Jump to content

Talk:Malankara Church/Archive 1

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

Portal

This is featured on the Indian Christianity Portal and needs to be brought to GA ASAP. Who can help with in-line citaions? Anybody? -- Secisek (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Establishment by St. Thomas

I'm glad that someone has taken the pains to get a DYK out of this page, but I'm not sure of the factuality of the sentence. The claim that Christianity was introduced in India by St.

St.Thomas

Thomas is noting short of controversial. It is only based on certain writings and folklore that the claim is made. Hence, statements such as The history of Indian Christianity hence started 15 centuries even before the arrival of European missionaries in India and ..where Thomas the Apostle first landed in Kerala in 52 AD should be removed, and the distinction between fact and tradition needs to more clearly defined within the article.--thunderboltz(TALK) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Deepu, Just because some people don't agree, doesn't mean that St. Thomas didn't come to India. Please read Malankara_Church#References_to_St.Thomas_christian_tradition for all the reliable and factual evidences. Most of the historians (all over the world) except a very few agrees to the fact that St. Thomas established the church in India. You will have depend on possibly available sources of information and evidences for a fact as old as 2000 years. You cannot deny the presence of a multi million strong presence of Saint Thomas Christians in India.

It is also accepted by the Govt of India and the Archaeological Dept of India. Do you have any arguments ( proofs ) denying the St. Thomas in India??

This pic is the stamp issued by Government of India in remembering the 1900 years anniversary of the arrival of St. Thomas in India. -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 06:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The arrival of St. Thomas in Kerala, India is a question that interested me also. Neither Thomas nor his contemporaries have written about such a visit.

  1. Arrival of St. Thomas. At present we have only very strong circumstantial evidences for this event. Compared to the other disciples of Jesus Christ there are more evidences about Thomas and his work. Hope the present archeological excavations by Kerala Council of Historical Research (I am a member of KCHR) at Pattanam (ancient Muziris near Kodungalloor, Kerala) will throw more light on this subject.
  2. Landed in Kerala in 52 AD. This seems to be only an assumption. It is believed that the Apostles met together in Jerusalem in AD 50 (Ref:Acts 15). So it can be argued that Thomas reached Kerala after two years. During the early first century, it took more than one and a half years to reach Muziris. There is another problem with AD 52. Years were specified as BC and AD only in 11 or 12 century. So this calculation of AD 52 might have happened only after the 12 century.
  3. There are so many legends about St. Thomas which seems to have first appeared around 1600. These legends lead the true facts into obscurity.
  4. Historians (all over the world) except a very few agrees to the fact that St. Thomas established the church in India. That is true. But are they based on real research work or just copies of what others have written? There are hundreds of books written by non-Indians about India. A few of these writers might have been tourists who spent a day or two in India. Are they reliable?
  5. Picture of St. Thomas on a stamp. – It is only an artists assumption. That might be a picture given by some influential people. Also there are pictures of St.Thomas holding a printed book in his left hand. Some people believe that these are true. It is better to leave them there.

Neduvelilmathew (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Signatures.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox

Mar Thoma Church is not an Orthodox Church. The word Orthodox came into use among Kerala Christians only in 1912. The name Mar Thoma Church was in use long before 1912. Protestant is also not a correct word. Probably Reformed is a better usage because Mar Thoma Church includes members who initiated reforms in the Malankara Church.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Part of their legend is that they were founded by St. Thomas and have Oriental (Near East) connections to the Syriac Church which is Orthodox and presumably sent bishops to them in the past. What about them is not Orthodox? They are in the World Council of Churches which is a Protestant body. Orthodox historically consider themselves Protestant in order to avoid anyone thinking they are Catholic. Student7 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Forked Article

This is another Forked article with contents sourced from multiple wikipedia pages which are already existing.

I recommend removal of this article.Pamparam (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Common History

There are Six articles which claim common history of Saint Thomas Christians out of this 4 have almost similar contents about the same period. To avoid repetitive articles and to improve the quality of the article, share about WP:RELY sources and re organization of these articles.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity#About the articles on Saint Thomas Christians common history Pamparam (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Archdeacon

Is this the term "Mapilla"? Maybe we should avoid (after first explaining) that the original translation into Western terms was a bit misguided. And then use a commonly accepted Indian term. That would avoid WP:OR and maybe avoid confusion as well. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Mapilla" is a Malayalm term used to address a Nazrani (St. Thomas Christian). The plural form is “Mapillamaar”.
The head of St. Thomas Christian was addressed as “Malankara Mooppen” and parish priest, (Vicar) “Edvaka Mooppen”. "Mooppen" in Malayalam means, "Elder". Arch Bishop Alejo de Meneses had used this Latin word "Archdeacon" thrice at the synod of Udayamperoor (Synod of Diamper 1599 July 20-27). That was where the use of this name first appears. Now instead "Malankara Mooppen", the title "Metropolitan" is used. They are addressed as "Thirumeni". Instead of "Edavaka Mooppen", they are called "Vicaariachen" (or simply "Vicaary"), where Achen is a much honoured way of addressing a priest.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Old Party/New Party again

An anonymous editor has taken to removing the section about the terms New Party and Old Party; their justifications have been: "Already saw in many talk pages, other editors objecting these lines", and the comment that all the sources used are "Catholic". As to the second comment, the sources are not all Catholic; as far as I can tell they are mostly unaffiliated reliable sources from reliable publishers, for instance Robert Frykenberg's Christianity in India, published by Oxford University Press, the definition of a reliable source. As to the first complaint, it is true that the issue has come up before. However, here, the material is sourced to several reliable publications and presented as neutrally as possible. None of the sources indicate that Catholics made up these terms, but they do mention that they have been contentious, especially for Christians of the Malankara branch. It is clearly contentious at least among people who edit Wikipedia. If we could get a source saying that Malankara Christians object to the labels, that would be good, but there's no call to remove neutral, sourced material.--Cúchullain t/c 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A tag OXFORD is not going to make everything reliable... I didn't see these names in Britannica. Frykenberg is Catholic,, and just because, he got his book published through Oxford dosent mean, that whatever DASH he wrote is authentic... These names are not in any Marthoma, Orthodox or MIC books.... Clearly a term not used by the Malankara Church... If this type of rampage is to continue.... their are many names for catholics..."milk powder christians".. " Kozhukatta (a sweet) Christians" etc... which are mentioned in many books, I wil be forced to add all those in wikipedia... Will start a separate title to start the luring tactics used by catholics to convert local christians.. 117.206.23.34 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Frykenberg was a Professor of History & South Asian Studies at the University of Wisconson-Madison and got his PhD from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. His book was published by the Oxford University Press, a "well-regarded academic press", per our reliable source guidelines. Leonard Fernando is a professor at Vidyajyoti College of Theology. They are clearly not using the names to be disparaging, and point out that they have been contentious, but as a historical name backed up by reliable sources they certainly belong here. If you can find a reliable source indicating that the Malankara churches disprove of the names, by all means add it, but do not remove neutral, well-sourced material to prove a point.--Cúchullain t/c 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this talk on Old party/new party goes on forever. Hundreds of books are available in the markets that use these words, mentioning that Catholic Church (those who were converted to the Roman Catholic faith in Kerala) is the Old Party and Malanakara Church the new party. We, the St. Thomas Christians believe that Old party means the Church that was there from the time of St. Thomas and the new party is the Church that came after some point of time.
Who coined these words? Certainly not by Archbishop Alejo de Meneses. These are not the words used by the Archbishop as seen in the Cannons (Malayalam version) of Synod of Diamper (in 1599). These words were not used during the time of Dutch Hegemony in Malabar (AD 1663-1795). [ref. see their daily reports in manuscripts, now kept at Archives in India]. Then someone who wanted to discredit the Malabar Church coined them. Members of the Malankara Church really feel bad about it. This matter is not a historical fact, it is not controversial, but it is simply introduced by certain people to discredit the St. Thomas Christians. That is why it is often deleted in articles related to St.Thomas Christians. Do Wikipedians still want to use them and make others look down at these St. Thomas Christians? It is not good to change the history of another nation, another country, another race, another religion, another Church to fit into your liking and then you feel proud of it. Think about it and stop this painful episode. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
As historical terms they should be mentioned. The paragraph is sourced properly and worded neutrally. There is no indication that one group is actually the "new" party and the other is the "old" party (whatever that means), all it is saying is that they are terms that exist, and that this has been contentious. For the third time, if anyone has any reliable sources describing how Malankara Christians feels about the terms, we should include that. But we should not censor information simply because terminology happens to offend our sensibility. Also, please note that both factions are part of the same community, their roots are equally old.--Cúchullain t/c 12:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I myself have removed use of the terms "Old Party" and "New Party" from other articles where it was unsourced. Here, however, they are well sourced and neutrally worded, thereby meeting Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and neutrality. The text implies only that they are terms that have been used, not that they are good or accurate terms.--Cúchullain t/c 12:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that they should be used today to describe anyone, but it seems to me that their historical usage should be documented along with the objections from the offended party. I don't think that overreacting helps here. Calling someone "new" is hardly an obvious insult. One of the worst insults in the US is the word nigger, but there is an objective article on it. Certainly not less insulting than the label "new." Student7 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I've found another work, here, that refers to the terms. The author is Pascale Chaput of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, a reliable source and not affiliated with the Catholic Church. I can't read French, so I had a friend translate it for me, and Chaput is simply using the terms as a convenient and conventional distinction between the two factions after the split, not as a disparaging slight against the Malankara faction. I've been looking for sources indicating that Malankara churches dislike the names, but haven't found anything. At any rate, as these terms are discussed in various reliable academic publications, mention of them needs to be made.--Cúchullain t/c 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering that there are now 4 reliable references for the material, it should be reinstated.--Cúchullain t/c 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not know what is the criteria for a reliable source. The Bibiliography of the book by Chaput proves, he used mostly catholic sources.... Aerthayil James, Alexander Chandy, Arrakkal,Arattukulam Michael,Arayathinal Thomas, Catholic Dictionary of Kerala, Cherukkarakunel Alexander, Koshi Ninan, Palliseery Joseph, Podipara Placid... (All Indian sources are Catholic)(A whole bunch of catholic authors)... Why has he not referred to Claudius Buchanun, James Hough etc.. because they were protestants??? 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyodor7 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources is that they must be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Every one of the sources given are by authors with advanced degrees and were published in reliable presses. No one is saying that they are good or accurate terms to use, they are only saying that they have been used, which does not appear to be in dispute.--Cúchullain t/c 03:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Puthenkuttukar means new friends in Malayalam. Puthenkoottukar means new loyalty in Malayalam. Similarly Pazhayakuttukar means old friends in Malayalam. Pazhayakoottukar means old loyalty in Malayalam. Phantom (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources give the spellings Puttankuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar for the groups termed the "Old Party" and "New Party". It's likely there are multiple spelling variants. There's really nothing else to add there.--Cúchullain t/c 13:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nasrani Menorah

The term Nasrani Menorah is a recently coined word. (less than 50 (?) years). Earlier these crosses were known as Persian Crosses. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Coonan Cross Oath

The direct quote from Stephen Neill, p. 319, is: "On 3 January 1653 priests and people assembled in the Church of Our Lady at Mattancery, and standing in front of a crucifix and lighted candles swore upon the holy Gospel that they would no longer obey Garcia, and that they would have nothing further to do with the Jesuits; they would recognise the archdeacon as the governor of their church. This is the famous oath of the 'Koonen Cross' (the open-air Cross which stands outside the church at Mattancery, which to this day all members of the independent Malankara church of Kerala regard as the moment at which their church recovered its independence and returned to its own true nature." He then says (p. 320), "The Thomas Christians did not at any point suggest that they wished to separate themselves from the pope." He reiterates that their issue was with Garcia and the Jesuits; "But let the pope send them a true bishop not a Jesuit, and they will be pleased to receive and obey him."
The source you've given counteracting this is a letter from the Metropolitan in 1822, well after the Malankara church had affiliated with the Syriac Orthodox Church. It can't be used to contradict what appears in a source of Neil's caliber.--Cúchullain t/c 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cuchullain,

It seems that my opinion about bishop Stephen Neill, is entirely different from that of yours. I have attended his meetings. Some of his opinions and claims in his books are found to be entirely baseless. Also I was told that he had to leave India because of some allegations. (See section “Ministry” in the Wikipedia article Stephen Neill). I do not consider his works reliable at all. Bishop Neill begins by saying that the Oath was taken on 3 January 1653. From where did he get this exact date! Any idea?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite what you think of the work, it clearly passes all of Wikipedia's criteria to be considered a reliable source (with flying colors, actually, as the work was published by an eminent university press and is very highly regarded by other academics). Last time there was a complaint about this I brought it up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the consensus was that it's obviously a reliable source.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Alliance

In regards to this, that material is taken from the reliable source. Eric Frykenberg is a noted scholar of South Asian studies and the book is published by Oxford UP. In contrast, the source you've replaced it with is over 200 years old. Removing sourced material simply because you don't like it is unacceptable.--Cúchullain t/c 13:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Population of Jacobite Church

The Population statistics of the Jacobite church was recently simply changed [[2].

[This source] says the Global population of Syian church is 1,430,000. Assuming half the population of Syriac Orthodox belongs to India, the number deduces to somewhere close to 600,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.109.87 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits February 2016

This series of edits by Jogytmathew are very problematic.

  • In the intro, the cited Encyclopedia of Christianity source is clear that the origins of what's now known as the Mar Thoma Syrian Church came into being "in the middle of the 19th century", not 1876. 1876 is the time when the greater body of the church came under the direct jurisdiction of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. And our article on the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is not titled "Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church". The passage is also filled with style errors and bad wording.
  • In the "Terminology" section, "Syro-Malabar Catholic" had not formed yet. Calling them the "Catholic faction" is more accurate. There's also no reason to link to Malankara Syrian Church, a redirect to this article, or to change the much clearer double quote marks (") to single quote marks (') per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
  • Under "Cheppeds: Collection of deeds on copper plates", the change of "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church headquarters at Thiruvalla" to "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church Head quarters [sic] at Thiruvalla" is just bad style.
  • Under "Coonan Cross and Syrian church", our article on the Coonan Cross Oath uses the C spelling. Changing some but not all to the K spelling is bad style, and also pointless. Additionally, Ahatallah claimed he was sent by the Catholic Pope, not the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. The change directly contradicts the cited source.

I'll try to make the intro clearer, but the rest of the edits are for the worse.--Cúchullain t/c 15:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, todays edits were actually made by Roshyf2...--Cúchullain t/c 15:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

Cuchullain Formation of Marthoma church is not directly linked to british missionary inspired reformation... however the influence of missionaries were active in malankara church. However their over enthusiastic approach to control affairs in malankara worsened the situation. both the church parted their ways in 1836..the group within malankara who were directly influenced by Anglican Teachings left malankara church and they organised themselves under the Travancore-kochin syriac diocese of anglican church in 1840....

The reformation of Malankara church was not accepting of any protestant doctrines or theology. If you are pointing out that protestant doctrines in Malankara marthoma syrian church of Malabar. you have to give details..

However marthoma church has rejected and reformed the rituals of west Syrian tradition in accordance with the scripture as well as the first three ecumenical synods of faith. But not on the basis of any protestant or Anglican theology.Roshyf2 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Roshyf2: The important thing is to stick to the sources. The cited source, Fahlbusch, Lochman, and Mbiti's Encyclopedia of Christianity, does not back the material you added, especially not on the cited pages. Your wording is also too long for an lead section, which is supposed to just summarize the article body, and it contains a lot of style errors and bad writing. I'll try to clean it up, but most of your edits aren't an improvement.--Cúchullain t/c 14:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

dear Cuchullain I had given earlier the source of W J Richard book "The Indian Christians oF sT tHOMAS, 1898" page 30 and page 50, which was deleted by either BY you or any body who stick to your version. Page 30 States that British or anglican missionaries have closed their mission of help for syrians. it was at this time a pious cattanar Abraham malpan came forward to take the spiritual aims of missionaries forward. and what he did 1. done the holy service in the language of people they understand,2. opposed doing holy qurbana for money 3. opposed doing holy qurbana for dead 4. opposed doing holy qurbana before figures and statutes 5. opposed prayers to saints. There is no evidence or writing that abraham malpan has explained any ecclesiastical subject in anglican or protestant theological basis. why he objected prayers to dead and saints was explained later as "it was against orthodox faith ,there is no creature above or below worthy enough to receive and answer your prayer other than our god. and we believe only in trinity the one god , why pray to dead and idol when we have a living God". if he had so affiliation to Anglican faith there was no need to sent his nephew to the syriac patriarch but was better and easy to sent him to the archbishop of Canterbury . However marthoma church believes in reformation of soul and body..the word used by abraham malpan was "CLEANSING OF THE CHURCH" And not reformation.Historically why malankara churches prior to 1500s donot have a icon, idol , picture , statute tombs, festivals of any saints will emphasis Abraham malapans acts, The only spiritual artifact was the persian crosses or the Marthoma cross.

Prayers to dead and for death, annual feast in commemoration of saints, devotion and adoration of Mother mary, kneeling down before tomb , qurbana at tombs ,purgatory all happened in malankara church after the synod of diamper 1599, if you have a copy of "The Church of Malabar , Michael Geddess 1611"" pls go through it ,it will give a picture of what was the new practices brought to malankara church.

the split of marthoma church and jacobite church did not formally occur because of reformation principle but because of litigation of who is the malankara metropolitan , whether it is Palakkunnathu thomas mar athanasious who claims to be in the seat of Holy see of St Thomas or Dionysious V who is under the syriac patriarch .. "Report on Seminary Case" says the jacobite faction produced a false canon infamously called "Kappi Kanon" tampered rule book dipped in coffee concentrate to show antiquity . i dont know what is your cultural background. however during that time marthoma faction lost the case not because of being reformers but because they stood for independent christian heritage under holy see of st thomas as old as syriac patriarch

the split betwwen marthoma and jacobite did not occur on reformation principle but because of temporal authority issues. Marthoma church still considers Syrian patriarch as their spiritual head ,,, and wont give his titular names "Ignathious" to any of their bishops ,and consecrate the Holy Oil (MURON) , MARTHOMA CHURCH ONLY INCREASES THE HOLY MURON consecrated by Patriarch Elias III till now. Britishers or anglican had no role in reformation of malankara after 1836.. this is for your understandingRoshyf2 (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The source says that the "reformed branch" influenced by British missionaries became the Mar Thoma Syrian Church. The source is just a brief article on Syriac Christianity from an encyclopedia, but it's a reliable source. Just from the things you've listed, it's clear that Cattanar Abraham was influenced by British Protestantism. Preaching in the local language, opposing praying for the dead, opposing statues and icons, and opposing prayers to saints are all big parts of Protestant theology. But that's beside the point. The current wording reflects the source, and we can't rely on 19th-century or 17th-century sources for this article. We also don't need to make the lead section any longer than it is. Any additional material should be in the article body - and it needs to be based on up-to-date reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cuchullain
The quoted reference of SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY from an encyclopedia (Obviously its only an encyclopedia, from many encyclopedia of many authors and publishers) itself had a misinterpreted factual error.In Statement regarding Marthoma Church it is said ", some of them fell under the influence of Anglican missionaries and established the Mar Thomite Church" AND REGARDING sYRO -MALANKARA CHURCH it says "when a large group of Jacobites under the leadership of Archbishop Mar Ivanios reunited with Rome". A person with minimum awareness of Malankara history can counter check the facts that whether it was "some" or "Large". Cuchullain .Protestantism is a break shoot of Roman Catholic Religion. In MALANKARA OR st Thomas Christians never practiced or believed in Purgatory, praying before statues ,kneeling before tomb, qurbana at tombs ,prayers to saints till advent of Portuguese and Jesuits most infamous Synod of diamper 1599. you can get information of the new practices introduced from the book " The Church of Malabar written by Micheal Geddes published in 1611.A clergy inorder to protest against this Portuguese and jesuit atrocity wore his clergical robe upside down to denote the culture and believes of malankara church have been destroyed. The changes abraham malpan made was re initiation of church in reference to this event. In another book ACT of Patriarch a book written in 1870s addressed to Jacobite believers of malankara church has proscribed not to kneel before tombs and pray before tomb. The said Patriarch had himself destroyed tombs built inside the kolancherry church and revered by faithful. It is better you didnot say that Malankara church was protestant before 1500. :) .However the printing press was with catholic and anglican seminary and court verdict favoured the jacobites and they made the HIS- story .
Can you say who is this We?."We also don't need to make the lead section any longer than it is" you cannot say this as long as the lead section is available for edit and improvement. You should not use your privilege of being a administrator to "gain editing advantage" Roshyf2 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Roshyf2, please start formatting your comments correctly and placing them in the correct sections.. "We" is clearly "we Wikipedia editors", and I'm not acting here as an admin. There's no factual error here. All the source (or this article) says is that the 19th-century reform movement was inspired by the British missionaries. It doesn't say anything about Purgatory, statues, or anything else. Whether Cattanar Abraham was restoring his church to previous beliefs or was influenced by Protestant doctrines is a question for another article, not the lead section of this one. Either way, by his timing he was clearly inspired by the British, so there's no problem saying that.--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Dear Cuchullain , Good to hear that we means editors.
""There is the Factual error"" . The reunion to Catholic Church started with a very few persons and later the exodus to that church from Malankara churches like thozhiyoor, jacobite, marthoma and orthodox increased. Even now too their no of believers don't exceed the No of marthoma faction. Moreover a sizable no of their believers is from missionery activity in Nagerkovil and kanyakumari area and not from jacobites. However regarding marthoma church it was said that only a few inspired in Anglican reformation (?) formed a new church. If court verdict favored the reigning metropolitan and metran faction of 1889 the story would have been different.
Any way that happens when we assumes fact of encyclopedia as truth in its totality. I definitely agree to the aspect that he was inspired by the Anglican way of conducting church matters.For europeans reformation means Protestantism.. However In malankara syriac church tradition we have the concept of HUDOS ETHO and KUdhos ETHO which are syriac terms and time for reformation of church from unholy and wrong practices and introspection of self , which is there much before when europe ever thought of a reformation.
The church of malankara of 18th century was not the same as any of the malankara churches today:
1.Common Man never had access to Bible (till printing of bible in 1811 )
2.Common Man never witnessed church service in their mother toungue (there were only some who understood syriac, majority were spectators)
3.They buried their dead inside the church. It was stated that always the church was wet because of unearthed mud and other debris of past cremations and not suitable for conducting services.
4. The deacons and kashishas where not properly trained in theology. they were selected based on their family origin and other aspects and not on their merit or aptitude to become a priest.
5. there were no accounts or accountability for income to the church and other proceeds from church.there were misused by certain families and priests.
6. There were many hindu traditions or practices followed which is now unheard in malankara churches.like wandering souls, food and shelter for souls, transmigration, negative powers of invoking selective prayers (some churches and priests were notorious for that ).
7. Many homes had a local grotto( called kurialas) which had a status of demigod and offered food and water etc.
8 .there were wooden statutes and figures in malankara churches.
9. independence of See of Marthoma
10 Holy service were conducted for money or kind
The period of reformation ended all this stuff. Learning and teaching of scripture became widespread, People started introspecting the lives. today there is practically no churches under malankara that has a wooden statute or others things that qualify the definition of idols.. All Malankara churches started holy service in mother tongue in one point of time. All the churches started to appoint only theologically trained priests.etc etc.
The actual reform movement in Malankara actually started after the era of association with Anglicans in 1836. majority of this changes occurred in the era of Palakkunnathu Mathews Mar athanasious and that too forcefully against the wish and acceptance of many priests and families who were reaping benefits of ongoing system.In 1848 or later he published Th CANON OF Marthoma Christians of Malankara . And subsequently he published the Holy Thaksa in Malayalam avoiding the "PRAYER OF Hail Mary" in it ( As this prayer was forcefully introduced by Jesuits to Malankara in synod of Diamper 1599).
Abraham Malpan was a strict follower of sabbath, mandatory fasts and all dominical feasts of the church. however he negated the prayers of Hail mary and devotion and prayer requests to saints as he feels that it deviated the believer from true faith in one living God. He negated prayers for the dead (purgatory or similar beliefs) on the scriptural basis of judgement day trial on personal acts. however he never spoke against "communion and co existence of saints" .
There is no reference of any of his writings or teachings that he agreed for Anglican doctrines or theology. he had advised his followers donot go to anglican faith. in-spite he having close friends in anglican church. his mindset set can be evaluated.
iN DISCUSSION LOG CHART I HAD SEEN you had disscussion on similar lines with one of the editor who is also a renowned historian neduvelil mathew. I can definitely say Abraham malpan was not inspired by protestent doctrines but by the ideals of western reformation.Roshyf2 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
None of that suggests that the current wording should be changed.--Cúchullain t/c 14:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there any meaning in taking the discussion further? It was NICE speaking to you. Roshyf2 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Unless there's anything new to add, then it's probably time to move on. Not sure if you meant it sarcastically, but was nice speaking to you as well.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Christianity

The current citation is for the actual authors of the article in the Encyclopdia, rather than one of the editors of that volume. The book is listed (and now properly formatted) in the references section. The cite formatting also now follows the rest in the article. If you want to change the cite format, we'll have to do them all (and use the actual authors).--Cúchullain t/c 01:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The names, Gregorious & Roberson, not mentioned there as authors [3]. I tried but could not verify those names. Please provide if you have any ISBN or any link so that I can verify your claim. Since this is a very informative citation and the content is available online, I would restore it, either the same or with changes if necessary. Jossyys (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Jossyys: As I said, the full citation is included in the References section, including the ISBN, Google Books link, and the names of all 5 editors, not just Fahlbusch (who again, did not write this entry). The names of the authors are clearly given in bold at the end of the "Syrian Orthodox Churches in India" entry on p. 286: Gregorios Paulos and Ronald G. Roberson.
As with the other book sources, the footnotes only include the last names and page numbers, directing readers to the appropriate work in the references. Including the full cite for every footnote would be cluttered and confusing.--Cúchullain t/c 04:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Cuchullain: Thanks. It's ok if you want to maintain the citation style of this article. I shall update the link given in the reference section. Jossyys (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 edits

Jogytmathew has made a series of edits to early sections of the article that largely deteriorate the text. There are various style errors and just plain broken English that did not exist before. Some of the changes altered material taken from the cited source, making the source appear to say something it does not. Please do not make changes of this kind in the future.--Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

May 2016 edits

These edits are poorly worded and remove material that's cited in the article body. As they were unexplained and not an improvement, I've reverted them.--Cúchullain t/c 11:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Malankarai" Church

There's really nothing to support the name "Malankarai Church" here. "Malankara Church" is the demonstrable WP:COMMONNAME. This or related "Malankara" variants is what appears in the best sources cited here (including [4][5][6]) and numerous others ([7][8][9][10]). It returns 2,830 hits on Google Books. "Malankarai Church" returns 0 hits, and the only support appears to be a book from 1892 with no page number included.[11] Such a source is far too old to use in contravention of the up-to-date sources, and the spelling is too obscure to include here, let alone make the name of the article. Please do not re-add that material without consensus on the talk page, and please do not move the article to a disputed title without an WP:RM. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 13:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

File:Jacobite Syrian Prayer Book of 1932.jpg
Jacobite Syrian Church(Malankara Syrian Church) Prayer Book of 1932

The recent changes of January 4, 2018, were a detriment to the article and have thus been reverted. The undiscussed move to Jacobite Syrian Christian Chrurch, beyond including a mispelling, duplicates Jacobite Syrian Church and other articles Wikipedia already has on the individual churches that have branched off of the Malankara Church. This article is an overview of the history of the entire church and its subsequent branches. Similarly, the large bulk of new info added here and re-inserted here covers only the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, not the historical church or any of the other branches. Please do not add this material again, and please stick to only one account.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Very disappointing to see this edit made again without discussion.[12] Robyrajan916/117.206.55.74: please explain, and please stick to one account. As the one adding a bulk of controversial material into the article, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it.--Cúchullain t/c 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
It would appear that the material has been copied and pasted wholesale from Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. This isn't kosher, even if the material were relevant to this article.--Cúchullain t/c 13:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello Cuchullain After the arrival of Gregorious Abdul Jaleel, the church is known as the Malankara Syrian Church under the authority of Syriac Orthodox Church or maintained. some of examples are Mulanthuruthy Padiyola[1] other one is mavelikara padiyola[2],Kallumkathra Padiyola[3]The catholicate of Malankara orthodox church established by deposed patriarch of Ignatius Abded Mshiho II[4]. Now, Syriac orthodox church or malankara orthodox church does not have any other contact with together as well as constitution aricle says "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox).[5]and rejected the shalmootho of Syriac orthodox church[6]. As per constitution of malankara orthodox church Article 101 is Absent, whenever Article 1 have no value. The Jacobite syrian church only continue as the branch of Syriac orthodox church. Robyrajan916 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.stgeorgecheppaud.org/mscr/chathuruthil/History.htm
  2. ^ http://www.stgeorgecheppaud.org/mscr/chathuruthil/mavelikara__padiyola.htm
  3. ^ http://www.syriacchristianity.info/Kallumkathra/Padiyola.htm
  4. ^ http://www.morgabriel.org/dictionary_patriarch.html
  5. ^ http://mosc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MOSC-Constitution.pdf
  6. ^ http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/MGregoriusGChathuruthil/18761216shalmootho.html

I can't change without any discussion ! Please see this https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Jacobite_Syrian_Christian_Church Robyrajan916 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can't make major changes to a stable article without getting consensus on the talk page. I've restored the stable version; please do not re-add your material unless you get consensus for it here. I'm afraid your comment is pretty hard to understand. This article is about the history of the Malankara Church and its descendant churches, of which the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church is only one. All of the churches claim continuity with the historical Malankara Church; Wikipedia cannot pick sides among them per WP:NPOV.--Cúchullain t/c 17:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever User:Cúchullain said is 100% correct. Massive copy paste from a website to wiki article or from one wiki article to another is not fair. Also I saw a merging suggestion template in Jacobite Syrian Christian Church article proposing Malankara Church article to be merged into Jacobite Syrian Christian Church article.Not sure who added this. But could not find any reasoning in talk pages why the merging required. Malankara Church or Malankara Syrian Church is now an umbrella name which for many churches. There had been splits happened in Malankara Church and today many churches like Malankara Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Marthoma and Malankara Catholic share the lineage of Malankara Church. In this case, not sure on what basis some user made this merge proposal. Hence I removed the invalid merging proposal. Request to everyone is next time please mention reasons for merge proposal in article's talk page - 122.167.225.188 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cuchullain "Padiyola" which means signed statement, Mulanthuruthy Padiyola is Synod decision others are decisions or statements of "jacobite syrian church" or malankara syrian church to preserve the faith and under the holy apostolic see of of antioch. In malankara syrian church name is not exist. The name is "യാക്കോബായ സുറിയാനി ക്രിസ്ത്യാനി സഭ" that means Jacobite Syrian Christian Church Ref: above ref image of prayer book(1932). The other churches are independent but jacobite syrian church only continue under the Syriac orthodox holy apostolic see of Antioch. then merge Malankara syrian church to Jacobite Syrian Christian Church Robyrajan916 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Malankara Church

What is this page supposed to be about? Is it about Church of the East province before the Portuguese takeover? Is it about the East Syriac Christians who resisted Catholicization under the Portuguese and became the Chaldean Syrian Church? In any case I think a better title is needed. Srnec (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the article's about as clear as it can be that it's about the Church of the East province in Kerala, India and its successors. "Malankara Church" is the usual name for the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Where is the Malankara Church on this diagram?
(Not a rhetorical question.)
Cuchullain, I do not think "Malankara Church" is in fact the usual name for "the Church of the East province in Kerala, India and its successors". I think the first paragraph is right: the Malankara Church is "the community that joined Archdeacon Mar Thoma in swearing to resist the authority of the Portuguese Padroado in 1653 [and] soon entered into a relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch." This particular St Thomas tradition, however, was never affiliated with the Church of the East. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that "Malankara" was adopted as a name only with the introduction of the West Syriac rite in 1665 (i.e., the Malankara Rite).
I see that in my initial question I got confused and referred to the East Syriacs when I should have said West Syriacs. But this article, despite its claimed "emphasis", does not seem to be focused on the West Syriac tradition, since it only gets to the Coonan Cross Oath two thirds of the way down. The third and fourth paragraphs of the lead, however, do seem to have the right focus. Srnec (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
That's mostly correct. "Malankara Church" usually refers to the faction that followed the Archdeacon in 1653 and its successors. However, they don't see themselves as something new created at that time but a continuation going back to Thomas the Apostle. The "Malankara" terminology predates the split - it's just a name from the region and derives from the island where Thomas was said to have landed - and historically could refer to any St. Thomas Christian.
The article needs much more info on the subsequent developments within the independent "Malankara" branch. Someone should do that. I had material on the history so that's what I added. I no longer have the sources or inclination to continue with the rest.--Cúchullain t/c 18:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, Malankara church name predates the Connan Cross oath split. In the Coonan Cross oath majority (around 90%) stayed with the Mathoma 1 . The minority stayed with the Portuguese Roman Catholic.(Latin rule). Thus the majority who stayed with the Marthoma 1 used the name Malankara Church . However majority deflected from Malankara Church to the Portuguese Catholic side later with the effort of Portuguese bishops. Thus Independent East Syrian and East Syrian Catholics were formed. Both were part of Malankara Church. However later the Portuguese side gave up using the Malankara name leaving it to the Independent East Syrians. The Independent east syrians later affiliated with the Jacobites of Antioch and gradually adopted west syriac liturgy over the years. Thus Malankara church is now west syriac. Thanks. User:Kokkarani (talk)

Introductory section's neutrality

"The MALANKARA Church Known as metran kakshi lost its christian values. The metran kakshi is only interested in land properties & money. They have been splitted from Syriac orthodox church of Antioch for these reasons. They fight with fellow syriac orthodox church (Jacobites). They dont permit the syriac orthodox members to conduct funeral over property issues." - This fairly recent edit to the article provides no sources to defend such claims and presents a clearly subjective perspective on interfaith relations between the Syriac Orthodox church and an unspecified sister church within the Malankara tradition. It's unsuitable for the beginning of an article and should be removed.

Isaac D'Freitas (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see any relation with the so-called Metran Kakshi and what we have in this article. Yes there are a lot of issues about church property and yes burials with the conflict between the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. So kindly leave personal attacks on some individual that you detest away from our article. If there are problems of neutrality, only address those specific items that you think make our Malankara Church article not neutral and how to actually make them neutral. werldwayd (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Enough with partisan massive edits on both sides

Our Malankara Church article is about the "historical Malankara church". But because of recent conflicts between the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, this article has become the battleground between editors biased towards this church or that church on both sides of the conflict. So we see these massive shifts in which what should be a more static "historical Wikipedia page" become so unrecognizable in the wink of an eye. So as if in a matter of few days we have a "new" historical fact of a new church. I mean what could have happened in a matter of few days to add or subtract from a well-grounded article this much. I assume a small paragraph at the end needs to tackle the conflict in a grounded manner, but the overall article should be left alone. I have had enough of this meddling with what should be a stable historical and reliable article. A committee of let's say three detached non-biased but knowledgeable editors should be assigned to which all suggested edits should be forwarded to. It would be good that these editors know a lot about the nuances and can pick what is a genuine proposed edit and what is a biased partisan edit and decide. Those who propose changes should have an editor name (so no anonymous editors) and they should have at least say 500 edits to prove they are genuinely interested in the welfare of the Wikipedia project and are not here for some one-subject partisan interest and no other contribution except fixation in this one subject. I hope this page and probably (for the next few months) the pages of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church are subject to stricter surveillance and higher requirements for being able to change them. werldwayd (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Werldwayd, if/when you suspect sockpuppetry, we are handling that at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkktpkirij. Elizium23 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not suggesting sockpuppetry at all. What I mean is that we have very much biased a sort of "activism editing" in which "my side is always right and the other side always wrong". Plus if an editor is only concerned and fixated with just one subject, he or she is not well-intentioned editor as all he wants from the Wikipedia project is this one page to be alligned to what he thinks it should be alligned to. In these turbulent times of a great historical church, one of the most ancient of the general Christian Church, if this church is passing through an internal conflict, why should an entire "historical Malankara Church page" be subject to such massive restructuring and editing? I know the article suffers from a very big concern that over the years, it has included very biased editors who jeopardized the overall neutrality. The role of my suggested three-member committee is to study the article, all its references, its present and earlier content, keep what is accurate and remove what is inaccurate and reinstate what was accurate earlier but had been removed by later edit. A sort of a truly encyclopedic solid article in a moraturium month let's say, and after that only nominal changes should be made only, as history is history after all, and not much new facts can arise with such an article. It's not that this is a new church that is rising. It was around many centuries ago. Then it stopped being and is taken over by a multitude of new churches. The Malankara Church page to my mind should be comprehensive, but static and solidly stable werldwayd (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Whatever you suggest, sockpuppetry is very much a factor on these pages and has been for months. We've been blocking lots of socks and they are the source of much disruptive editing. We've also been using WP:RFPP to protect pages against newly-created socks, and that's been quite effective, along with new "partial blocks" where an IP range or username can be blocked from editing a specified number of specific pages. Elizium23 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, if sockpuppetry needs to be addressed here, all the power to you. But in essence sockpuppetry is not the real issue at the end. A sockpuppet can go to an anonymous internet cafe and edit. There is no proof he is the same guy. He can go to a friend's domicile somewhere else, create an editor name, or just ask his friend to do the desired edits.... It's sort of "war on drugs" or fighting global terrorism now.... The real issue, to my mind is the mindset of "partisan editing" or "activist editing". It's sort of a propaganda scheme or some "holy war". What I am talking is a mentality of why and how one should actually edit Wikipedia. Mind you it can be an editor who has never ever done a single edit in Wikipedia. He is an inexperienced newcomer and is for some valid reason involved as a member of one of these Malankara churches. I mean you search what interests you or involves you, right? But this newcomer is so incensed by our Malankara article, the first edit he makes is this massive change in the article. Every single detail is amended by him. Now this should stop. No anonymous editing should be allowed and let's say 500 edits in a multitude of subject before changing this one page and disappearing. All the rest should address their proposed changes to a committee and the latter tackles how important it is to make the change and how to make it. And first and foremost. All the earlier materials should be questioned and the article cleansed, including biased partisan references so that we have a solid reliable article. As much as I love Wikipedia, Malankara Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church that we have are highly questionable and suspect and at best, one sided, and I would take every single paragraph I read in them with a pinch of salt. werldwayd (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Good; as it is, page protection is in place now, and will expire in 9 hours. So let's be vigilant for disruptive editing in all its forms, and resubmit the article to WP:RFPP, and we'll get our wish that only autoconfirmed users may edit the page. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I've had my say. And I do appreciate you helpful comments here and your due diligence remarkable edits on the page. But what I know is that these articles have been subject to those one-sided edits for many years past, are still a battleground today and will remain so for many months and years to come. So temporary restrictions may help for a few days. But the problem persists and will return as soon as the restrictions expire. A more permanent upkeep is necessary and some dedicated editor. Pay them a nominal monthly salary if need be. Say 100 dollars a month for his precious time and knowledge... It's too much to handle for some dedicated editor being a sort of "guardian angel" or "redeeming saviour" for months and months and gets a lot of abuse and no pay and gets burnt out. Then he quits and we find a new unpaid dedicated editor who now goes to the same process before he gets burnt out as well. And the abuse on the page continues... So all the best to you. Really and honestly. But if we think of our temporary "a week or two" measures or discovering a sockpuppet here and there is such a great achievement... you need to know our "one month Wikipedia timeframe" is a "second" or two in Malankara Church time. This is a church of centuries for good reason. It has been going on if you believe their church history since St. Thomas, yeh, that Thomas who was one of the chosen twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, Son of God, the one who is expected to come in a great messianic event.... Yes this is the one St. Thomas who infamously didn't believe Jesus' (Messiah's) resurrection and demanded that Jesus appear to him and the rest so that he would put his finger on the hands of Jesus that showed the nail scars he suffered on the Cross... That Thomas that traveled to India, an unknown land, to establish this thing called Malankara Church we are talking about endlessly 1900 years on, give or take. The Malankara Church tradition is that he died their for his beloved Malankara Church that he established for the love of Jesus and mankind... I mean this subject is so timeless and engaging me and you have spent on this for a few hours of our precious time in one infamous Friday the 22nd of May 2020 in corona days, without finding a single other editor to intervene and give his or her opinion for a change... I mean this subject page is that engaging. But I can assure you from now that Wikipedia will disappear from the face of the Earth but Malankara Church and its continuing modern-day derivatives will go on and on and on long after we're gone in the ether. Let's see others address this issue though. I'll watch the page for sure but am moving on to other subjects... werldwayd (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Biased

Malankara Church refers to an ancient and historical church which is seperated now into 6++ churches in kerala. Some people are trying to manipulate the article and make it biased to only one particular church. Appealing for a cleanup and the restore the original version .

Wikipedia:TENDENTIOUS

Otherwise, suggesting a merger to Indian Orthodox Church Abin jv (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Defunct church

@Br Ibrahim john: I want to be clear about my reason for reverting your verb tense change. The scope of this article has been determined to be the defunct entity which ceased to exist after multiple schisms some time ago. Therefore it is written in the past tense. If you intend to refer to a living Church entity, please do not use the term "Malankara Church" but switch to the acceptable Wikipedia article name nomenclature for that Church. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The article itself mentions that the entity is continuing its existence. If you read this article as a whole, you will understand my point clearly. The article mentions various court judgements which have affirmed the existence of a single entity. Therefore the entity is actually continuing its existence. Therefore , it is evident from the verdict of the court of the land and the article itself that the entity is continuing its succession in the present just as in the past. Therefore I strongly believe that the original verb tense of the article was inappropriat inappropriate. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john, my humble opinion is that you are wrong according to emerging consensus. If Malankara Church is a single living entity then it is made of constituent parts which are not so named. Despite this, I have opened an RFC to get to the bottom of this. This topic area is the subject of much partisan, polemic dispute and edit warring and sock puppetry. I will not hesitate to report you as a sock puppet if you begin to disrupt this topic area. Please edit constructively and collaboratively or you will not edit at all. Elizium23 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
As to the specifics of your edit, there is no "one head" Malankara Metropolitan today. Since there are multiple Churches comprising Malankara Church, there are multiple heads. Paulose II (Indian Orthodox Church) has no jurisdiction over Catholics like you, while Ignatius Aphrem II is the patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, and Joseph Mar Thoma of blessed memory just passed away, leaving that post vacant. You cannot honestly assert a singular head of this alleged communion. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC

The Malankara Church described in this article: a defunct entity which spread into several churches through schism, or a single living entity which is still functional and identifiable today? Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Supreme Court of India's order on the subject has clearly made the fact clear. But still I totally agree with you on the fact that the issue is highly debated and opposed. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear in our mind that this specific article is about a defunct HISTORICAL church (that existed unified from foundation until the growing schisms in the 16th century) that has now blossomed into a number of churches (Nestorian, Jacobite, Orthodox, Catholic, Reformed, even Evangelical etc.). The present church that is claiming "legal" victory, well for those claimants with such aspirations, we have a page for that specific church separately. It is called Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) also known as Indian Orthodox Church. Why should we confiscate this historical page and donate it solely to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as if the others don't count. Keep this page historical as the 16th century and PRIOR church history and develop the various church pages that we already have accordingly like Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) (i.e. Indian Ortghodox Church) and the Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, the Mar Thoma Church (MTC) and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church also known as the Malankara Syrian Catholic Church. And enough of this boasting that the presently legally victorious church is the sole inheritor of the Malankara tradition which is bogus. I suggest that we put at the top of this Malankara Church page a clear note that this is the page for the historical church and the various developments that led to its schism, and NOT the present day church that is making all this outlandish claims of being THEEEEEEE one sole church practically negating all the others that exist as well and which are and remain also a legitimate part of the historical Malankara Church and valid descendants of it. Why are we even discussing this I don't know. I am fed up with the continuous bickering on these pages. A completely neutral religiously competent editor historian should be assigned for all these pages, and all edits should be addressed to him and closely monitored and properly moderated before passing by him and him only. So various "editors" address the suggested changes to him, and he and he alone passes them after approval of historic authenticity and veracity. I suggest one religious scholar expert on the history of Indian Malankara and Malabar churches as a specialist, and my strong preference is a non-Indian scholar at that. I know enough about these conflicts now so as not to trust an Indian origin moderator as he will have a stake in favour of this or that church anyway. I also suggest that a well deserved token financial fee is assigned on a monthly basis for his efforts in tackling with this thorny issue unless he volunteers and waves any financial compensation at his own will. werldwayd (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Werldwayd, I've been doing my best but WP:OWN would militate against enforcing any such arrangement. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I totally agree with you.
Many portions of the article are factually distorted. There are no mentioning of the Church of the East, its liturgy or Christology, to which the Malankara Church ,prior to Synod of Diamper, belonged. The article also mentions some Throne of St. Thomas , successor, Malankara Moopan etc. whose historicity is doubted. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Br Ibrahim john, since this is an RFC section, I need to ask: who and what do you agree with? You disagreed with me on the central point, which is the whole reason I called this RFC today. This section is for succinctly stating your opinion on the RFC question, not for extended discusion of the article contents. Elizium23 (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Defunct per Werldwayd and contra the Indian Court. It is far too problematic to overload this article and its title with modern status. There are new Churches with distinct names and they should be segregated properly or there will be no end to the warring. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The article appears to be of an existing entity. Since you have made it clear that the article deals only with the pre 16th century undivided church, I think I should agree with you. But meanwhile, the article appears to be unclear about this fact. For a reader, it appears as if the entity is continuing its existence. Moreover, some of the statements mentioned in the article are biased and historically untrue. For example the 'Malankara Moopan', 'Throne of St. Thomas', etc. are not agreed upon among the communities who trace their origin from this entity. As far as in the point of view of an unbiased reader, the article appears to coincide with a specific Church group. Therefore it appears as if the entity is an existing one. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc on Organizing The Article into 'Malankara Church', 'Malankara Syrian Church' & 'Malankara Catholic Church'

Requesting Comments on Organizing The Article into

St Thomas Christians divisions

Malankara Church : From AD52-1665

Northists Split into Catholic Faith(Western) and Syrian Faith(Eastern)

Malankara Syrian Church Puthankoottukar, or "New Party" under the Patriarch of Antioch:

Malankara Catholic Church Pazhayakoottukar, or "Old Party" under the Pope:

Please Add Your Comments Below:

The articles are currently Redirects or Mixed. Proper Organizing work is needed to maintain WP:RNPOV. Saint Thomas Christian denominations This Article also have duplicate statements. Inviting you to Rfc.J.Stalin S Talk 08:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add your comments @Elizium23:,@Johnchacks:, @Randomscholar1996:, @MalankaraSuriyaniNazrani: J.Stalin S Talk 09:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Jstalins, I am afraid I do not understand this proposal. Elizium23 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23, The Malankara church is a defunct church(From AD52-1665), It consists of two groups Northists and Southists. Due to Schism, Northists were split into "Malankara Syrian Church" and "Malankara Catholic Church" based on their Syriac and Catholic faiths while Southists had undergone the same separation based on catholic and orthodoxy. Malankara Syrian Church was further divided into Malabar Independent Syrian Church, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Malankara Catholic Church was divided into Syro-Malabar Church, Chaldean Syrian Church. The present situation of the articles are mixed and unclear. Many present day church claims they are ancient and original and these articles includes various WP:PEACOCK statements and does not maintain WP:RNPOV. Proper organisation is required for these articles. For eg Many church claims the Term Malankara Church or they are the original church, so for Neutral point of view one can write the Malankara Church article focusing on the two groups Northists and Southists and not based on newly established churches. J.Stalin S Talk 03:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It is the first time I hear about Malankara Catholic Church. This is just distorting history, Could you give any proof for this divisive name?

ThanksUser:Kokkarani (talk)

Kokkarani The term was used just to denote the regional church or Sui iuris with East Syrian rite. They kept the old rite thus called "Old Party". Majority was in Malabar area. J.Stalin S Talk 17:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The connotation of Malankara is associated with the West Syriac Church at least right now. I don't agree with the usage of "Malankara" with Syro Malabar Church. The Syro Malankara Church is using the West Syriac . Also Chaldean Syrian Church or Church of the East are the true heirs of the Old Malankara Church, however at the time of the major split in Coonan cross oath they were with the Roman Catholic side(Portuguese side) accepting Pope. Now they are NOT accepting Pope as their head and are not Roman Catholic.

ThanksUser:Kokkarani (talk)

I fully support this move. Before 1800s the Syro Malabar Church was also called Malankara Church. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Image of divisions/reunions

@Br Ibrahim john: is favoring one version of this image, whilst @Kokkarani: is favoring another, and we have very little rationale for switching it, so I am going to put an end to this with dispute resolution. Please rectify your differences here on the talk page without edit warring on the article. Elizium23 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Which image of the branches of Malankara Church should be used?

  1. File:St Thomas Christians divisions.svg
  2. File:SaintThomasChristian'sDivisionsHistoryFinal-en.svg Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely, the second one is used in most of the places in Wikipedia and is more historically updated and correct version which shows the communions and liturgical affiliations over the period of time in the evolution of the churches. For example. After the coonan cross oath there were Roman Catholic (east syrian) and Independent (east syrian ) divide which is not depicted in the first diagram.

ThanksUser:Kokkarani (talk)

The first image, File:St Thomas Christians divisions.svg is historically more accurate. In the other hand, File:SaintThomasChristian'sDivisionsHistoryFinal-en.svg is misleading. First of all the schism occurred only by 1665. Secondly, the Pazhayakoor faction was following East Syriac Rite from the beginning. The Synod of Diamper did not prohibit the Rite. The Synod did propose some edits and implemented latinisation. But the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was preserved. On the other hand, Puthenkoor faction had already been exposed to West Syriac Rite since 1665. That's why we have the Malabar Independent Syrian Church which got autocephaly in the 1700's also folowing West Syriac Rite. The Second image is wrong as it depicts the Pazhayakoor faction using Latin Rite from 1653 till 1814, which is undoubtedly a lie. The Pazhayakoor faction was following East Syriac Rite though they were under Latin hierarchy. The Second image is extremely contradictory and misleading and hence I believe it should be removed or replaced. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read the history; the schism occurred in 1653 with the Coonan cross oath.(under Portuguese rule for around 50 years) The majority stayed with the Archdeacon Marthoma 1. They were following the east syrian rite (church of the east NOT Roman Catholic) or the old practices already they followed. The minority who accepted the Synod of diamper and Roman Catholicism slowly made transition to Latin style. (Roman Catholic) . Later with the effort of Portuguse might majority shifted from Malankara faction to the old party (Portugeuse Roman Catholic)who accepted the Synod of Diamper . The Indepenedent east syrian faction (malankara) later cooperated with the Syrian Orthodox Bishop and slowly accepted the West Syriac Rite and so called the new party or puthen koor syrians. The old party was called Romo-Syrians.(Latinised East Syrians) ThanksUser:Kokkarani (talk)

I strongly oppose. The formal schism occurred only by 1665. Only then was West Syriac Rite was introduced and parallel hierarchy came into effect. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"Orthodox Syrian Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orthodox Syrian Church. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 27#Orthodox Syrian Church until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - Jay Talk 19:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malankara_Church/Archive_1&oldid=1182855288"