should end this pointless edit war. Please do not make it appear the source says something it doesn't, which is what your edit did.--Cúchullain t/c 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Madras & Chennai

Before 1522, present Chennai was known as Chennai Pattanam in memory of their benevolent ruler. It was under Portuguese control from 1522 to 1697. During that time the name was changed to Madras in memory of Madeiros, a Portuguese. During the first century Mylapore was well known. In this article it is better to mention just Mylapore, South India, which is easier to understand than Chennai, Madras, Mylapore and Tamilnadu by a person who is not familiar with Indian geography.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "Archadyacon"

Note that the term "Archadyacon" appears to be Greek-derived. That should say something. (Not quite sure what!). Do Syriacs use similar terms? Student7 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Syrians use many Greek terms in liturgy like, Kyrie Elaison, Stoumen Kalos etc. Also some greek influences are found in the names used like Philipose, Paulose, Antrayose, etc. These Greek influences should have reached kerala through the Syrians. Some Greek names were widely used in Kerala, even before the West Syrianization, like, Lukose, Pathrose etc.

http://www.rocksea.org/kerala-christian-names-origin-english-equivalents

Not sure of ethymology of the term "Arachadyacon" though.

Found in the below blog, that the word Deacon is derived from the Greek "diakoneo" (pronounced dee-ak-on-eh'-o). Sounds similar to (dayakon) http://ourlordsekklesia.blogspot.com/2007/03/deacon.html Fyodor7 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The term is certainly Greek in origin, and dates ultimately to the early history of the Christian Church. It was a rank of great importance in the Church of the East, being the next highest order under bishop, and its was used in a somewhat novel way in India. India was an ecclesiastical province of the church and was officially headed by a metropolitan bishop, who was generally (if not always) an East Syrian from Persia sent down by the Patriarch. However, there was also an indigenous archdeacon, who was in charge of the clergy and wielded great ecclesiastical and secular authority. Even more unusually, the position was evidently hereditary. Because archdeacons were always from India, the position outlasted the general collapse of the church hierarchy in Asia and the breakdown in communications with the Patriarch. Most interesting. This book discusses it somewhat on p. 52 and 106-110.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea about the origin of this word. It is not a Malayalam or South Indian word. So far no evidence has been emerged to support the idea that this word was in use in Malabar before the arrival of the Portuguese. When the Portuguese arrived in 1499, Malakara Church leaders were called Malankara Mooppen. Naturally the Portuguese were not able to understand the meaning of this Malayalam word Mooppen and might have found difficulty even in pronouncing it. As far as I know “Archadyacon” was used three or four times by Archbishop Menezes in the Synod of Diamper. It seems that now everybody thinks that leaders of this church were always called Archadyacon. The words that were in use in Malankara (Kerala) were Mooppen = (same as in Acts 14:23, etc.) elders, also for addressing an elderly person. (still in use in Northern Kerala); Edavaka Mooppen or Kathanar or Achen = parish priest; Malankara Mooppen or Sabha Mooppen = Head of the church. Bishop and other such ecclesiastical titles were unknown to the Malankara Church before 1499. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, I don't know if the word itself predated the Portuguese, but the position certainly did, as did the entire hierarchy. The church adhered to the three traditional orders of deacon, priest, and bishop, but they called them different names. I've seen metran for bishop, kattanar for priest, etc. An archdeacon was the next highest clergyman who was not a bishop, but in India, the person who held this position had various other duties as well, which is what makes it really interesting. I don't have time to check right now, but I think the last bishop was Mar Joseph, until Mar Thoma was elevated to bishop.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cannot agree to , "and might have found difficulty even in pronouncing it". Moopen pronounced (Muu pen) is just two simple sounds. Not coomplex enough to force anyone to go with Arch Deacon. Fyodor7 (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, the whole thing will be interesting to add to the article.--Cúchullain t/c 04:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Notables

There is an article for ‘’’Notables’’’ in “List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis” where we can enter the names with or without their photographs, It is not a good idea for the editors to enter their favourite names in as many articles as possible. I wish that all of us agree to enter the names of Nasrani Notables only in the article “List of Syrian Malabar Nasranis” and remove their names and photographs from other related articles, (inluding this one). It is also better not to give more importance to one person than the others. I suggest that the photographs may be put closer to their names instead of putting on the top or at random. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Demography

The population figures of some of the Churches are grossly over-stated. They seem to have counted their flock several times; and counted those in the other groups as their own too! Falling population and large scale migration have reduced the numbers in many churches to such an extent that they are reluctant to give actual numbers. Instead, they are clamouring for voting rights for non-residents. Only if parish-wise numbers are available supported by parish directories, the figures will be reliable. Until then, the following may be considered as a rather realistic position:-

St.Thomas Christian Churches
Church Name Estimated Population in Kerala (millions)
Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church 0.4
Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Syrian Church 0.7
Mar Thoma Church 0.5
Syro-Malabar Church 2.7
Syro-Malankara Church 0.3
Chaldean Syrian Church 0.02
Malabar Independent Syrian Church 0.01
St. Thomas Evangelical Church 0.03

116.68.88.196 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chart in the Demography section is too hypothetical to be included in an Encyclopedia. Most of the data is not verifiable. I have therfore removed it. If someone could provide verifiable data, it would have been useful. 116.68.80.120 (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

There appear to be two articles, this one and Syrian Malabar Nasrani, which purport to describe the same group of people. This is very confusing for the reader. Horace Wheatley (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

AD/CE Debate

Hi Cúchullain. The AD vs CE debate continues to cause edit wars on Wikipedia. Being an old Guy and a Christian, I prefer AD, but use AD/CE as a token of good faith to Jews, Muslims etc. It is not that your edit is wrong, it is just not right. Please re think your position Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's purely a style matter. Please see WP:ERA: "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article." Also, "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Now I see your point. I read the section differently - Don't mix AD - CE but AD/CE was fine. Now I am really confused. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The guideline's pretty clear to my eyes: use AD/BC, or use BCE/CE; do not use both in the same article. No other articles that I've ever seen use "AD/CE"; at any rate, there would have to be consensus for the change, and there isn't any. In this case, the article has always used AD/BC, so we need to continue with that.--Cúchullain t/c 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The mixed use of AD/CE should really be avoided. I only know of one article that uses that, and that is Jesus, and that is because that is the compromise the editors there came up with, and there has never been consensus since to pick one over the other. Generally speaking through, we should follow the manual of style WP:ERA. Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. Hmm.. the manual of style has changed since I looked at it (which used to explicitly state Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era,). Anyway, my proposal would be, since none of these years are in BC/E, just drop the era notation completely. The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. If this article doesn't contain AD or CE, then there is nothing to edit war over in the first place. -Andrew c [talk] 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As always....Very helpful! Will do. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

REDUNDANCY  ?

You reverted my footnote edit to the first paragraph why? REDUNDANCY is not a good thing. Are you in a bad mood? In any event Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? If you mean this, I reverted back a ways because tendentious editor User:Ben135 had removed a bunch of useful content.--Cúchullain t/c 14:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Malabar

Isnt the usage of words, like Malabar, in , "Thus, the Malabar Church was Hindu in culture, Christian in religion, and Judeo-Syro-Oriental in terms of origin and worship.", quite improper?

Malabar is a specific region in Kerala, and do not represent the entire state. The usage of Malabar, excludes, places like Kollam, Kottayam, Kochi etc, which are ancient traditional christian areas, where the majority chritsian population lived. Credit Risk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Use of "Malabar" for this section of India is well established in the sources. Using it doesn't exclude the Thomas Christians who lived elsewhere.--Cúchullain t/c 12:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion in the use of the names, Malabar, Malankara, Kerala and so on.
Malankara was the original name in Prakrat (ancient Malayalam) meaning Mala + Kara; the land of mountains + shore = the land between the Western Ghats and Erithrian Sea (Arabian sea). Malankara included the western coast of India from Gokarnam to Kanyakumari. So the original Christians of Kerala are known as Malankara Nazrani and their Church as Malankara Church.
Arab sailors used to call this land Malabar. Now the region north of Cochin only is called Malabar. Malabar Independent Church is mainly in the Malabar area.
The name Kerala appeared only after 3rd or 4th Century. The location of Keralaputra mentioned in the edicts of King Asoka (BC 299-237) seems to be different from the present Kerala. Earlier Kerala was the land from Gokarnam to Kanyakumari. The present day Kerala state, does not include the Kanyakumari District. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven churches

In this article (section History) it is mentioned that the Apostle Thomas established seven churches in Malabar during the first century. They are at Kodungalloor (Muziris), Paravur, Palayoor, Kokkamangalam, Niranam, Chayal (Nilackal) and Kollam. Images of these churches are also given.

Are there any reliable evidence to show that all these places, where St. Thomas established the churches, existed in Malabar before 1341A.D.? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christians/Archive_2&oldid=840289398"