The Mural tradition of Kerala Churches

Thanks for this brief collection.this is not complete, there are many other churches.it would be great if you guys can make a collection of the christian murals with photographs.Sadly not much is written about our mural tradition.

Dear M. Thomas Anthony:

I was reading a copy of the decrees of Diamper as reported in a book that I found on Google books. I no longer remember the author — I think it was “History of Christianity in India”, which had the Decrees in its appendix. I believe it’s after Act III Decree 14 (regarding the banned books), but I was reading without keeping track of my point in the book.

By the way, yes, of course, all Oriental Orthodox (including the Jacobites) use Hail Mary.

With respect to the Church of the East, despite their use of the term “Mother of Christ”, their devotion to St. Mary is (according to an article I read by Sebastian Brock) no less than that of the Orthodox or Catholics, with countless churches devoted to Mart Mariam, and must religious poetry too.

This is one reason why I’m such a rabid anti-Mar Thomite — their leaders are under the mistaken view that the devotion to St. Mary, masses for the dead, etc., are purely due to Roman Catholic influence. For one, just because something is of RC origin, doesn’t make it bad. But beyond this, many of the things they criticized the Orthodox as being “Catholic impurities” were in fact present in the Malabar Church from ancient times (it appears). So, rather than being a “purification”, the Mar Thomites were nothing more than a Protestant movement in Malabar.

travelogue on Kadamattathu church.

For more on the Cheppad murals:

indiavideo.org, Cheppad Mural Video

Can some Catholics please take a look, and see if the art looks Catholic? In my opinion, these murals have some Syriac attributes (comparable to Rabbula Gospel pics), but also have Catholic ones (e.g., the triangular halo on the picture of God).

But then again, I’m no art history expert…

I still have a hard time believing these are pre-Portuguese…

RE: Our murals.

Here’s an icon with angels in a Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East.

Flicker Photos

So I guess our pictures of angels are based on Syriac motifs. Or is this a general Christian design?

Antony: I didn’t say that *angels* per se are only in the Eastern/Syriac tradition. I meant those specific artistic representations (i.e., the designs) that are found on that picture (e.g., head and wings w/o the body).

But I also asked the question in that post: is this a general Christian motif?

If you’ve seen that particular motif in Western icons, that’s great. I’m not an art scholar, and was just looking around for evidence that our murals have some eastern input. As it stands, I find it hard to believe that our murals are pre-Portuguese (i.e. pure Syriac or Indian).

The Syriac tradition (West for sure, because I know it in detail, but also perhaps the Eastern) is quite fond of angels, and has detailed theories on the various classes of angels. This is perhaps due to the proximity to Zoroastrian lands, where angels were also very important. Some claim the Jews absorbed the Zoroastrian angelic tradition.

Is that this is common in all traditions ?

Check this link for photos of Seven churches. Included are the Mar Thoma Pontifical Shrine, Cross carved into interior wall, Saint Mary’s Syrian Orthodox church at Thiruvithancode, Tamil Nadu, St. Thomas Ecumenical International Dialogue Centre, Nilackal (Chayal), Syro Malabar Church Malayattoor, Kokkamamngalam Syro Malabar Church.

http://www.spraguephoto.com/search.lasso?set=India%202007

But the puthenkoors are not having the tradition of the worship of icons.

For the last three hundred years puthenkoors rejected the use of images;even they don’t know what is an icon either.

A narration about the Putenkoor syrians of Malabar-
The present Jacobites of Malabar condemn equally the Tenets of errors of Arius, Nestorius, and the bishops of Rome.1 They hold the belief that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist become the Real Body and Blood of Christ, and give communion in both kinds mixed together. They pray for the dead, practise confession, make the sign of the cross, and observe fasts. But they reject the use of images; honour the Mother of Jesus and the Saints only as holy persons and friends of God; allow the consecration of a married layman or deacon to the office of priest; and deny the existence of purgatory. In their Creed they follow the Council of Nicaea (325 A.d.). They believe in the Trinity; assert the One Nature and the One Person of Christ, and declare the procession of the Holy Ghost to be from the Father, instead of from the Father and the Son.

Did anybody seen any putenkoor syrian kissing an icon/image in the name of reverence or praying towards an icon/image?

Ofcourse there are murals ,paintings and carvings in Putenkoor churches,but are not venerated.Even putenkoors started to use the images a few years ago that too not at all venerated. This I am telling not from bookish knowlege,but from 60 years of real life knowledge.There were muthappans and like things in odd churches,which canot be generalised.
The people are the living examples of the tradition; ask them whether used to kiss the icons/pray towards them.

Let other puthenkoor syrians comment about this.

Dear John,

Is the article you have mentioned above- Herman Teule, “The Veneration of Images in the East Syriac Tradition “, in Die Welt der Go¨tterbilder- available free on the web ?
If so, could you give us the link also please.

BTW, there is an international conference on “Research on the Church of the East in China and central Asia” in Austria in June 09 and it seems that Fr Baby Varghese is presenting a paper there.-http://www.uni-salzburg.at/pls/portal/docs/1/573179.PDF

Jeeven:

I assume you’re referring to me as a “cooli”. Interesting choice of words. I have my own for you: ignoramus.

I’m not a Roman; I don’t read “propaganda” by authors of any affiliation. I read scholarly works, most often by people who couldn’t care less about religion and who have very little vested interest other than an interest in history. And I never said anything about statues, you illiterate imbecile!

I was talking about *icon veneration*, you moron. And if your only proof about our Church in ancient times is the various Churches that exist now, then you’re relying on a hollow structure. Of the Churches we have now, none have any justified claim to antiquity. All of them carry great claims (e.g., estd 52 AD, 400 AD, 1000 AD, etc) but they’ve all been rebuilt as anyone can plainly observe. So, if we wish to learn about our Church in the distant past we can’t rely on archeological evidence, because as of yet such archeological evidence does not exist in Kerala—there is nothing *ancient* in Kerala that is Christian, apart from the Pahlavi crosses. The only evidence we have is (1) the Pahlavi Crosses (note, Jeeven, you fool, that the crosses were inscribed with *Pahlavi* a foreign language of the Persians, not an Indian language) (2) the literature of the 13th-16th century that is mostly Nestorian with a little Chaldean influence towards the 16th century, (3) the copious East Syriac literature from the Middle East that shows that the Indians had tremendous intercourse with the “Nestorian” Persians, and heavily supported the East Syriac Catholicos. Again, in a simple form so a person with your lack of intellect could comprehend: *NO* evidence of an indigenous tradition in Malankara, *PLENTY* of evidence for East Syriac traditions in Malankara. Before you respond, re-read this, you fool, and try to comprehend. Perhaps ask your school teacher or babysitter to explain to you what this means. Idiot.

Malankara may have had it’s own traditions — we don’t know for sure — but they were, ecclesiastically, under the CoE. And so anything that pertains to the ancient practice of the CoE most certainly pertains to Malankara. Unlike the Jacobites, who encouraged liturgical diversity, the CoE did not tolerate great diversity: the rites and practices were generally regularized across the geographic extent of the CoE.

Yes, when the Portuguese came in the 1500s they may have noticed a lack of icons or images. As Teule points out, the CoE’s use of icons occurred during its glory period (pre-10th century). After that, the Islamic conquest made the use of icons very problematic in the Middle East. Prior to the 10th century, however, the CoE had no problems with icons and their veneration.

Take a minute, Jeevan, and try to think. Don’t rely on your bias and your own unsubstantiated beliefs, but look at evidence. Of course, I know this is falling on deaf ears: you are, basically, a moron who believes in what you believe, truth be damned. (e.g., weren’t you the ignoramus who claimed that the Liturgy of St James was practiced in Kerala from ancient times?).

So I write this response only to counter your stupidity, and not to debate you. It’s impossible to debate an idiot—and, based on what you write, you most certainly are a definite idiot. An idiot who claims Claudius Buchanan to be a “great scholar”! Even latter British scholars looked at Buchanan as nothing more than an ignorant simpleton whose woeful lack of Church knowledge made him believe various fictitious accounts of Malankara history (ref: Burnell). There are great scholars to be found in all religions — but Buchanan and Grant were definitely not among them. Nothing they wrote is of any scholarly value; they wrote propaganda to bring the Protestant “reformation” to Kerala (or, in the case of Grant, the Middle East).

If you are a Mar Thomite, you are behaving as one would expect. But if you are Orthodox, Jeevan, then you are nothing short of a vile insult to Orthodoxy. There is currently a severe infection of crypto-Protestants in the Orthodox Church (both Jacobites and Malankara Orthodox), that is threatening to cause a great schism one day. If you are one of these, then please leave the Church and join the Mar Thomites or Pentecostals where your ignorance will be appreciated. But please, at the very least, shut up and stop spewing unsubstantiated myths. Whatever I am, at the very least I have scholarly documentation to substantiate what I say. You have nothing other than the idiotic stories your ignorant teachers infected you with.

Dear Paily:

I think I understand the problem here: it is one of vocabulary, and not one of concept.

Let’s be clear: veneration does *not* equal worship.

a) Idol-worshippers worship idols, and images. They hold the image to *be* God itself. I’ve never met an idol-worshipper, but have read they existed millenia ago.
b) Catholics and Orthodox Christians venerate icons (images) of Jesus, the Saints, Prophets, etc.
c) Muslims venerate their scriptures
d) Jews do as (c) and also venerate the tombs of their ancestors and teachers (I believe Muslims also do the latter)

Venerate does not mean worship — venerate means to show honor. The Orthodox and the Catholics honor their saints. The Orthodox and Easterners in general utilize two dimensional depictions of saints, Jesus, etc. The Catholics utilize both two and three dimensional depictions. Two or three dimensions, neither “worship” the representation.

The idea that icon veneration *equals* worship is a false teaching spread by *low Church* Protestants. Note, I qualified this. High Church Protestants (e.g., high Church Anglicans) sometimes also utilize icons. However, the low Church “evangelical” section of Protestantism is rabidly opposed to iconography, and claims that the others commit idolatry and “worship” the icons. This is untrue: the Orthodox and the Catholics *worship* God. They venerate the saints, and honor images of the saints.

As the article by Teule clearly states, the Church of the East explained the veneration of images to Muslims as equivalent to the Muslim veneration (not worship) of images of their scriptures.

Now, as for “proof” of the Orthodox veneration of icons, you need only go to any Orthodox Church. Icons abound, and the faithful often say a prayer in front of the icon/painting of their patron, sometimes annointing themselves with the oil from the lamp in front of their patron, often touching the icon itself. This is veneration. It is not worship.

Paily, if you are Orthodox, then I fail to understand how you could not know this. Hence, I suspect you are not Orthodox, but rather, have the misfortune of being born a Mar Thomite. I say misfortune not because I believe you are inferior, no. I say misfortunate because your community was done a great disservice by the low Church evangelicals who taught your forefathers distorted teachings. If only your ancestors had good influences — say from real Orthodox teachers, or at the very least, *high Church* Anglicans, your people would not have been bathed in the profuse ignorance they exude at every opportunity.

Malankara history gets perverted most often by people with little to no knowledge of matters making silly “observations” with little or no context.

e.g.,

1) Hey, look, the Nasranis have Jewish names like Thomas, John, Jacob, Joseph, etc. They must have been Jews. (Of course, I could say the same about practically any culture that follows an Abrahamic religion. Say, the Filipinos, the Italians, the Mexicans, etc.)

2) Hey, look at http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/mammen-family-crest.htm. Looks like Mammen is also an Anglo-Saxon name! Perhaps there’s an Anglo-Saxon connection we should look at? Or perhaps the Anglo-Saxons were a lost tribe. Or maybe, perhaps, the various “Mammens” are of completely different, varying origin. I remember some idiot was once trying to convince me that “Gewargis” was somehow related to “Borghese”. There is no shortage of overly-simplified “observations” like this. Of course, anyone with any cross-cultural knowledge would be able to see through such junk.

And as for Malankara Church history, the main distortions are glaringly obvious. Church X claims it is the oldest, Church Y claims it is the true faith. A detailed look at the actual evidence that exists — literary records — easily sets the record straight.

This issue of Cohen J2 haplogroup being found in our people is great. It is scientifically objective evidence—no reliance on variable traditions, just pure evidence. But, the J2 Cohen group is only one of many strains we have in our populace—and I don’t know what you mean by “all things pale in comparison when the Cohens come in”. What does this mean? Do you negate the validity of the various other groups that form our collective ancestry? We already know:

a) Jews were in Kerala
b) Jews intermarried with Christians
c) Persians were in Kerala and intermixed with Indians (ref: the letters of the East Syriac Catholicos that says the same)
d) Syriacs/Assyrians were in Kerala (ref: (1) the various families around Kollam/Kallada; (2) Mar Andrews and his brother’s descendants)
e) and of course, let’s not forget the dominant strain: bona fide ethnic Indians, who intermarried with all of the above and maintained a generally welcoming culture for (a)-(d) to come to and prosper in

Or is it only the Jewish side that has any merit? This sounds an awful like Hitler: only the “Aryans” made worthwhile contributions to humanity, and so only they ought to be the masters of the world (or Europe, at least).

Just because you tested J2 Cohen does not mean we were all Jews. It doesn’t even tell you *which* of you long chain of paternal ancestors was of the Jewish. Your J2 ancestor could have immigrated to India as a Syriac Christian. Or he could have came as a Cohen priest. Or, he could have been descended from Aarons father’s brother and was an outcast idol-worshipper. You don’t know with possibility is true — all you know is that you descend from a Y chromosomal “Aaron” or from one of his forefathers. That’s why, when you read more about the J2 Cohen marker, there are percentages given.

Stop trying to make everything look like a bloody conspiracy. Those idiots posting wikipedia pages making the Nasranis and the Knanaya look like Jewish Christians —when in reality we were Syriac and Persian Christians, with *NO* evidence of purely Jewish practices (and when in reality the Knanaya are not even the ones testing positive for Semetic ancestry!) — are doing enough distortion.

Nasrani history is screwed up, but only if you read Nasrani Church historians or any of the many peanuts in the gallery who have nothing but vacuous “observations” to offer. Rather, if you take a scientific attitude and look at the sources critically, you’ll see our history is quite clear—Church of the East, until the 16th century. And yes, of course, it seems that the Jews (the Black Jews) and the Nasranis had close connections. But as far as I’ve read, the conversion was always Jew -> Christian, and not the other way around.

People who are addicted to icons in the Church have not under stood this part of the 10 commandments–Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” !!! In their sunday categism books, the Syro-Malabar has edited out the command about “idol worship” and added an additional command on “adultery” in its place to make up the number of 10.

Dear John,

I must not debate here or anywhere anymore, pardom me. But you know me as much as I know you.

You wrote: ‘…But as far as I’ve read, the conversion was always Jew -> Christian..’

I must correct one thing. There were no convertions at all, the Yehud accepted Yeshu and became a complete Yehudi, it was not ‘Jew to Christian’ but ‘Jew to Nasrani’. We did not use the word ‘Christian’ until recently.

The West and the Arabs influenced us to call ourselves ‘Christians’. Shingly was a town full of Yehud, atleast 25,000 about 1000 years ago but only less than 5000 Jews (white, black, emancipated slaves etc.) left for Aliyah (Jewish return to Israel) in the 1950s. About 30 Jews now live in Kerala. Where are the 2 or 4 million Jews who should have been living? Did they die by the plauge? Did Tipu Sultan kill them?

To know about the missing, you must know about ‘Constantine Christianity’ and the ‘Inquisition’. Without knowledge about these two, it is useless to study ‘Malankara Nasrani’ history.

During the research, the Kochi Jews told Prof. Nathan Katz that their members joined the Nasranis, implying that is the reason why they were miniscule in numbers. We Nasranis failed to grasp the importance of this confessions of the Kochi Jews. We choose not to hear it, because this is not what we want to hear.

John! as you know, it is no use trying to convince another person who does not want to believe. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to do the convincing.

Benney:

You wrote:
“Veneration of Icons / Statues in thronose is not right because the common people misintrepet that it is for worship.”

To be blunt, *who* are *you* to say this? The practice of iconography on the altars is an *old* one and one that transcends sectarian boundaries (except for Protestantism, which is a heterodox innovation anyways). The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and — as I’ve discovered from H. Teule’s work — the Church of the East, have all used iconography.

Scholars with (I would estimate) far greater powers of intellect and theological understanding than yourself have considered this issue quite carefully over the centuries, and have had no problem with this.

If the common people are idiots and misinterpret things, then the common people are idiots — the error is theirs, and they should seek knowledge in order to rectify their error. For someone to claim the practice is wrong based on their own ignorance of facts is absurd.

Please consider studying the actual issue and doctrines before offering you asinine pronouncements.

John Mathew
Theology is not a static branch . Dont believe blindly what the early scholars did . they are also humans they can also make errors while interpreting divine scriptures . They also have vested interests like the historians .
The Romans killed Galilio Galili for saying the truth that earth is round . Later every body accept his finding .
My point is that Icons used in the centre point of worship will mislead the people . They can be used in other places to show honour .

RE-veneration of icons in Malankaranazrani churches

Now what are the evidences John put forward

COE used to venerate icons, so Malankaranazranies also did it. This is the only point you cold put for ward. This is all based on the edicts of Udayamperoor synod and some earlier letters. The relations we had with COE prelates are only visiting relations. The letters or other literatures available with us do not provide any concrete evidence that Malankaranazranies were subjugated by COE .I have posted much about this subject earlier. There are many other practices Malankaranazranies follow other than the orthodox traditions of the east. That is exactly making them MALANKARA NAZRANIES a separate entity.

Your all point revolves around the subjugation theory or Assyrian migrant theory. I totally reject these both as your day dream. Your all arguments are based on this .The evidences you put forward are documents related with Udayamperoor synod and some earlier letters. These all are including in the time frame of 13th to 16th century. You are not ready to look beyond this time frame. I have raised some questions related with prelates before Udayamperoor synod. (Post no.4618&4932) You answered with your immigrant theory (post no.4624 in prelates of Nazranies till the synod of udayamperoor).

Do you agree with me that malankara Nazranies existed before 13 th century? Then what made them exist. How did they originate? You proudly talk of Persian cross and Pahlavi language. How did the Pahlavi come on these crosses? Why didn’t there any Aramaic inscriptions. Now I attract your kind attention to the Tharissapalli shasanam, in which the witnesses signed in three languages-kufiq, Pahlavi and Hebrew ;why?but more important is the lack of any carvings ,images or statues during this period .If the coe is subjugated Malankaranazranies and practiced icon veneration there would have been some kind evidences like carvings, images or statues. Unfortunately we find nothing till now.

I cannot strongly put forward St. Thomas origin theory because of lack of evidence. But I only suggest a possibility. The other thesis of Persian migrant origin is also possible. But if we look at the Persian origin then we must have some kind of Persian cultural hangover (names, dishes etc.) which is not at all exist. More over the limited cheppeds available indicate multi ethnicity. S o we can go back to the first proposition .St.Thomas or some Thomas worked among the people who are familiar with the Semitic culture. These people were settled near the great trading port called Muchri. If that is the case the fist group of Malankaranazranies followed the very same Jews culture. (Is it why the fermented dishes introduced in malankara?)So there is no question of veneration of icons in early period of Malankaranazranies.

Yes our pallies re-built many times. So what, the new structures would not have changed in total. The structure might have been the same until Portuguese .there are pretty good number of old churches like kadamattam, chattukulangara, chengannur etc. still indicate the style .These pallies do not provide any space for icons in their madhbaha. It is very difficult to believe that these churches avoided the space for icons while they were re-built. If it is so whose initiative was that? Truth was other way around .Malankaranazranies never used to venerate any form of icon other than cross. It is still practiced by them. Anointing with oil in front of an icon cannot be considered as veneration. Actually thukku vilakku/nila vilakku/kalvilakku is an integral part of a malankara nazrani palli and it is usually kept inside the church or out side in the poomukham not in front of an icon.

There are many scientists whose findings are considered of no importance(now), but they are still considered as scholars. This is also same with field of social science. Take the case of Max Muller who introduced Vedic culture to the world, considered a great scholar even if his linguistic observations are now considered inaccurate. This is same with Buchanan whose some observations may be wrong, but his work is considered as important.

Yes, I referred you as a camouflaged cooli writer. I have my own reason to call you. Read your posts care fully .Many places it is contradicting each other .You are repeatedly stating that you are an orthodox .One need not repeat it if he is. Your posts are blindly supportive to romo-syrians. You try to equate orthodox and catholic point of view as one while actually they are opposite. Your posts are directing to one conclusion that malankara Nazranies have no separate identity other than Romo Syrian. You deliberately down play the amount of struggle they did to continue and preserve their identity. The sufferings malankara Nazranies had from Portuguese /Roman authorities in the name of Christianity is not easily forgettable. Now all Romo Syrian propagandist historian want to down play the importance of koonen kurishu sathyam, Marthoma IVth sufferings, and sheep stealing policies of Rome etc.

Since you are very keen to know my church allegiances, I want to reveal it for your satisfaction. I born in an orthodox family of north Travancore, but I am not a practising Christian and not a believer of Paulian Christianity. So there is no need to change the church. My interest in malankara nazrani history is based on Indian nationalistic view. I have much differences with both factions of malankara Nazranies respect with church history, palli administrative policies etc. I am totally against western model of church administration.

Tail piece

“”’Ignoramus, imbecile, idiot, moron, fool””””; good keep it up, it shows your culture.

Re-Thomas Antony and his comments (post 14706)

Yes he is writing about my post regard with SMC and its formation. Important points were covered with respect to it during that time. Now Thomas Antony is in arms based on my sentence’’ the point about conversion will be covered in next post’’’

‘’’’’’I remember, in Dec 08, he disappeared without providing evidences supporting his theory that Syro Malabars are converted Christians.’’’’’’’You are twisting my post here. My statement was this””””””” The syro- Malabar church is built on the floor of the separated Malankaranazranies by Roman bishops with lots of inputs from Ezhavas, Parayas&Arayas””””””it makes lot of difference .Following posts covered some of the related points.

I deliberately avoided posting related with this subject because Thomas Antony takes it personally and emotionally. More over the essence of the discussion should be positive without disturbing any body emotionally or abusing any one. I never took this subject voluntarily rather an answer to john’s enquiry. My post 9895(10009, 10084&10109) give ample logic about this subject.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’Your argument about the numbers of pazhyakoor-Thomas Whitehouse in his book “Lingering of light in a dark land-researches into Syrian church of Malabar”, says the number of Romo Syrians were 100, 000, independent Syrians 50,000 and latins 50,000.in 1787. Again, it says 86 parishes with Romosyrians and 30 with Mar Thoma I. In the book “Missionary enterprise in the east” Richard Collins says in 1873, the number of Syrians and romosyrians almost equal. Roulini in 1745 says out of 128 churches, 15 latin and 113 syrian churches, of which 30 are schismatics- Puthencoor- that means 83 pazhayacoors and 30 puthencoors. Du Perron 1758- 31 syrians, 57 Romo Syrians and 20 mixed churches. Mar Dionycius told Buchanan in 1806-“I am the father of 54 churches”.’’’’’’’’’’THIS is from your post. Any logical conclusion from it? These books are not ample evidences to disprove my statement since they are contradicting each other .these authors have limited knowledge about Malankara nazranies except Buchanan. His count is in terms of churches which is not at all sufficient to understand the demographics of Malankara Nazranies with respect to Romo- Syrians.

‘’’’’’’’Jeevan’s quoting of Milne’s numbers is absolutely wrong and he might have meant it as the number of Syriac Christians vs. Latin Christians.’’’’’’Thomas Antony’s post 9949

‘’’’’’’’George Milne Rae in 1892 says – The relative proportions of the Puthencoor and palayacoor being probably then as now about 3 to 1. He does not think that the proportions have changed over 250 years from Coonen Cross oath period till 1892 which disprove your conversion theory in 17th century. He also admits that the numbers are “may be” as it was not from a trustful source.’’’’’’’’Thomas Antony’s post 9985

Thomas Antony has the habit of changing position in his posts and he often foul play for the benefit of his positions .In many posts he make statements as if he is not knowing/he is an authority to put an argument (baseless) forward to mislead the reader and down play the actual facts to protect his vested interest. Here in first post he state that the numbers are absolutely wrong without consulting the book then he change his positions with his own manipulative explanations.

I never said the conversion was limited to 17th century rather my statement was this”””” The conversion has taken a momentum in the seventeenth century and end up in present day position.’’’’’’’

About George Milne Rae ‘s book please turn to page no.377under heading’’ Notes to chapterXVI’’it is clearly written’’’’ IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN FROM THE CENSUS REPORTS AN EXACT CLASSIFICATION.THE NUMBER OF JACOBITE SYRIANS MAY BE TAKEN AS APPROXIMATELY 330000,AND THE NUMBER OF ROMO SYRIANS AS110000.THE NUMBER OF PROTESTANT SYRIANS IS COMPARATIVELY SMALL.’’’’’’’(an old copy is with me) we can consider George Milne Rae as a credible author since he worked in India for quite some time unlike other authors who just visit , gather some information and write a book.(please read the’’ preface’’ of the book.)The information given in this book is collected during midsummer vacation in1870 as specified in the preface. (……….Malankaranazranies and 110000 for Romo-syrians during end of sixteenth century………in post 9895, please read this as’’ end of nineteenth century.’’’)Now what can we get from this? From the Coonen kurisu sathyam to 1870 period the roman missionaries was able to make the Romo- Syrians number up 110000.How it is done I need not to explain .Now how are you going to explain the growth of population from this end of the nineteenth century to present day .If you take all Malankaranazranis (ie both factions of Orthodox, Marthomites, and Thozhiyoor) put together will not make any where near to the number of smc today. It is logical to think that smc is built on the floor of the separated Malankaranazranies by Roman bishops with lots of inputs from Ezhavas, Parayas &Arayas.

There are many other evidences I can put forward in favor of my statement. Also please note that there is a sudden population reduction taken place incase of backward communities of Kerala during this period with respect to geographical region pertaining to Christian missions.

I am sorry to repeat this. HISTORY is not reporting references but applying your mind logically with alternate possible evidences like sociological studies, cultural studies, demographics, archeological studies, linguistics etc.

Regarding Jeevan’s postings.

All of you may remember we discussed the same issue in Dec 08 under the article, Lost Aramaic Bible of Syrian Christians of Kerala.

He is just repeating what he has said already. No new information. I had contradicted all of his arguments. (Please read my posts under the topic Lost Aramaic bible…….posts 9949 and 9985 etc). Then he left the forum stating that he will provide more details later.

The only new thing in his post 15508 dated 19/05/09 is that “please note that there is a sudden population reduction taken place incase of backward communities of Kerala during this period with respect to geographical region pertaining to Christian missions”. He is not providing any details of this. Who said this, on what basis, are there any data available? No answer. How can we conclude that all those population integrated into SMC only? What is the credibility of this information?

As he has posted the same arguments again with many derogatory comments about me, I am forced to repeat what I said in December 08 again to clarify things. SORRY

Regarding the numbers of Puthencoor and Pazhayacoors, I had quoted a number of authors in Dec 08. Only George Milne Rae claims that Puthencoor are more in numbers. All the others reported that Pazhayacoor were majority. But Jeevan consider Milne Rae as the only credible author .Even George Milne Rae himself admits

“IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN FROM THE CENSUS REPORTS AN EXACT CLASSIFICATION.THE NUMBER OF JACOBITE SYRIANS MAY BE TAKEN AS APPROXIMATELY 330000, AND THE NUMBER OF ROMO SYRIANS AS110000.THE NUMBER OF PROTESTANT SYRIANS IS COMPARATIVELY SMALL”.

This doesn’t mean anything. He has reported what he was told by someone. He, like all other protestant missionaries came here to help and support puthencoor to keep them away from the Roman church. So, he might have got this number from another Jeevan Philip. As the Admin has commented, he even did not know Malayalam.

Thomas White house has reported that the number of Puthencoors was exaggerated by some authors. Thomas White house, a protestant missionary who, instead of hearing from his friends, visited a large number of old nasrani parishes, both Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor and wrote his book. I was surprised that he has even visited my own parish church – Champakulam Kalloorkkadu church also. Whitehouse states-
“SOME STRANGELY EXAGGERATED STATEMENTS AS TO THE NUMERICAL STRENGTHS OF SYRIANS IN FORMER TIMES HAVING FOUND THEIR WAY INTO PRINT, AND BEING REPEATED BY ONE WRITER AFTER ANOTHER…..” This is also an attestation of the numbers quoted by Milne Rae.

It is true, after the Coonan cross oath, vast majority were with the Archdeacon. But later, a large number joined Parambil Chandy metran due to various factors I have mentioned here many times-

1 Mar Thoma I was still waiting for a legitimate Bishopric consecration from eastern churches and Parambil Chandy was consecrated as a Bishop by the Portuguese. This led a large number joining him, as the Portuguese ridiculed the Mar Thoma as a bishop without a legitimate bishopric.

2 Political reasons – Portuguese bribed and influenced the local kings and the kings forced the nasranis to join Parambil Chandy- example, my own parish at Champakulam. Champakulam and Kudamaloor were under the king of Purakkadu, who ordered us to go and join the Parambil Chandy faction.

3. The Jesuits were replaced by Carmelites.

So, the whole environment was favouring the Pazhayacoor at that time which made them majority. This fact has been reported by most authors, including many protestant authors also who were friends of Puthencoors and helping to build their numbers by missionary activities.

Whitehouse (1787) – Romosyrians 100 000, Independent Syrians 50 000, Latin’s 50,000

Richard Collins (1873) – number of Syrians and Romosyrians are almost equal.

1892 Milne Rae- Romosyrians 11 0000, Jacobite Syrians 33 0000

(Jeevan might want to apply his theory here and find how the numbers of Jacobite Syrians changed from 1787 through 1873 until 1892 compared with the Romo syrians)

Number of churches are also important.

Whitehouse (1787) Romosyrians 86, Mar Thoma I – 30

Roulini (1745) – 15 Latin, 113 Syrian, out of which 30 are schismatics-puthencoor.
That shows 83 Pazhayacoor and 30 Puthencoor.

Du Perron (1758) 31 Syrian, 57 Romosyrian 20 mixed
If you add the 31 Syrians and 20 mixed, we get 51—Buchanan’s quotation- about Mar Dionysius-“I am the father of 54 churches”

So, all the available reports are against Jeevan’s theory.

Yes, the Portuguese missionaries were involved in missionary activity and they wanted to get more people to their church-Latin rite, not the Syrian rite. They were trying to isolate and restrict the Syrian rite. Even today, that is true. So why would they convert people to Pazhayacoor which they thought as an error, rather than joining people to their own rite? How did the Latin rite formed? If they were adding people to Syrian rite, there would not be a Latin rite in Kerala.

The SMC activity was restricted between river pamba and bharathapuzha. It was only recently, it became opened up a little more. The initial migrants of SMC to northern Kerala were to join the local Latin Church.

Regarding his post about how SMC celebrated Qurbana before, I think he has to open his eyes. All he has written is wrong. He claims that he has been following various denominations closely. As far as I know, even the Latin church in Kerala started celebrating the Qurbana facing he people only after 1968- Second Vatican council reforms.( Selvister Ponnumuthan, The spirituality of basic ecclesial communities in the socio-religious context of Trivandrum/Kerala, India,1996) So, how can we imagine the SMC was celebrating the Qurbana facing the people until 1988?

Now, the Latin church is going back to ad orientum.

I visited a SMC parish in a remote rural village in Calicut- Anakkampoil in 1986 and was surprised to see the priest celebrating the Qurbana facing the people and when I asked the parishioners, they said this is the new practice since the new Qurbana was established and inaugurated by the Pope John Paul II in 1986. They were celebrating the Qurbana facing the altar until then and the Latinising Priests used the opportunity to change the practice to favour their groupism.

See the evidence from Trichur-“According to Thrissur Archbishop Jacob Thoomkuzhy, although facing the altar has been in practice for many centuries in the East and the West, the original mode of the eucharist celebration was `around the altar,’ the Mass being the commemoration of the Last Supper. This is the rationale for the Mass facing people.” The Indian Express, Sunday, June 29, 1997. http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19970629/18050293.html

Let the Trichurians tell us when they started celebrating the Holy Qurbana facing the people.

Re. his mention about the rejection of Chaldean mass by SMC in 1938.We have discussed this many times here. That is not a new information to anybody follow the discussions here. Is he using that letter to prove that SMC was not using the Chaldean mass? The whole of Nasranis were Latinised by the synod of Diamper and the East Syriac liturgy was modified. Both Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor were using the same modified version. (Until the puthencoor adopted the new West Syriac liturgy).When Rome realised that it was wrong, they urged the Bishops to go back to Pre Diamper liturgy. (Full restoration). The Latin trained prelates did not want to go back, instead wanted to keep status quo. But I think Rome introduced the fully restored liturgy in 1962 but after the Second Vatican Council II reforms, which allowed vernacularisation and local inculturations, the Prelates used this opportunity to dilute the liturgy in 1968. The 1986 version was the reintroduction of 1962, which was nothing new. When the Puthencoor switched the liturgy to west Syriac in 1770s, the Pazhaycoor continued the modified East Syriac liturgy which was nearly fully restored in 1962.

Now, after reading his last two posts, I can understand why he is so angry about SMC. His own words-“during my college day’s .I was a student of ST. Berchman’s, Changanacherry during 1982-83 and was an inmate of ST. Thomas hostel……these discussions ended in my eviction from the hostel along with two Malankaranazranies and two Nairs”.
That bad experience has not healed yet. He may be getting some comfort by this activity. Let us pray the Lord to heal him from that hurt.

As Admin has commented, if other communities have integrated to whichever factions, it shows the vitality of the St Thomas Churches. Let me remind you the words of Arch Bishop Mar 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. )

“CHURCH IS TO BE SEEN AS A SPIRITUAL TRADITION, NOT AS A MERE ‘CULTURAL’ OR ‘ETHNIC’ REALITY”.

Dear Admin,

You have stated following points in your post

1 Paulinus, Du perron, Raulin are better sources of information than Milne Rae

I wonder what made you think in this way .Just because you think it helps to disprove my statement. For the time being I am agreeing with you .Take the data provided by Paulines and Duperron. Duperron gives us the number as 100000 for Romo-Syrians, 50000 for Malankaranazranies and 50000 for Latins in 1758. Paulines give us the number as 90000 for romo-syriyans and 50000 for Malankara Nazraniesin 1774, rite. Now compare it with present day population of respective group.SMC has a population of 37 lakhs(some data shows above 40 lakhs) , Malankara Nazranies put together all denominations(both factions of orthodox; marthomites , thozhiyoor and malakaranazrani portion of population of CSI church,syro- malankara church.) has a population of 22 lakhs and Latin Catholics has a population of 14 lakhs. Now take the rate of growth over the years from mid 18th century to present day. The rate of growth of Romo-syriyan and Malankara Nazranies are more or less the same. But what about the growth rate of Latins. The population of Latins must have been some were around 20 lakhs without any further conversion from mid 18th century. It is unlikely because you are the one who proposes the maximum conversion to Latins. More over the population of Malankaranazranies at the time of Portuguese (around 1650s) noted as 2 lakhs (Robert Eric Frykenberg, Mathias Mundadn, Joseph Thekkedath) which all together goes against these demographics. That is why I am totally against these data.

Now you take the data of church count which I think least represents the actual population. How are you going to assign number of people to each church? There can be a palli with 3000 members to a palli with 100 members. It does not make any logic. Also note the various counts with respect to pallis of these authors do not give any logic
.
Now take the data of George Milne Rae which give more logical figure if we compare with population during 1650s. He is the first author who took a serious study about Malankaranazranies.He had not been carried away by the fascinating stories of Malankaranazranies and had a logical approach to the study. He ended up in suggesting that the story of St. Thomas origin is questionable! This means that he was not favoring malankaranazranies any way. He was a missionary to India and taught in Madras .Some of the students he taught were from Nazranies. He paid a visit to malankara during the summer vacation in1870.He states in his preface’’’”’’’’’’’’’’ at length I was led into more fruitful fields of inquiry. I explored the primitive traditions concerning St. Thomas , with a view to ascertain the origin and value of the local tradition………I became acquainted with the result of archaeological research and Dravidian scholarship relevant to my subject ……..finally I acquired possession of copies of the documents, evidence of witness, and the decision of judges …….I was anxious to offer facilities for criticism to educated members of the Syrian community ,from whose views on the origin of their church I strongly differed……..many of the chapters there for have been entirely recast; is now submitted to the kindly consideration of scholars and the public as a contribution to the history of Christianity in India’’’’’’’’’’ Admin ,what are you talking about this author? Do you always have this kind of myopic view? Please read the book before judging the author.

2 History is more documented in catholic side

Your next point gives an idea about the way in which you look at the history. Malankara nazrani history is documented by all groups of people. The classification on the basis of catholic-non catholic sources/groups is may be not a correct approach. It is true that Malankaranazranies were not keen in keeping their history well documented but the treachery conducted on them by Parangies should not be taken lightly as far as this is concerned.

I suggest that a classification on the basis of foreign/Malankara nazrani or colonial /non colonial would be more accurate and give more reasonable picture. Parangies documented what ever they heard from locals and manipulated or modified to suit their interest in Malankara. The search regarding St. Thomas tomb at mylapore itself shows the intention of this colonial power. It is obvious that the Parangis came first and they became the first documenters of malankara nazrani history. Dutch followed by Brits took the following positions. It is not the data, but quality of it is more important as far as history is concerned. That is why the memorable work like George Milne Rae is far superior to the garbage produced by propaganda/colonial official writers.

Now take the case of documentation by Malankara Nazranies which include the different plates, various thaliyolas, different letters, Buchanan bible etc. Tharissapalli plates are with malankaranazranies (Kottyam pazhayaseminari&Pulathin aramana) best collection of west Syriac documentation is in Konattu library (pambakkuda has certainly the richest library of Syriac manuscripts in kerala-J.P.M.Van derploeg.o.p.), pambakkuda, best collection of east Syriac documentation is with coe (Nestorian) Trichur. what are the other important centers library – library of Kottaym pazhaya seminari ,library of Thozhiyoor ,library of makankara catholic bishop,Trivandrum&thiruvalla(all documents taken by MAR IVANIOS when he switched allegiance from orthodox to Roman church).I am not forgetting the library of Mannanam,arch bishop Ernakulam,bishop house Trichur etc. But these are comparatively smaller collection when we compare with Malankaranazrani side.

Have you ever thought that why Malanjkaranazranies have the Tharissapalli cheppedu with them? (Not with romo-syrians).Last but not least is the NIRANAM GRANDHAVARI.Many of the stories of malankaranazranies as well as Romo Syrians are finds root in this (Many of these stories are erroneous).

3 Catholic missionaries added people in Latin rite not in Latinized Romo-Syrian rite.

For the sake of argument I agree with this. But where is the population growth as one expects if the argument is right. Their population is around 14 lakhs as denoted by them. Demographics suggested by Paulinus/Duperon indicate that their population must have been around 20 lakhs even without further conversion from mid eighteenth century. That means there is a gap of 6 lakhs population of Latin rite members without further conversion. There must have been very large growth if your statement were correct.Where did this population goes? That means either the data by these authors is wrong or the hypothesis itself is wrong.

Now what was the situation of Romo-syrians at that time? They were ruled by all roman/Portuguese bishops whom are eagerly laying foundation of the Roman church. The objection to Latinisaton was very limited that is why they remained with the roman side. If they were proud Nazranies or if they had considerable number of Nazrani population they would have been objected to the roman bishops and formed a proud group of Nazranies under Malankara moopan. That is not happened because they were suppressed by another group whom were new to the traditions of Malankara Nazranies actually formed Romo Syrian population. That is why these roman bishops could change the name of the pallies to Latin saints or Latinized Syrian saints name. New perunnalukal was added in the name of Latin saints without any resistance. They adopted many Latin names for their children forgetting old traditions without any difficulty. These all indicate a supportive group existed among Romo-Syrians which are from backward communities of Kerala.

If none of these missionaries had interest in adding folks to the romo-syrians side; why did they follow the policy of Latinisation? Why did Carmelites, Jesuits worked among malankara Nazranies? They could have concentrated the work among Latins to increase the number. That means they were badly in need of the number to make Syro- Malabar a credible roman church. The current population of Latins shows that the prime importance was given to Romo-syrian church rather than the Latin Church.

The conversion among malankaranazranies was a distant dream in those days as like today. They were much like Hindus practicing all sorts of superstition and untouchability. Conversion was started from Mookancheril thirumeni through sleeba dasa samooham/Powrasthya suvishesha samajam. We all know what the state of affairs is today.

‘’’’’Apart from trying to entice the Syrian Christian community to Latin usages and to come under Vatican control, European missionaries were also instrumental in bringing about conversion among non- Christian peoples of Kerala……..few of the converts were Brahman s, many more were Nairs but vast majority came from the lower castes. When Albuquerque offered financial inducement, application for baptism increased considerably…….the raja of Cannanore was similarly unhappy about conversion .in 1507 he wrote to king Manuel of Portugal—-it is my desire that certain sections of the people in my kingdom whom I and my Nayars hold as slaves and who belong to two castes, TIYANS and MUCUAS, may not be converted to Christianity; nor should Nayars and Brahmans. The conversion of slaves will give rise to conflicts between them and my vassals. The Nayars derive their income from them and do not want to loose it.’’’’’’’’(Christianity, colonialism, and Hinduism in Kerala by Penelope Carson).

The above statement along with points I stated indicate that SMC is built on the floor of the separated Malankara Nazranies with lot of inputs from backward class of Kerela.

Re Thomas Antony’s comments in post15621.

Previous posts cover most of the points with respect to Thomas Antony’s emotional outburst .I am sorry I have to do this because he was misinterpreting my silence which I think clearly clarified in my post 15508.Iam not interested in personal allegations to prove ones point. One could check any of my post from beginning .But Thomas categorically stated that I have hatred towards Catholics which I think is outrageous. I stated about my eviction from the hostel (not from college) to show that this matter was discussed among the students and I remember the change of Kramam clearly. But he has again misinterpreted the whole thing. Any way I have no hard feelings.

Any body who is a serious reader of these posts can see that I never used any foul language to any one even though some one here repeatedly used it against me. I called one person a camouflaged cooli (it is not a derogatory word which means a camouflaged paid writer-a practice in the net) writer and had given reasons for terming him.

The observations I present here is not for to please any one. I usually follow the facts and try to analyze the matter with other possible evidences. If anybody wants to disprove it by facts and figures I whole heartedly welcome it. Because I am not a believer of traditional malankaranazrani history. This I have stated in my posts regarding Palayoor stories, coonen kurishu sathyam, subjugation of malankaranazranies, and evolusion of episcopacy in malankara etc. That means I do not revolve around church allegiances.

YES about the various data; Thomas states that Milne Rae‘s data is wrong, on what grounds my dear. I could give some more data respect with this which slightly favor the Milne Rae’s data .A letter sent to Dutch by Mar Gabriel (1721) put the number of pallies as 20 under Carmelites and 44under malankaranazranies’’ Dutch in Malabar ‘’by Wisher describe like this about MarthomaIV

’’’’’’’’’’’’’´He is a black man, dull and slow of understand. He lives in great state and when he came to the city to visit the commandant ,he was attended by a number of soldiers, in imitation of the prince of Malabar……According to his own account he has 45 churches under his own authority.’’’’’’’’’’’

Again Collins put the number is almost equal for the both parties (1873).Which count are you gong to consider as reflects the truth. You need to do some kind of analysis to verify the facts of these data. Please study my analysis with respect these data (post) and do your analysis and let me know the findings. Don’t jump into conclusions before that.

If Malankaranazranies were using the same Qurbanakramam ,why would VALIYAMAR DIVANNASIOS (MARTHOMAVI) repented and celebrated qurbana for 41 days after his 32 days of imprisonment by Mathoo tharakan and Paremakkil Thomman kathanar.(read post 7956-I don’t want to repeat). Were did you get the information about the change of kramam among Malankaranazranies were from 1770.It was from KALLUNGATHARA PADIYOLA (1843—kollavarsham 1019 kanni 3rd Friday) the detailed documentation available-Mathews mar Athanasius methrapolitha by j.Varghese Shirasthadar vol.1 p.67, Keralathile Nazrani kristhianikal vol.2 p 372 by P.V Mathew.).

“If they were proud Nazranies or if they had considerable number of Nazrani population they would have been objected to the roman bishops and formed a proud group of Nazranies under Malankara moopan. That is not happened because they were suppressed by another group whom were new to the traditions of Malankara Nazranies actually formed Romo Syrian population” -Jeevan’s post.

Quite interesting about his ignorance. He is totally ignorant about the history of Pazhayacoor after the Coonan Cross oath. History of Mar Kariatty, Paremmakkal Thoma kathanar, Angamali padiyola in 1787, history of Pandari Paulose, etc, shows the efforts of the Pazhayacoor to retain the old tradition and rite. If Jeevan’s arguments were correct, then why did Mar Thoma I to VI all tried for reunion with Pazhayacoor? They would not have wanted to join a party where original Nasranis are a minority.

I think the legitimate Bishopric was a factor for keeping more people with Parambil Chandy Kathanaar. His consecration raised hope in many communities that this will continue. When the missionaries appointed a European as Parambil Chandy’s auxiliary, there were lot of dissatisfaction among the Pazhayacoor and churches like Manarcaud, Puthuppalli, and Piravom etc left Pazhayacoor and joined Puthencoor.

I have already explained other factors which gave advantage to Parambil Chandy over Parambil Thomas.

Regarding the rite of split parties.

“At first, the supporters of Thomas welcomed Gregory with enthusiasm, believing him to be a bishop of the same tradition as those who had come to rule over in the earlier years. Noting some difference in his manner of celebrating the mass, they began to be suspicious. But Thomas persuaded Gregory to adapt himself to the local rite, the same rite that had been adopted at Diamper and was used by both the palayacoor and Puthencoor. This Gregory agreed to do, except that he would not use unleavened bread in the celebrating of Holy Mysteries. The followers of Thomas did not realize that the newly arrived Bishop was about to introduce among them a theological revolution……..” (History of Christianity in India, Stephen Neill.)

This also proves that there were discontent among the Puthencoor about the new Bishop and liturgy which also might have favoured more people to stay with the Chandy faction.
There is much documentation stating that the Puthencoor and Pazhayacoor were using the same liturgy for many years until full adoption of west Syriac rite.

Regarding the way in which SMC celebrated Qurbana before 1960s, just ask our older generation. I think Jeevan is not understanding the complex politics in SMC, that is why he is persistently arguing that Chaldean was new. This period is not very remote and all documentations are available in various places about the modified East Syriac liturgy. I hope that Jeevan would recede from his argument that SMC was celebrating Qurbana “ad pupulum” until 1986.

To show that Chaldean rite and name are not new to the Pazhayacoor-

In 1895, a letter was sent under the leadership of Nidheerickal Mani Kathanaar against the use of “Syro Malabar” instead of “Syro chaldaic” in one of the documents from Rome.
“That we who have been known from time immemorial as Malabar chaldeic Syrians, and belonged to the same rite are now called by the vicar apostolic as Malabar Syrians and an address to this effect have been sent to the Holy See and a reply is said to have been received under the new appellation. This change of our national name is contrary to the ………” ( An account of a very important period of the Catholic Syrian Christians of Malabar Rt. Rev. Mgr. Aloysius Pazheparambil 1920)

Jeevan has quoted a few articles from Sunday Shalom.
(A few years ago, Shalom published an article stating – why did God allow humans to reproduce by dirty activities – Mlechhtha. Again, they have published articles stating that Persian crosses are not suitable to keep in the churches and not venerable !!).

I think Jeevan is catching the wrong end in SMC history. He needs to study more and may be a good idea to write a letter to the author of the articles he quoted in Sunday shalom for clarification.

Dear Admin &All

The population analysis with respect to Nazranies

I am sorry to state that Thomas is not getting my point in the study with respect to the population of Nazranies. I hate to repeat it, but have no other option.

I am not making any new theory here. Let check the data given by Whitehouse. The rate of growth of Nazranies over the years from mid-eighteenth century till present date with respect to different groups is to be checked to verify the acceptability of these data. When we compare this we find that the growth of population with respect to Romo- Syrians and Malankara Nazranies are more or less same. But the rate of growth with respect to Latins is much lesser. Why this phenomenon does take place? the astonishing thing which we observe here is that even without further conversion the population must have been some where around 20 lakhs. But it is Thomas and Admin’s argument that Catholic missionaries added people in Latin rite not in Latinized Romo-Syrian rite. In that case the population growth must have been much more as compared to Romo-syriyan growth, which is not true, why?

Here is my analysis. There are four options we have. I am comfortable with all options; only thing is that you have to explain it to me. Option no.1– the data as well as the hypothesis are right. Then explain it to me that why the population of Latins is so less as compared with Malankaranazranies since both has been reported population strength of 50000 each. Also accommodate space for your hypothesis that Catholic missionaries added people in Latin rite not in Latinized Romo-Syrian rite.

Option no.2 –the data is right, the hypothesis is wrong .that means the missionaries added people to Latinized Syrian rite which again indicate that the data is wrong.

Option no.3-the data is wrong, the hypothesis is right. Then we have to search for other sources of information like Milne Rae and apply the hypothesis there which again gives negative result.

Option no4-both is wrong .that means we have to search for other data and apply the opposite of the hypothesis. In this case the data with respect with Milne Rae seem to be more accurate.

Now Thomas claims that I have inflated the population of SMC. Let Thomas read the post of Admin (15906) and sort it out by himself. As far as Latin population is concerned, I followed the information given by their respective sites on the net. Out of 11 dioceses, 7 dioceses give respective figures of population in their site .in order to get the rest I consulted the diocesan data furnished to the holy see by the diocesan curias concerned -1995(1331265) I calculated the rate of growth with respect to the current data (of the dioceses which have current population figures) and calculated the current figures of those dioceses which do not have current population figures by applying the same rate of growth. This has given me the number as1367787.I added an upper correction figure of 32213 to arrive 14 lakh .I think I am not deflating the figures. As far as the data with respect to Malankara Nazranies are concerned ,we have to rely on insider sources .This also can be checked with the population of respective areas where the malankara Nazranies have concentration. You can see the population figure of 22 lakhs for Malankara Nazranies is not deflated if we consider the total population of Christians in Kerala.

This population comparison is not a serious study as you suggested .I know that we need more detailed information for this purpose. But it indicate the level of correctness of these data. Since we have opposing data we need to check the veracity of this information.

I am not suggesting you to assign population to pallies rather consider the pally counts. How can this reflect the actual population? There is no logic in this argument that the number of pallies reflects the population.

The data collected by various authors (Paulinus, Whitehouse etc) are from secondary source as you stated while Rae’s data are primary (as noted in his preface). Collin states that the population is almost equal. I don’t understand why you people are adamant in suggesting the above authors are correct .what is the reason behind it? More over did these authors categorically state that their data are correct? Whitehouse takes the data from Paulinus and Duperron depend on Bishop Florentius of Carmelite bishop of Malabar .Kindly note the background of these sources in order to ascertain the validity of the data!.

If we take Collins data (equal) is correct then how are you going to explain the current population figures? In that case you have to agree that the hypothesis suggested by you is wrong. That means these data are more or less imaginative.

The reason why I suggest Rae’s data is more correct that it give us a comparatively clear picture with current population figures. More over George Milne Rae was the first author who did a balance study about Nazrani History. He was not carried away by any of our imaginative stories .Other wise you provide me with some good logic to disprove my suggestion than talking about Anglican works or conversion by CSI missionaries

We can see Latinization is mainly applicable to Romo Syrians when we study the history of Nazranies during 17th to19Th century. Malankaranazranies followed their old traditions more vigorously after the coonen kurishu sathyam. Mar Thoma-Antiochene compromise (1754) acknowledged Mar Thoma as the Malankara moopan and that no priest will be ordained without the permission of Mar Thoma .In returns he agreed the supremacy of the patriarch. How can one compare a tactical agreement by Mar Thoma with latinization policy of Rome/Portuguese among Romo-syrians.

Now take the geographical distribution of malankara Nazranies vis-a-vis Romo Syrian. Malankaranazrani population is concentrated either old capitals or old market places while Romosyrian population is in and around coastal region (except few cases).

Another important thing one needs to consider is the population of Nazranies during Parangies. There is a consensus among historians that population of Malankara Nazranies around mid 16th century was around 2 lakhs. If we compare this figure with Whitehouse/ Duperon‘s, we will not be in a position to explain why there is no growth (rather reduction) in population (even after a hundred years) .This also indicate that the figures noted by Duperron /Whitehouse have some serious error in it.

Tharissapalli cheppedu.

Yes Tharishappalli cheppedu is not originated from Mar Jacob. have you ever read the book called JORNADA OF DOM ALEXIS DE MENEZES (of course you did a book review).Turn to page389 in which the writer talk about the Teualecare (Thevalakkara palli)visit of Menezes ……..…….and before leaving the Christians brought to show him big olas of copper written in diverse characters, which contain many privileges and incomes which king who founded Coulao gave to the church which was built there by the two who came from Babylonia ,Mar Xapor and Mar Prodh as we have said above ,which olas are retained by Christian of this church as an invaluable treasure …………read yourself .now tell me why are you so myopic in observing history. This is from a catholic source.

Above narration shows that the cheppedu belongs to tharissapalli ie THEVALAKKARA PALLI and now it is in the legitimate hands. Is this also applicable to IRAVI KORTHAN CHEPPEDU (of course it is not an exclusive nazrani cheppedu) Also kindly note that the KOLLAM in those days was not kollam of today but KUREKKENI KOLLAM i.e. KAYAMKULAM. Man we need to do a lot of serious research before jump in to conclusions.

VALIYAMAR DIVANNASIOS (MARTHOMA VI)

When one find difficulty in answering he try to defend himself declaring it as ‘’’usual apologetic stuff’’’’.since I have clearly describe about the back ground and incidence relating to mar Thoma VI arrest(post 7956) ,there is no need to repeat it .What admin says is not logically or analytically correct. Why should Mar Thoma VI be fined for? It is interesting to here that the fine was for his conduct. How many cases one could see in Kerala history that court fined for ones belief?

Do you know that there were three negotiation regards with unification of malankaranazranies at Chengannur, Kayamkulam and Niranam.All these discussion had taken place at Mar Thoma’s residence. This itself shows the interest shown by the Romo- Syrians.They were badly in need of a malankara hierarchy .The pathetical condition of Romo-syrians forced them to go after Mar Thoma.

It is quite interesting to observe that many pro-Romo-syrian historians produce many versions of MARTHOMA VI’s letters. But recent observation by ISTVAN PERCZEL (SRITE) regarding these letters state that their initial study suggests that the letters produced in different languages have serious differences in content. It is also noted that the Varthamana pusthakam by paremakil thomman kathanar can certainly give some information related with these letters as he himself state on the chapter 47 that chapter (Padam)13,14,15 contain details about the letters. But the publisher says that is damaged. When we read this along with ISTVAN PERCZEL observations, one could easily find who is manipulated the documents (for more evidences one could again consult NIRANAM GRANDAVARI)

One should study the position of Thachil Mathoo tharakan regards with political/administrative set up during this period to understand the gravity of the situation. He was no.3 in the line of administrators after the king and divan of Travancore. He could do whatever he wanted in the matters of administration. He was the one who sent Pandari Paulose to Chaldean Partriarch for the consecration.

What happened to Pandari Paulose the so called methran?He became mad after he was poisoned by Carmelites and he started celebrating qurbana without holy sacraments(Niranam grandhavari) .Dom Jose De Soledad(Mamballi Methran)who was a party to the Mar Thoma VI’s arrest was expelled from Malabar because his alleged killing of a priest. Kattakayath Avirah kattanar was also lost his governador position.

Every body knows what happened with Mathoo tharakan. Tharakan was caught (kollavarsham 974 midhunam 12) by people from Anchuthengu and cut his ears and brought him to Thiruvanathapuram. His house at Thathampalli was razed to the ground (using elephants) byVelu thambi dalava (kollam982, thulam 10) He was again charged with revolt against Britishers and sentenced for death (1809). .His death sentence was reduced to compensation of money with the influence of arch bishop Raymond of Joseph O.C.D. vicar app. Of verapoly. Br.Leopold in his book’’’ Keralathile Latin kristianikal’’’ state that this money was used to meet the expenses of students of Pazhaya seminary, Kottayam by the order of resident Manro. Ittup writer also state that an amount of Rs 2000/-was received by Pazhaya seminary in his book ‘’’’’suriyani kristhyanikalute sabha charithram.

Dear Admin,

””””””””’16311 to 16314, you have repeated the same arguments again. You should know that by now, repetition of erroneous observation will not make it a fact.””””””’

I am not repeating rather answering to the points you& Thomas have raised.”’Erroneous observation” on what grounds my dear.Facts and figures will do,not baseless statements.

Dear TKV,

Addi & Mari liturgy is 2000 year old. Chaldean Church is only 500 year old. (Approx) How is Chaldeans better than Assyrians in terms of apostolic succession? Other than the fact that they are Catholic? But then what is the connection between the Catholic Church and Addi & Mari? Our historic connection (especially in connection with this Ancient Apostolic liturgy) is with the Church of the East which today is synonymous NOT with the Chaldeans’ Church but with the Assyrians’ Church.
And if you have any knowledge of the bible at all from the point of view of the Bible Chaldians are considered inferior to the Assyrians: “Behold the land of the Chaldeans; THIS PEOPLE WAS NOT, till the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness: they set up the towers thereof, they raised up the palaces thereof; and he brought it to ruin!” KJV Isaiah 23:13
“While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.” Job 1:17
“Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called, The lady of kingdoms.” KJV Isaiah 47:5
But of Assyria God says: “In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.” Isaiah 19:24-25

Well! “BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER!” You see.

Dear Varghese Paul,

Re. the real apostolic succession from the East Syriac church.

The East Syriac church was united until 1552 when there was a rival Patriarchate was established by Mar Yohannan Sulagha VIII against the official Patriarch Mar Shimon IV.on the issue of hereditary succession of Patriarchate.

Mar Sulagha met the Pope of Rome and entered into communion with the Roman Catholic Church and occupied his seat at Diyarbakir while the official hereditary Patriarch was based at Alghosh which was the majority.

In 1662, the Patriarch at Diyarbakir Mar Shimon XIII Denha broke his communion with the Roman Church and resumed ties with the Alghosh line and moved his seat to Quochanis and continued as parallel Patriarch.

In 1672, Mar Yousif, a rival from the traditional Alghosh line declared as a Patriarch and professed communion with Rome and Rome appointed him as the Patriarch of Chaldeans at Diyarbakir (1681).

Now there were three Patriarchs- traditional Alghosh, Quochanis and Diyarbakir Patriarchs.

In 1804, the traditional Alghosh Patriarch Elias Mar Shimun XIII died and the next patriarchate position fell onto his nephew, Yohanna Hormizd, who was already a Catholic Metropolitan at Mosul under the Chaldean Patriarch. When the Diyarbakir Catholic Patriarch died, Yohanna Hormizd rejoined Catholic faith and Rome Appointed him as the Chaldean Patriarch (1830) and the whole traditional Alghosh line of CoE ( the main body of CoE and the vast majority) became Catholic.

At this point, Quochanis line of rival Patriarchate claimed the title Assyrian church. The current Assyrian Patriarchs are successors of Mar Sulaqa who was in communion with Rome for at least 100 years and the Chaldean Patriarchs are successors of the traditional Patriarchs from the beginning.

Now, tell which is the real successor of the Apostolic East Syriac church?

Please do not be confused with the ethnic “Assyrians “and “Chaldeans” with Assyrian Church and Chaldean church. The Assyrian people of Upper Mesopotamia have always been an important part of the Church of the east, though historically they were only one of the many ethnic groups within the church.

Why do you think becoming Catholic disqualify them from East Syriac traditions? Why Catholic Church can’t have connections with Addai and Mari? During addai mari time, there were only one church.All the divisions happened after that . Today, the vast majority of people who use the Anaphora of Addai and Mari are Catholics.- The Syro Malabar Church and the Chaldean catholic Church). The Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Assyrian Church are a very minimal minority compared to Chaldean Church. On the other hand, Syro Malabar church is much bigger than Chaldean Church- at least 5 times.

(As far as I know, there is no church exists in the world who use Liturgy of Addai and Mari who has never been in communion with the Catholic Church.)

Church of the East had relations with Rome in the past also. We have discussed in the past in here about Pope Gregory III who was a Chaldean.

In 1200s, Rabban Sauma went to Rome and celebrated the East Syriac liturgy in Rome and met the Pope and addressed him “With the pardon of my faults and sins which I have received from thee O Father, I desire of thy fatherliness, O Holy father, that I may receive the communion from thy hands so that I may have complete forgiveness” and the Pope said “It shall be so”. This rabban Sauma became the Patriarch of Church of the East in 1289 as Mar Jaballaha III.

There were attempts for full communion with Roman Church by Patriarch Mar Sabrisho V (1247) and Jaballaha III (1288) but were not longstanding. ( Zubhi Zora, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247 Rene Leynant ed. Pontifical Institutum Studorium Orientalium, Rome, 1994 P 348

In the council of Florence, 1438-1445, all the Church of the East in Cyprus joined the Catholic communion. Bishop Thimotheos of the diocese of Cyprus of Church of the East signed a document of unity with the Roman Catholic Church describing himself as the Metropolitan of Tarsus for the Chaldeans. They later adopted Latin rite.

(Ref. History of Assyrian Church of the East in the twentieth century by Mar Aprem- Doctoral thesis)

You have to understand that in the pre Diamper period, the Nasranis were in communion with the Chaldean church. So, our historic connections were- Church of the East-after its division, mainly Chaldean faction. Post Diamper also,the Prelates visited Malabar, Mar Simon, Mar Rochos, and Mar Melus, all were Chaldeans. There is an argument by Western missionaries that Mar Gabriel was a Nestorian but we have to understand that in literature, the word Nestorian was used to denote all the east Syriac churches.

Dear Thomas Antony,

(1) Are you saying that all branches of the original COE are in communion with Rome today / are Catholic? No I don’t think so. Well, it is quite obvious that there are more people in the Catholic Church but that was not my point. The issue was who has preserved this revered liturgy more faithfully in the past and therefore proves more qualified for consultation on this endeavor.
(2) Well, I have had the opportunity to visit Ancient Assyrian, Modern Assyrian, and the Chaldean Churches. And I can give you first hand information. They where not all the same. First of all at least in the churches I have been to anyone can tell just by the looking at the church if it is Assyrian or Chaldean. Chaldean Churches had statues of saints inside the church as well. And Assyrian Churches did not. Though some of them have pictures out side (not inside). Another difference I found was Chaldeans’ use of Arabic in the liturgy! Also, the Assyrian laity demonstrated a greater knowledge of Aramaic than the Chaldean laity. [I think the reason for this lack is: the Assyrians teach Syriac in the Sunday Categism but not the Chaldeans (due to pressure from Rome?)]
(3) Confusion about Ethnicity: Well, I am Malayalee because (a) I was born in Kerala / parents from Kerala (b) I am fluent in Malayalam. As the same is true of a guy from another state in India. And at the same time Malayalees also live in other states. In this way (a) the Chaldean language and Assyrian language may have many similarities but they are also different. (b) The geographic regions of Assyria and Chaldea are also different.
(4) Does being a Catholic disqualify one from using Addi & Mari liturgy? That is like asking: Does being an American disqualify anyone from speaking in their native language? No. But more time you live in America the less will be your touch with your native language.
(5) Even the Indian Prime Minister has to listen to the American President on some issues. Also the Indian prime minister will be allowed to speak in the white house if he goes there. But India is not a part of America. Yes, they are different countries. However everyone knows that America is a richer nation. And everyone knows that there can be similar material benefits in having communion with Rome. Your hope of being able to maintain the most revered traditions and at the same time being in communion with Rome is not realistic. What my own eyes have seen in the Chaldian Church is enough to prove this to me.

RE: Church of the East v. Chaldean

Re: TKV’s “Caldean uniates can’t be considered the rightful heir of the Nestorian Church.”

This is clear nonsense. They are definitely heirs to the tradition, but not to the Christology of the CoE.

Re: M Thomas Antony: “You have to understand that in the pre Diamper period, the Nasranis were in communion with the Chaldean church. So, our historic connections were- Church of the East-after its division, mainly Chaldean faction.”

You’re ignoring the longest association Malabar had: to the non-Ephesan Church of the East from at least the 4th century to the 15th century! Why do you ignore that association? The association with the Chaldean happened only after the start of the Chaldean Church in the 15th century or so. Before that, we were in communion with the Church of the East.

I’m against both points of view regarding this “rightful heir” theory. I believe that both are “rightful” heirs, since theological positions have never been an issue with succession. For example, in many Eastern patriarchates there are often two or more “rightful heirs” — and there’s no objective means of separating which is “rightful” … it depends on your christological perspective.

The notion of “catholic” also is variable: I’m a Jacobite, and for us, the Catholic Church refers to that Church that accepts the Three Synods (no more, no less). The Nestorians also call themselves Catholic and reject Ephesus. The Eastern Orthodox claim to be Catholic, but consider the Roman Catholic Church to be heterodox due to Filoque, and other 11th century innovations. And of course the Roman Catholics consider themselves to be Catholic.

It seems the disagreements on “rightful heirs” can’t be resolved if one requires a notion of the “Catholic” Church because that is a variable subjective notion. If one looks at it from a historical perspective then both are rightful heirs.

Finally, if one wants to talk about who *preserves* the original rights in their purest form then one must acknowledge that it is the “Assyrian” Church of the East and not the Chaldean or Syro Malabar Church. This is obviously true because it is only in the former that the hallowing of Nestorius, and that of Theodore, are preserved in their original form. Whether or not their Christology was Nestorian, it is a fact that they honor Nestorius and the Antiochene Greek teachers (whom the Catholics and the Orthodox both reject as heterodox). It is also telling that Sebastian Brock in many of his studies of the East Syriac tradition uses the Breviary (Hudra) produced by the Church of the East in India, and not the Chaldean Breviary—the former is a more complete text, which was not subject to revisions by Rome.

Note: the above statements are not against the legitimacy of the Chaldeans. I’m merely stating a fact. Like I already said, I strongly believe that all four East Syriac Churches (two Nestorian, one Chaldean, and one Syro-Malabar) are rightful heirs of the East Syriac tradition, and I accept the legitimacy of both the Nestorian and Chaldean patriarchs on historical grounds (of course, on subjective Christological grounds, I personally reject them both since they are both diophysite … at least until the “Common Christological Position” gets adopted by the EO, OO, RC, and CoE…).

Varghese Paul:

What you say about communion with Rome may have some merit on the surface. There does seem to be an annoying trend in which “uniate” Churches become diluted by Latinization. However, you claim this is due to Rome, and that does not seem to be entirely correct. From what I’ve observed, it seems the people and the low-level clergy are more responsible for the un-orientalization.

Perhaps some earlier Popes and foreign Latin prelates did instigate Latinization. This seems to have been the case with the Maronites and the Syro-Malabar, and also, to a lesser degree with other “uniate” Churches. But I think much blame also rests on the “native” priests and bishops as well. I think the Syro-Malabar people here can better comment on this, but it seems that there has always been two factions in the east: a latinization faction of native priests and a more conservative faction. And it was the former that have wreaked more damage than any Pope.

I believe with Vatican II the Pope has sought to remedy this by strongly encouraging a return to the original rites. So in this case *you* are wrong, since it is Rome whose dictating a pro-Oriental course.

Of course, the implementation of these recommendations lies with the native priests and bishops, and these are often less competent and/or willing. The Maronite Church, however, stands as an excellent example of what Rome is facilitating: they are slowly restoring their old rites with the support of Rome.

And lack of communion with Rome is not a guarantee of maintaining purity. If you look at many Jacobites and Orthodox, they are just as capable of shedding their oriental traditions.

Regarding the use of Arabic amongst the Chaldeans … who cares? The Indian Churches use Malayalam and English; does that make them less Syriac? Syriac refers to the rites, not the language. The oriental custom has always been towards the celebration of rites in the vernacular. Celebrating the deeply profound rites of the Syriac Church in a language that no one understands hardly honors the rite: that’s why the easterners translated Greek originals (whether the liturgy of St James, or Nestorios, or Thedore the Interpreter — all of whom were either Greek or wrote in Greek, apparently) into Aramaic/Syriac—the vernacular language of the common folk. Syriac was never a scholarly language … the Syriacs don’t seem to have had very many scholars, in fact. There is much justification to the view that they were, as one writer commented, a very mediocre civilization.

Yes, I agree with M. Thomas Antony — with all of this talk about maintenance of traditions, the finger pointing is bidirectional. That is, there is currently no group in Kerala that maintains the original traditions (“original traditions” themselves being variable).

All sides contain some mix of East Syriac, general Syriac, Oriental and Eastern characteristics and aesthetics in varying concentrations; no side is maximal in all, as far as I can see. And partisans from each amplify their own heightened concentration in one area (and the reduced concentration of the Other Church), while denying their reduced concentration in various other areas.

And, in the end, do we really want to go back to the bad old days of superstition, tests of faith, etc.? Our priests and bishops are corrupt enough even in their current impotent state — imagine how they’d be if they really had power, and if people really took them as seriously as they did in the old days?

And further, Churches and religion are dynamic entities. The Church of the 20th century is not the Church of the 17th which is not that of the 12th which wasn’t that of the 7th which wasn’t that of the 4th and which wasn’t that of the 1st.

The Church of the East provides a great example of a Church which started off at one point, and through the changing political and social conditions, added and took away traditions in order to survive, first under Zoroastrian constraints, later under Islamic constraints, and now in the modern world (which is causing all Churches to evolve).

TKV: You wrote: “Caldean church of the East and Syrian Orthodox church never /donot want to change any thing.”

This statement is wrong. Churches — all of them — are dynamic entities, and all have changed. Just look at how lent rules have changed. Or iconography. Or new feasts, and new Saints. Or the dialog each is having with the Chalcedonian Churches. Change is certainly happening, and has happened. How do you sign the cross? One finger, two or three? The old Jacobite way is with one finger; now everyone uses three.

The Jacobite Church has two dominant liturgical traditions, and a gigantic corpus of prayers, Anaphoras, etc., that have developed over time—many in the 12th century (the second renaissance for the Jacobites). The practices have also evolved and changed. To say that the Jacobite Church of the 21st century is identical to the Jacobites of the 5th century is total absolute fiction. Any decent work on liturgy will demonstrate this.

And ditto for the Church of the East. There were several “reforms”, and Synods, over the centuries that have caused that Church to change with time. At one point bishops were allowed to marry, to appease the pro-reproduction Zoroastrians. And at one point bas reliefs and icons were in their Churches. It is correct to say that the Church of the East preserves many of the old forms that the Chaldeans abandoned at the time of the 15th century schism; but then again, this is not absolute and total, since the Chaldeans brought back iconography to the East Syriac rite, whereas the CoE abandoned that during the it’s decline. The CoE changed it’s Christological point of view at several junctures as well. They also translated many Greek prayers and rites into Syriac. This is all change.

Everyone wants to claim their “faith” is the oldest and/or purest. That’s a game I once played too, I admit. However, with deeper study into matters of liturgy and Church history, one quickly learns that all of Christianity has followed a tangled path of evolution, and cross-pollination since the old days. For example, the liturgy of St James and the Gospels were written in Greek, with a Christology that we don’t know of. Then it became Trinitarian, and then the Syriacs translated it to Syriac. And then the Chalcedonians and the Orientals revised it to be Christologically sound from each’s point of view. All change. The Syriacs added an elaborate and ornate pre-Anaphoral rite, with Semetic Sedre prayers, and hymns. The Greeks (the enemies of the Syriacs, after Chalcedon) later adopted these styles and evolved them. The Syriacs then incorporated some of the Greek innovations. That’s how the Jacobites have ended up with a huge (perhaps the hugest) corpus of liturgical hymns, prayers, anaphoras, etc. Also, as the Jacobites moved East, they developed a second liturgical tradition as they assimilated East Syriac elements.

Now, there are fools who claim that the Syriac is the older, “original”. At the same time there are Greeks who claim that all Christianity owes its existence to the Greek fathers — forgetting that it was the Syriacs who developed the hymnody. And it was the Orientals (Egyptians) who developed monasticism. But the Orientals can’t be too proud— because the Western fathers (Latin and Greek) also contributed immensely to monasticism, extending it further (in many ways) than the Orientals.

The history and progress of Christianity is not linear—there is no simple order wherein one can say X is older and Y is younger, except in very simple, straightforward matters (e.g., Protestantism is a young innovation, that is obvious). For matters such as what’s the oldest rite, what’s the purest rite, etc., — all bets are off. Just like we can’t claim any man or race to be “pure”, we can’t claim any rite to be that either. All have injections. Just because the Greeks, Latins and East and West Syriacs are separate now with antagonistic points of view, doesn’t mean they were beyond assimilating each others good points.

If we want the most ancient faith, we’d have to go back in time. Over the centuries, as we go backwards, Christianity would certainly change. And then we’d get to Judaism. So, do we become Jews now, since that’s the older faith? But why stop there? The Jews were pagans before they were monotheists (if you read history). So do we become Baal woshippers or members of the proto-Jewish/Canaanite fertility cults? And before that they were animists. And before that they were who-knows-what. How far are you willing to go to get to the Source. And is that Source what you really want? Animal sacrifice? Circumcision? Stoning? Pouring lead into people’s ears? Human sacrifice?

Ancient does not equal correct. And it does not equal better. At least by my reading of history.

Many of us like the “old” Oriental rites — I certainly do — but this is ultimately merely for aethestic reasons. There is no reason, objectively, why the Syriac rite is better than the Latin or the Greek. All are valid rites (if Christology can be corrected, either way, to make it acceptable). When some Chaldean priests (CoE) in India joined the Jacobites during the Orthodox/Jacobite peace period (50s to 70s), the Orthodox bishops permitted the use of Adai and Mari. The Pope permitted the West Syriac liturgy when Mar Ivanios united with Rome. The Pope permitted Adai and Mari when the Chaldeans/SyroMalabar joined. Rites can be used with any Christology.

E.g., look at the Antiochean Orthodox Church in America (the Chalcedonian Church, not the Jacobite one). They have extensive mission activity to convert the Catholics and Protestants of the West back to Orthodoxy. How do they do it? Do they shove the Byzantine rite on the Americans? No. They use the same rites as the Westerners do, just corrected in minor ways. That’s how rites are — they don’t necessarily reflect Christological view points. If they did, there’s no way the Syro-Malabar and the CoE could use the same rites. Same for the Jacobites and the Syro-Malankara.

This talk of “purity” is nonsense.

HERE IS MY LIST OF REFORMS:

1) Use the oldest (as far as one can go) form of Addi & Mari liturgy just as it was during the time of Addi & Mari them selves (which is the first centaury).
2) Use the Syrian Orthodox Peshitta (it very close to the Peshitta manuscripts in Esrengelo alphabets)
3) Teach both (1) the theological meaning of the liturgy and (2) to read and write Syriac in the Sunday categism
4) Change the Qurbana Qadisha to Ancient Syriac (books can be printed with the meaning given in Malayalam side by side)
5) remove the statues from inside the church to outside the church (probably the hardest to implement)
6) Abolish confession to priests (COE does not have this practice)
7) Change “Mother of God” to “Mother of Christ”

Dear Admini,
What was the custom of the Kerala Nazaranies at the time of the Udayamperoor synod? Did they wore caps? Did they shave their face? Any clue in the Diamper synod decrees?

Dear Admin,

Thanks for the response and for the references.
They are useful.

Varghese Paul:

Just a bit of advice. It is good that you are pursuing various sources, and studying the liturgy. But don’t be so easily swayed by unilateral statements by interested parties.

E.g., if I were to tell you *I* was a 100% racially pure Aryan, speaking the exact original language of the ancient Vedic Rishis, would you believe me? Of course not, why would you.

By that same token, you should be careful about hyperbolic statements made by the purveyors of “Aramaic books”. These people (largely ethno-centric Assyrians, and Protestants interested in synthesizing a new form of their heresy and justifying that heresy with “Aramaic” styles) are trying to *sell* you something, and they make bogus claims to hype their product.

1. Why are they using the overly general term “Aramaic” instead of the specific word Syriac? These are SYRIAC liturgies. Syriac is a member of a the Aramaic language family, but it is part of a different subfamily of Aramaic than the Palestinian Aramaic language Jesus supposedly spoke. Consider the following analogy: suppose Jesus was from Andra Pradesh and spoke Telugu. Then suppose I wrote liturgical texts in Malayalam. Then suppose I made a website called “DravidianBooks.com” and started selling the texts, hyping them as being composed in the language of Christ, just because I was using a Dravidian language. Is that correct? Is that honest?

In short: Syriac is not Aramaic. It is a *kind* of Aramaic. Jesus also spoke a *kind* of Aramaic — but not Syriac.

2. “*Oldest Christian Liturgy in use anywhere in the world.” This is highly debatable! There is no scholarly consensus on what’s the oldest liturgy. If you ask Adrian Fortescue, he’d say the oldest liturgy is the old Roman one, which reflects what was done in the ancient catacombs of Rome by the early Christians there. Others will claim St James. Others will claim Adai and Mari. These are all claims; nothing is definitive.

3. “Attributed to Mari and Adai”. “Attributed” — enough said.

4. “Free from Greco-Roman influence -true to its 1st century Semitic, Judeo-Christian roots ”

Aha! Here we come to the point. No liturgy is free from Greece or Rome! And no liturgy is free from Syria and Egypt. All of Christianity has all of these influences—including the CoE, which is saturated with Greek influence. Remember, the CoE accepts Nicea and Constantinople — Synods dominated by Greeks, and within the Roman Empire. It honors a whole bunch of “Greek Malpans” (the universal Fathers, as well as the “controversial” Nestorios and Theodore). It uses prayers composed by Greek fathers.

These Protestants and crypto-Protestant Assyrians (e.g., the ones on Peshitta.org) love to make fantastic claims to this effect, but this is not supported by fact at all.

If you’re going to study Syriac liturgy, at least temper your study by reading some unbiased work, by for example Sebastian Brock. Reading Assyrian propaganda to learn the history of the Syriac rite and it’s relation to general Christianity is like reading Hitler to understand the German people.

Finally, save your money Varghese. Go to http://www.archive.org and download the East Syrian Daily Offices by Macclean. Read this completely and you’ll understand much more about the Syriac Rite than any liturgical book will teach you. The Daily Offices, I would argue, *are* the religion, since that is what people are expected to practice every day.

Varghese Paul:

Your advice makes no sense. But soon, if you read and study more about the Syriac rite (as opposed to BS propaganda sites), you will understand enough to be able to make a competent reply. I honor my inheritance by studying it as completely as I can. You claim to honor your “inheritance” by giving it false properties — how can you seriously consider such dishonesty to be respect? If you follow the URL I gave you, you will find the single greatest treasure with respect to enhancing your understanding. Your welcome.

Those idiots at Aramaic Books claim to honor the East Syriac rite, and the Aramaic language, by claiming it has no Greek influence, right? Damn bloody idiots — why do they use “Taksa” then? This is a GREEK word!!! “Thaska” “Teksa” “Taksa” “Tekso” — whatever variant you want, it’s the same syriac root TKS — is from the Greek work “taxis” meaning order (same root as taxonomy, for example). So Taksa d’Qurbana means the “Order of Qurbana”.

Or how about the Nicene Creed? Do they reject it because of the majority of Greek fathers who presided at it?

Or how about Evangelists like Mark and Luke — Latin and Greek names? Does the CoE reject those Gospels?

Things like history and religion need rational assessments and not ethnocentric hyperbole. Your fiction is not honor — it is shame.

So … read more and learn more. And, like I said, one day you’ll be able to speak without your foot in your mouth.

Thomas Antony’s remarks from S N Sadasivam

Thomas actually wanted to show that the Malankara Nazranies also did conversion. But his objectives are spoiled by his evidences. Every body knows about Sadasivam and what he stands for.

Sadasivam quoting from Francis Buchanan and extent his imagination to the conversion to state that it was gaining momentum. The problem with these authors is that they do not substantiate with any data or compare with present data. Of course Kunnamkulam is one of the prestigious centers of Malankaranazranies, forced Hyder Ali to call it a Nazrani gour. Their population is concentrated in and around the town. Their peculiar angadi (NAZRANI AGRAHARAM) shows their Jewish culture and this is the only such Nazrani agraharm exist in malankara.

“””””””””””””The missionary Samuel Mateer identifies Muvattupuzha, Thodupuzha, Pathanapuram, chengannur and chertala as the centers of low castes. The fact that except cherthala, all the other places became Christian majority taluks tends to affirm the extent of proselytisation they have witnessed…………….(All these palces are strongholds of Puthencoor. “””””””””””””I am very much happy to state that the point which Thomas indicating itself shows the other way around. What Thomas says is absurd because Thodupuzha and Muvattupuzha are Romosyrian majority area. In fact Thodupuzha & Muvattupuzha are Christian majority belt and Thodupuzha with a95% romosyrian population while Muvattupuzha with 60%(out of total population of Christians;if you have any doubt just pick up the phone and talk to your Kothamangalam diocese fellows.)Now Pathanapuram and Chegannur has a considerable presence of CSI church and this area were received maximum CMS work.

Every one knows that the other points related with Ezhavas are connected with CMS mission, not with Malankara Nazranies .This was one of the reasons for Malankaranazrani split with CMS mission. You please read Dhalith Bhandhu to know more about conversion and its social impact .Also please note that Malakaranazranies were so superstitious people who followed all sorts of heathen customs and practices.

I think I have covered almost all points admin and Thomas has raised (Post 16311, 16312, 16313, 16314, 16342 & 16504). if anything is left please point out. I am stating this only because Thomas has the tendency to manipulate my silence.