OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 05:54:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rome creates parallel Catholicate in India  (Read 8938 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,580


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2005, 04:59:46 PM »


They petioned to be raised to the status of patriarchate, the were raised to major archepsicopate which the Syro-malankas seem to equate to catholicate, which given the realtionship of the Jacobite Malankars to Antioch makes sense. If the Orthodox complain to Rome or the Archbishop himself perhaps he will refrain form using catholicos.

Yes there should only be one patriarch in a see.

Thank your for this explanation, and yes I agree that ideally there should be one Patriarch per see.

As for the Indian Church my understanding is that they answered to the Assyrian Patriarch and used his rite and received their bishops from him. They welcomed the Portuguese as fellow Christians and seemed to be unaware of any schism. Of course the Portuguese responded by forcibly Latinizing them. In response a sizable portion but not the majority, left the Catholic Church and petioned the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch to take them under his omophor which he did but required them to accept the West Syrian Rite. While this is going on the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch attempted to assert his authority over the Syro-Malabar Church and sent them a bishop, but this bishop left the Catholic Church and joined the Assyrians and today there is still a small Assyrian Malabar Church. Then in the 1920's five of the bishops of the Jacobite Malankar Church invetigated union with Rome with 2 actually doing so in 1930 resulting in the Syro-Malankar Catholic Church.


It seems that we have a different understanding of the facts and their interpretation. Again, I stand to be corrected by any of my Indian Orthodox brothers here. My understanding is that the Apostle St. Thomas established Christianity in Malankara in AD 52. Of course this was Christian Orthodoxy. This was an indigenous Indian Church. These folks were under the Catholicos of the East (I believe he was in Perisa). Part of the Church became Nestorian, but there was always an Orthodox presence in India from the start. They used an East Syrian rite.

Later, a group of Syrian Christians (Knanaites) arrived from from Urhoy (Edessa) in AD 345. The Church in Malankara (Kerala) thereon adopted the rites & liturgies of the Syrian Church of Antioch and became a part of that ancient Patriarchal See. Thus the early Christian converts (St.Thomas Christians) along with the new Christian settlers (Knanaites), came to be called 'the Syrian Christians'. The Church in Malankara continued to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch, and his subordinate in the East, the Catholicos/Maphriyono, until the arrival of more Assyrian (Nestorian) bishops in 1490. Later with the coming of Portuguese in the 16th century, the Syrian Christians of Malankara came under the influence of Latin Catholics, but when they tried to forcibly introduce their teachings, the Malankara Syrian Christians revolted and finally re-organized once again under the guidance of the delegate of the Holy See of Antioch, thereby retaining the Orthodox faith. In light of this, I do not think it is fair to say that the Indian Church "left the Catholic Church". Perhaps Paul, Reji, Phil, or someone else who knows better could correct me if I am wrong.

In XC,

Nick
Logged

My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2005, 08:24:03 PM »

I think Nick has recounted, more or less, the true history.

The Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop could claim succession from St. Thomas (everyone wants a piece of the action, so why not him?), but, to my knowledge, he doesn't.  If this claim is made because the majority went under Rome as the "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" after the Portuguese attack on the Church, then I think it is a questionable claim, as the majority is not always necessarily correct.  Succession belongs to those who profess the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Thomas Daniel (Reji)
Chevalier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Malankara Archdiocese of Syriac Orthodox Church
Posts: 308


Proud to say belongs to Syriac Orthodox Church


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2005, 02:59:59 AM »

I still stand what I said before [I think it is an act of “Fishing in the troubled water”. My fellow OO brothers from India can understand it. As the internal fight between two faction within the Malankara OO church, the Roman Church is trying to confuse the SOC & IOC faithful by declaring the Title “Catholicose: to their Major Archbishop]

Now comes to the facts.

As the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church accept the hierarchy of RC and still keep the liturgy and practice of Antiocan Church, I think they have the full wrights to claim the title of Catholicose.

Because the RC Church considers itself as the Apostolic and universal Church, Vatican considers the Catholicate of the East to be canonically vacant (technically speaking).

So let them call their Major Archbishop as “Catholicose”. Now the question is, the title adopted by the Major archbishop is with the knowledge of Vatican or not. I am sure RC hierarchy know what’s going on within their church, so let that church solve the problem if any.

Else which church in this world can claim their spiritual leader as Patriarch or Catholicose?
Logged

Oh.. Morth Mariam Yoldath Aloho (Mother Of God)Pray For Us
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,049


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2005, 10:04:09 AM »

Nick, Phil, and All,

I did not mean to deny the fact that St.Thomas founded the Indian Church, I certainly believe he did.  However, at some point the Assyrian Church asserted its oversight over the Christians of India because the only records we have of bishops for them are those sent from the Assyrian Patriarch from the 8th century until the Portuguese arrived.  This makes sense when one considers the relationship of the Coptic Church to the Eithiopian.  I am not denying the Indians had indeginous bishops before that but there were no records kept. This is the first time I have heard the theory that they used the West Syrian Rite before the Coonan Cross Oath.  Every liturgical study of the matter I have read always indicated the St. Thomas Christians were East Syrian Rite until the Coonan Cross Oath. 

The Knayaya are really a diffilcult issue.  However, Edessa was a center of the East Syrian Church not the West Syrian.  The unusual thing about them is in the Catholic Church the Knayaya have their own eparchy (Kottayam) within the Syro-Malabar Church.  This includes Knayaya West Syrian Rite parishes that rejoined the Catholic Church in 1930 but opted to join the Kottayam Eparchy rather than the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,580


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2005, 10:39:44 AM »


This website seems to confirm what I have posted above.  It is maintained  by the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in India, so of course it reflects that perspective:

http://www.malankarachurch.org/malankara/MalankaraChurch2.htm


The idea that the entire Church in India went Nestorian at some point, and remained so until the arrival of the Portuguese, just doesn't wash with me.  From what I have read, it seems that there was always an Orthodox presence.  Of course, as I have said, I am very far from an expert in this field and stand to be corrected.
Logged

My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,049


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2005, 11:47:01 AM »

Nick,

Well I hope I don't offend anyone here but I think this is maybe a little historical revisionism on the part of the Indian Jacobites, not unlike what one finds among some Eastern Catholics that claim a portion of their Church was never seperated from Rome.
 
I don't think the Indian Christians were ever Nestorian, but then I don't believe the Assyrians are Nestorians as defined by Ephesus, nor do I believe the OOs are Monophysites as defined by Chalcedon.  I think it possible the given the language and cultural barriers the Indians could have very well accepted Assyrian bishops without problem being far away from the conflicts of the Greeks and Syriacs and their respective schools and the Ecumencial Counicls.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 2,580


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2005, 12:45:09 PM »

Okay Father Deacon. I respect your opinion. I will do more research on the matter, and also hope that some among the Indian Orthodox here (who may know better than either of us) will voice their opinions.  It would be easy to fool me with "historical revisionism" in this case, since I don't know much about the history, and would naturally be inclined to trust my brothers in the OO Churches of India.  I hope this is not the case.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2005, 01:03:36 PM by Antonious Nikolas » Logged

My sins run out behind me and I do not see them, but today I am coming to judge the errors of another.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2005, 08:48:14 PM »

Instead of locking the thread as I originally planned, I decided to split the topic.  There is now a separate thread on Indian Church History.  Please keep this thread for discussion of its topic.  Thank you. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
rita333
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2005, 10:52:37 AM »



Thank your for this explanation, and yes I agree that ideally there should be one Patriarch per see.



It seems that we have a different understanding of the facts and their interpretation. Again, I stand to be corrected by any of my Indian Orthodox brothers here. My understanding is that the Apostle St. Thomas established Christianity in Malankara in AD 52. Of course this was Christian Orthodoxy. This was an indigenous Indian Church. These folks were under the Catholicos of the East (I believe he was in Perisa). Part of the Church became Nestorian, but there was always an Orthodox presence in India from the start. They used an East Syrian rite.

Later, a group of Syrian Christians (Knanaites) arrived from from Urhoy (Edessa) in AD 345. The Church in Malankara (Kerala) thereon adopted the rites & liturgies of the Syrian Church of Antioch and became a part of that ancient Patriarchal See. Thus the early Christian converts (St.Thomas Christians) along with the new Christian settlers (Knanaites), came to be called 'the Syrian Christians'. The Church in Malankara continued to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch, and his subordinate in the East, the Catholicos/Maphriyono, until the arrival of more Assyrian (Nestorian) bishops in 1490. Later with the coming of Portuguese in the 16th century, the Syrian Christians of Malankara came under the influence of Latin Catholics, but when they tried to forcibly introduce their teachings, the Malankara Syrian Christians revolted and finally re-organized once again under the guidance of the delegate of the Holy See of Antioch, thereby retaining the Orthodox faith. In light of this, I do not think it is fair to say that the Indian Church "left the Catholic Church". Perhaps Paul, Reji, Phil, or someone else who knows better could correct me if I am wrong.

In XC,

Nick
Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley :cat: :cat:
Logged

NULL
Tags: Indian Orthodox Eastern Catholic schism Syriac Orthodox 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.065 seconds with 36 queries.