Talk:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Catholicos = Maprian ?

Most of us are confused. Fractional split in Orthodox Church now leading to falsification of History to attract fractional claims. Some says that Catholicos now in India is the continuance of Nestorian Catholicos. Some says that it is the ancient Orthodox Catholicos ("Maphrian Catholicos") and some says that it was a new Catholicate. Lets discuss it here.. I wish all intersted to join the discussion.

I am of the view that the Catholicos we have is the Maphrian. That is we have the Orthodox Catholicos

The reasons i state is the following:

1. The Kalpana of H.H Patriarch Ignatius Abdul Messiah in 1912 at the time of ordination of H.H Baselius Paulose 1st. It states that H.H was ordianed as a "Maprian Catholicos"
2. The name "Baselius". Only "Maphrian Catholicos" uses the name Baselius. "Nestorian Catholicos" does not use the name Baselius and never used that in the past. H.H Patriarch ordained Paulose 1st with the name "Baselius".
3. The question - How could a Patriarch re-establish a catholicate (Nestorian Catholicos) in 20th century which was seperated from the mother church in 5th century.
4. It is clear from the records of "Catholicos Bar-Hebraeus" that Maprian was known as Catholicos also. And for this reason there was tensions between the Nestorian and Orthodox churches in Persia. Many a times the Sultans also interfeared.

Please comment.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The lineage of the Catholicos of the East is with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. The catholicate was established/reestablished in 1912 by the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch. Also MOSC is a division of the Syriac Orthodox Church.Phantom (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Phantom (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving the original author's sig here

Written by:

Jack Eapen

jackachachan@yahoo.com

Great job, Jack. Just bear in mind that no one 'owns' any article on wikipedia, and it will probably get edited a little, maybe even a lot. If you want to keep track of changes to this article, log in as a user (pick any username), come view the article you're intrested in, and use the link on the side to add it to your "watch list". Later you can view your watch list to see which of those articles have been edited most recently. Wikipedia has lots of other features to make it easy to edit articles, view change history, discuss articles with fellow contributors (like this Talk page), and on and on. Enjoy! Wesley 16:19 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

How big is this denomination? It seems like it would be really small, but the article gives no clue into the number of members. Fishal 19:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1.5 million according to http://www.pro-oriente.at/?site=ok20041124161715&lp=de --Pjacobi 20:55, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

I would like to say that Malankara Orthodox Church is different from the Malankara Syrian Orthodox church

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church = Indian Orthodox Church

Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church = a member of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch

Have a look at the table below (it's french but you understandable)

Églises orientales du Kerala (Chrétiens de saint Thomas)

Syriaque occidental					Syriaque oriental
Anglicans	Orthodoxes orientaux			Catholiques orientaux		Assyriens
Église malankare Mar Thoma	Église malabare indépendante	Église malankare orthodoxe	Église syro-malankare orthodoxe	Église catholique syro-malankare	Église catholique syro-malabare	Église malabare orthodoxe
N.B. I understood that orthodox malankar and syro-orthodox malankar church are in communion but I am not 100% sure of this

Bear in mind that each of these churches have different names...

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project

There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move of interest

In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mar Thoma Church

Is this Church the same one that is in communion with the member Provinces of the Anglican Communion? - (203.211.76.52 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, thats correct. The Mar Thoma Church is in full communion with the Anglican Church, but is not a member of the Anglican Communion. Trust me, I'm a member of the Mar Thoma Church. --Schacko0205 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "this church". If you mean Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, then no, that's not in communion with Anglicans; it's a part of the Oriental Orthodox. The church which is in communion with the Anglicans is the Mar Thoma Church. Tb (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Marthoma Syrian Church was a church formed in 19th century out of converts from the United Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church. The former are protestants and in communion with anglicans. Later the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church split into two groups, one is the Malankara (Syriac Orthodox)Jacobite Church and the other is the Indian Orthodox Church. Its a split along nationalist lines.

Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is different from the Marthoma Syrian Church. Indian/Malankara Orthodox Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion of churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please change the unnecessary titles like "English assist in reviving the church" and "Anglican Influence" which is more apt to describe the Marthoma Syrian Church.

It is confusing people into thinking that this is the page of the Reformed church known as the Marthoma Church.

The Indian/Malankara Orthodox people's ancestors actually fought in the courts against the Anglican influenced faction. I feel someone deliberately wrote up such headings to over emphasise somethings to misrepresent the history, someone with a grudge against the Malankara Orthodox Church.

Please keep fanaticism out of orkut. We have to change the unnecessary titles and present a more clear and neutral article.

This is like Nazi version of Jewish history. The titles are intensionally made with an eye to mislead others and to tarnish this Church.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tone/Style

Some of the last section reads more like an advertising brochure than an encyclopedia article, e.g. "From such small beginnings, the Christian Community of Kerala grew to its present stature against heavy odds aided, among other providential factors, by the continued tolerance and hospitality of many a neighborhood, the goodwill of the local rulers, chieftains and others." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 15:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Founded by St. Thomas

"...founded by St. Thomas, the Disciple of Christ in A.D. 52."

Unless this statement is universally agreed by all mainstream historians, it should not be given as fact. The Acts of Thomas, for example, are not a verifiable source, having been written 150 years after the events they describe. I suggest rewording to

"Members believe that their Church was founded by St. Thomas, the Disciple of Christ in A.D. 52."

Mtford 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion...

The article Jacobite Syrian Christian Church says that it is also known as "Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church". This is very confusing, and there should be something in these articles that explains that they are different (if they are different — otherwise the articles would be merged). ... discospinster _talk 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know, there are some differences between the churches. They have different heads. Even though most of their rites are the same, it is headed by different people. I dunno which section, but one is headed by a person called "Bava" from Kerala itself and the other one is headed by a bishop from antioch or damascaus. User:Dtox.danny —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Im not surprised anyone is confused, because even keralites are confused about which is which, especially the new generation.

They are both different churches now. But they were one church until 1912 and had brief merger in 1950s that lasted only few years.

This Church was the Malankara Syrian Church, and they were called as "Jacobites" by non-christians and other communities of christians.

Jacobite means Syriac Orthodox in Kerala. It was initially a derogatory name used to call the Syriac Orthodox in Middle East, to imply that the Non-Chalcedonian Church was formed by Mar Yakob Burdana(Jacob Bardeus). Yakob Burdana a christian bishop in the 6th century AD was responsible for reviving this almost dead church and he is said to have ordinated around 1,00,000 priests. So post-Yakobb Burdana the church really grew and so the Chalcedonian christians in Middle-East started calling the Non-Chalcedonian Syriac Orthodox as 'Jacobites' to defame them. But the name really stuck and grew popular in Kerala, India. So much so that people are proud to identify with the name tag for their community and it is given positive connotations.

The "Jacobite Syrian Church" is the name used in Kerala to refer to the branch of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch here. It is also called Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church.

In 1912, there was a split in this Church and one faction supported their indigenous chief bishop, the Malankara Metropolitan. The other faction supported the Patriarch of Antioch from Syria.

Those who supported the indigenous bishop- the Malankara Metropolitan were called "Methran Kakshi"(bishops group) and those who supported the Patriarch of Antioch were called the "Bava Kakshi"(patriarch's group).

The indigenous bishop Malankara Metropolitan was treated like a king without borders, as his predecessors from a century before that were granted power by the Hindu King to be civil judicial authority in all litigations among syrian christians. He also had a private army of his own until a century ago. So his civil, administrative and temmporal authority was taken for granted in Malankara Church.

But the people considered the Patriarch of Antioch as the highest spiritual authority, and the Malankara Metropolitan as second to him in spiritual/doctrinal matters. The Malankara Metropolitan was more of a civil authority or a royal emblem of the traditional patronage the community enjoyed from the Kings in kerala. The situation in early 1900s was when the Patriarch arrived in person in India and there was a quarrel between both because the Malankara Metropolitan was unhappy because he perceived that the Patriarch was interfering into his authority.

The situation was even more complex because there were technically two Patriarchs for the Syriac Orthodox Church at that time, as a new Patriarch was installed while the former was still alive. The former was removed by an imperial decree by the muslim Sultan of Turkey. So the previous Patriarch was ousted by a secular political authority, but he remained unhappy with what happened. The quarrel in India was between the new Patriarch(Patriarch Abdullah) and the Malankara Metropolitan. So in 1912, the Malankara Metropolitan sought the help of the old ousted Patriarch and brought him here. This former Patriarch established a Catholicate in India and ordinated the first Catholicose for the Metropolitan/Methran faction. This led to them adopting the name "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church".

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is also known as Malankara Orthodox Church or Indian Orthodox Church.

The other faction who supported the Patriarch continued to use the name "Jacobite". They are now known as the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church or the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church.

So if you find Malankara Syrian Orthodox with "Syrian" appearing first, it means they are part of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. They also use the name Malankara Jacobite.

If you find Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church with "Orthodox" appearing before "Syrian", it means they are the autocephalous Indian Orthodox Church with HQ in Kerala, India, which is also the church mentioned in this page. Sometimes the word Syrian is altogether avoided.

Both have the same faith, liturgy, vestments, culture, language and traditions.

They are made distinct only by their administrative authorities. And they are still fighting a trouble-some litigation in the courts over custody of some ancient churches.

The Indian Orthodox Church constitution still acknowledges the Patriarch of Antioch as its supreme spiritual authority. But they dont seem to accept the current Patriarchs after 1970 because of the disputes.

Both churches had a brief unity in 1950s, but it did not last beyond a decade. Godwillingly, there will be peace and brotherhood restored in the future and both churches could possibly unite and reconcile, and then maybe we can think of merging the articles. Until then it is more apt to have both articles remain separate.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Faction violence

The situation of the Orthodox Church in India is similar to that of the church in Ukraine. The followers of Patriarch of Antioch and Catholicos of East are fighting in the streets to get possession of the assets of the church.

The Patriarch fraction is known as Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Catholicos fraction as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. An Independent Orthodox Church body also exists since 1772 AD by name, Malabar Independent Syrian Church, which is not in communion either with the Patriarch or Catholicos.

Majority of the Orthodox christians in India,including me, accept the Patriarch of Antioch as the Spiritual leader, and Catholicos of East as the autocephelous head. Similar to the situation in Georgia, where Georgians accept the Catholicos of Georgia as their autocephelous head and Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the Spiritual head.
So, we christians dont know which church we actually belong, since we need both the Patriarch and the Catholicos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinu007 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Catholicos ?

I dont know, who wrote the title "Supreme Catholicos" for the Catholicos of East. To my knowledge, only the Armenian Catholicos (Etchmiadzin)uses the title "Supreme Catholicos". That too because there is another Catholicos (Cilician Catholicos) under him.
I dont know, which Catholicos is under this Orthodox Catholicos of the East. Anyway, Catholicos Baselius Thomas 1st of Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is not under him. The Uniate Catholic titular Archbishop is also not under him.
Therefore, please dont teach wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulangattil (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

infobox

there should be an infobox for quick reference to the leadership. I for one have not found who out [Indian] pope is. I was still wondering who our pope is? (i'm not christian btw) Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional information not merged

An editor keeps adding additional information which sort of, but not quite, duplicates the information that is there. Only giving a rare occasional footnote. Please stop it!

Merge stuff, don't add near-duplicate material! Student7 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

An editor has made two unexplained reversions to this article. One is a change in numbers. It needs to be footnoted with a WP:RELY source. Right now, the figures all seem made up = WP:OR.

The value of the Anglican visit to the Orthodox is not explained in the article. So what if the Anglicans arrived? What good or harm did that do the Orthodox church? Student7 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 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 historyPamparam (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Title

I don't particularly like "Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church", because it doesn't make much sense, looks messy, and doesn't even correspond to any of the official titles of the church body. I think this article should be moved to the title "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church". I, however, cannot figure out how to do this. The move function will not work because the latter title already exists. Does anyone know how this can be done? Deusveritasest (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, one would use the move function, described at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This would give interested editors an opportunity to discuss it first.

In this case, it appears that the name you are proposing redirects to this article. This may suggest that the name has already been discussed at some point in the past and rejected. It can be discussed again of course. Not sure why there are so many names for this church. I agree that one would be nice, but can have no opinion otherwise. The redirect can be overwritten after the vote is taken, if people favor the move. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change

I corrected the word "fraction" to "faction". I also assumed that 13,000,000 was meant as far as the number of believers, and corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IoanC (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart :Nazrani Evolution

This is with regard to the chart being seen on most of the wikipages of the local Indian Churches and the local church events pages.

The chart does not speak the history of the Orhtodox church or any other Indigenous church in India. (Please refer to all the local churches websites). It does not put the church in the right perspective either. This file should be removed from this article.

The question of the chart being corrected.

All the churches of India, have their own history. Their is no common chart. The options are,

1. Each Church to have their own chart.( Whatever their history speaks) or 2. Not to have a chart at all.

Thanks !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.97.34 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix the chart by fixing the chart, not by deleting it. Saying "there is no common chart", is a way of saying "let's fork to avoid hard problems." We don't give up, we fix it. So go forth and fix it: which requires the hard work of being willing to discuss it with others, reach a consensus on an NPOV way to present the information, and editing the chart to express that consensus. It's not ok to simply delete material without discussion and decline to participate in making it better. Tb (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tb. Please repeat your comments on File talk:Nasrani Evolution.jpg. Too long have Indian Christian histories ignored each other when they share a common background. Once they were one church. Now they are not. While they have difficulty recognizing this common background objectively, does not mean that it should not be reported encyclopedically. Student7 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the first person (125.22.97.34) said that there is no common chart, is because the history of the Christians in India are largely wiped out by the Portuguese. The uncannonical Synod of Diamper, called upon cunningly by the Portuguese, beckoned the Indigenous Chritians for a discussion. The humble local Christians, having no clue of the Portuguese mentality , brought all the ancient manuscripts written on palm leaves to be verified and discussed, however , the Portuguese, seized these documents are set it on fire.

Remember printing reached India only in the 19th century. Old ancient manuscripts written on palm leaves, were sought out and destroyed by the Portuguese. Now the cunning catholic historians , just in the 19th century came up with there own history, making all indigenous Christians “New Party” and them(who arrived only in the 16Th century) as “Old Party” and this is what they are trying to propagate here. One should understand that this is a mere catholic propaganda chart, the true history is entirely opposite of what is depicted here.

The is a something about which we are going to fight tooth and nail, I doubt the credibility of articles in wikipedia. Shame !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.16.119 (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good material! Granted that the "Old Party" labeled was invented by Catholics, was or was there not a schism at the Synod of Diamper, whatever its legality or illegality? What are alternate names for what the Catholics called "New Party" since they did leave as a separate group. Again, having abandoned WP:POV labels here (!), we are looking for labels that can be accepted by both groups, not one called "The Legal Successors of Christ" or somesuch. The other side has to accept it, as well. I don't necessarily mean editors alone, but readers. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, The indigenous Christians were called St. Thomas Christians , and Catholics, according to the Orthodox Christians were called Latin Christians., or Portuguese Christians. Again my sincere suggestion is not to have any names, as names are derogatory or offending for some. The present names “Old Party” and “New Party” are only to underscore all the Indigenous Christians in Bad taste. Having no names, does have better dignity rather than calling some one “New”, which either side can.

Then, how would one justify the one straight line which is depicted here as, Syro Malabar Catholic Church, common sense is, when there is a schism, one straight line should be spilt into two. I don’t understand the reason behind putting this is chart in unnecessary places like wiki page of Oriental Orthodox, Coonan Cross Oath etc, clearly shows the untoward intention behind creating such a chart. !!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.21.39 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why you would feel that way about the labels. I agree that it appears to you to be pov showing a "straight line" for Catholics only. However, all were together at one time.

Taking the Anglican church break from Rome, it is facetious, I think, to suggest that the King's new church deserves a "straight line" from the year zero; King Henry VIII's main intent (there were many others) was to get a annulment (he'd already used up one!  :) so he could marry a third wife. Not my idea of a straight line!

The Indians, for whatever reason, were together under the Portguese/Latin Church at one time. They felt provoked, revolted for the best of reasons (unlike Henry) but jumped the track. IMO Pakistan "jumped the track" when it broke away from India - no straight line for them! And Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan. Straight line for Pakistan, but not Bangladesh. Am I wrong?

Why should it be different. BTW, if describing the Jewish religion, I (a Christian and Catholic) would have to draw the Jewish religion as a straight line. They did not change. Worse, the "founder" of the church I follow was in that straight line! A Jew! It was Christians who changed. Christians are heretics (quite correctly) to Jewish people. Does that bother you? It is true, nonetheless. What do you say?

I realize that "new" is a pejorative in religion. Nonetheless, Christians were "new" at one time. New and better? (pov or course). What is wrong in thinking that "New Party" is "new and better?"

Until I saw the charts I could make no sense out of local religions at all. The poor helpless reader has to have something.

We can't really go with "convincing" each other. We have to use WP:REL:Y labels. We can use both in the "explanation" which nobody sees. but we need to use something on the line to distinguish the old group from the breakaway group. I know, I know, it was the Latin church which "went wrong." Nevertheless, it was the, uh, so called "New" Party which "relocated" as it were. Student7 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is POV to say things like "the King's new church". Of course, the position of Anglicans is that ours is the same ancient Church of England, which separate from Rome, but neither of which was a new church. It is important to recognize that about such things "straight lines" contain considerable political importance, and express POVs which are often by no means neutral. While it may seem obvious to Roman Catholics that theirs is continuous and others "broke off", the others very frequently see it the other way round. Nowhere is this perhaps as much an issue as in India, so I would urge you not to approach it by trying to find out who should have the straight line, and instead, assign it to nobody. Tb (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are we to assume that the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is the original Nasrani church rather than the Chaldean Syrian Church, for instance? Or perhaps the Jacobite Church? Or the Indian Orthodox Church? If anything, presence of those in union with Rome is a development of the 16th century, whereas a church clearly existed there beforehand. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave off straight lines for the time being.

BTW, an editor has suggested that the chart be converted to something that is editable. Anyone want to give that a crack? For starters, aim at what we have. Have to start somewhere.

Question one about the old chart. What do we say about "New Party" and "Old OParty" (translated into English)? Are there any other recognized names that can be used with evoking laughter? We do want to use recognized and recognizable names.

There is a term in America called political correctness. This refers to (usually) changing the name of something sensitive to something else for awhile. Usually less truthful. I don't think we should attempt to hurt people's feelings here, but neither should we use terms that can't be recognized by the average reader either.

Incidentally, I ran across two people from Kerala the other day. One was a Catholic with a PhD (but not in religion or history!). When I brought up our concerns to her, she was either mystified or bored, probably the latter. The other was a Muslim. Needless to say, he didn't know and couldn't care less. So what we are discussing here may be of great import to us editors, but somewhat less than the end of the world to average Keralans, most likely. All we are trying to do here is get history straight, not to right all wrongs of the past. We can record all wrongs of the past, however! Student7 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well too much to type….. Okay am ready …

Anglican Church, Jews , Bangladesh and my own India and King Henry the womaniser .. hahahaha…

Okay, Anglican Church or Church of England came into being only after King Henry decided to (as far as I know). Christians split out of Jews after Jesus Christ came down to earth. Pakistan was created after they got independence in 1947 ????

We are called St.Thomas Christians because of a reason, we are the followers of St.Thomas, and not St.Peter (which the catholics would have used happily, if they were here, from AD52). However we have St.Thomas Christians, because, there was a time when St.Peter or his followers never knew about a tiny place called Kerala. You would have read, umpteen numbers of time that the Christians in India had connections with Persia. The church was under the rule of the Persians or Nestorians , are they Catholics ? Hmm, I doubt the Catholic Church wouldn’t want to go anywhere near to them as, they were heretics… But unfortunately we the Christians of Kerala had connections with them. The evidences are the Persian Crosses found in Kerala. Out of the many Syrian congregations which landed in Kearla. One of the largest being under Mar Sapor in Kollam. The Malayalam Era starts from this event. Hmm okay… by the 15th or 16tb century we had uninvited guests here, namely the humble and meek Portuguese. They were people who went from Latin America to Philippines doing charity business. Helping people, supporting, guiding and sometimes a bit of torture… “ Oh please that, was 16th century you know, torture was permissible….” Hahaha.. okay, the uninvited guests had their mouths open when they found well established Christians thriving on the kerala coast.

Hmm, thus started torture, in a light manner, just peeling off orthodox priests ears and noses, just putting fire to churches, oh ..even a jewish synagogue was also not spared, a synagogue in Trichur was blazed, wow.. forcing orthodox priests to conduct latin masses, locking up orthodox priests in islands of cochin for days and going around and destroying whatever was precious for the local Christians.. hmmm

Now some history which I saw in History channel which belongs to the very grand old Rupert Murdoch a devout catholic ….

After the crusades, the crusaders who came back to their home countries were a nuisance, they were organised and even more powerful than the local kings. The difficultly in controlling these hard men, were immense, so the kings decided to give them a new job… kings of Portugal and Spain, raised a maritime wing, and ordered these men to conquer unfound lands. (thus by avoiding nuisance back home) The Templars still existed even after the crusades… the history channel says, that Vasco da Gama( the one who brought Catholicism t o India ) was himself a templar. The Spaniards had Gun Powder, and they mastered cartography. Because of these two colonialists, the catholic church , once a small church, or maybe as big as the orthodox in the middle east, flourished throughout the world. Read about the atrocities these people have committed from the Latin America to Philipines. And coming back to the chart, its like we Indians, were SUPERPOWERS, we kicked the Portuguese and created our on church… wow…. The Portuguese and the Spaniards who were terrorizing the world, got f***k*d in India…. Then am very proud to say am an Indian… we all all St.Thomas Christians should be . And also the poor Syrians and Persian bishops ,who didn’t have gun powder, an army or even 10 followers behind them and not even 10 rupees to spare, convinced the st.thomas Christians in India to rally against the Portuguese … I get reminded of the phrase, “common sense is not so common “ … hmmm.. sad…

Visit India, and see the numerous Orthodox churches, which dates back to 7th and 8th century , and the graves, which dates back to 1000 years. In my church, is a memorial, which is erected in memory of all the Christians who sacrificed their life fighting the Portuguese. We have plenty of families who have forefathers, who sacrificed their life fighting the catholic Portuguese… Get to India and understand what we are.. meet the people , rather that reading Catholic Enlyclopedia. ( which does not have the name, “orthodox” in its article about Ethiopia )….. hahahahaha…..( see the link : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05566a.htm )

``` Fyodor7Fyodor7 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC). 

British missionaries helpled the malankara orthodox church in many ways. They helped the church in building schools and colleges. But the aim of the missionary was to propagate protestantism within these gaps. First they formed the reformed church itself under Church Mission Society and later they created a new faction within the Malankara Orthodox church and later its known as Marthoma church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvanious (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

insultory and misleading article.

I find the present article to be highly misleading. The two titles "english assistance in reviving church", "anglican influence" really misrepresent the history of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church(official name).

English actually destroyed this church by spreading protestant beliefs. This directly led to the formation of Marthoma Syrian Church in 19th century from converted Indian Orthodox believers.

I feel its very unfair and insulting to Oriental Orthodox christians like me to see the history of an Orthodox Church being intentionally misrepresented. This article is a crime against the Indian Orthodox Church! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Would agree to Mathenkozhencherry, lack of Orthodox wiki editors,have allowed this page to be marauded and ramshackled by editors who belong to differernt congregations. The initial orthodox editors, do not have the heart to look at it again, because of the frequent reversions and changes made by people alien to this church. People with no history and little history are battling to make some history atleast in wikipedia. The evidence is the page of Mar Thoma Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyodor7 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, your tone is not helping. Your goal is to address "insults" and "intentional misrepresentation", and that's not going to work, because this is a cooperative enterprise. So far, there have been a jillion complaints about the "nasrani evolution" image, and none of you have been willing to help fix it. Work on making things better, and not simply settling scores and trying to get the history told "your way". Tb (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We have here many problems to fix, not just the chart, First we have to list down the history from AD52, with references. Regarding the Chart their is a discussion which is ongoing. And to my understanding, we are not going to get to any solution with that. The best diplomatic way is to have the straight line divided into two, somewhere in the 16th century. Its going to take time and we are working on it. Anyone who sees the present condition of this page and the Chart will fume and oppose vehemently, however it will automatically get toned down after sometime. Regretful, if this has caused you any inconvenience 125.22.97.34 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@tb

Cant really blame them. Reading this particular article with the added and overrated importance given in this page to the Anglicans and English who converted away a third of the Orthodox christians in kerala to a protestant marthoma syrian church, is like mentioning about Hitler and Nazi party to use up half the pages of a Jewish history book..

Adding more salt to their wounds, the page of marthoma syrian church claims 9 syriac orthodox bishops as theirs and the fact that you are anglican and probably english doesnt help.much either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.69.181.44 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as you continue to liken those with whom you disagree to Hitler, you are going to fail to achieve your goals. Which is more important to you? Insulting people, or improving the article? Tb (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we would be soon replacing the titles 'Anglican Influence' and the other one with better history. Surely these two titles were not added by Orthodox Christains, something least important to us is given overhype. Previsouly when i had tried to changed this, I was threatened by a wiki editor who belonged to another congregation, stating , "vandalism ", having checked all the edits this particular editor has done, its clear that their are people who wants this page to remain like this. Tb , we have nothin against you, but the manipulations done here is not at all argreeable. Their are people who dose not want this page to be improved and we know who they are are. Fyodor7 (talk)Fyodor7Fyodor7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC).

Who cares if they are added by Orthodox Christians? This is Wikipedia, and this page is not owned by the members of the church it describes. And who is this "we"? Are you all working together in some undeclared fashion? Is this some meatpuppery? I surely hope not. What I want to see is you (all) discussing in good faith, not simply removing things you don't like, and engaging in some honest attempts to come to a common understanding with those with whom you disagree. Your words suggest you are engaging in some discussion outside Wikipedia about what "you" think this article should say. That is fundamentally contrary to the way we work here. Have your discussion here, in good faith, where all can enter into the discussion. You don't get to decide what happens, and if you simply engage in wholesale alterations and deletions with no sources to back them up, you'll find that you are simply quickly reverted. Propose your changes here, in the talk page, in a clear and measured tone, engaging in good faith discussion with your opponents, and you may get what you desire. Continue your current tactics, private discussions, and wildly inflammatory rhetoric, and you will certainly not get what you desire. Tb (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"WE" here means Orthodox Christians, and thats how generally Indians talk. We are not "I" centered. When someone says "WE", that dosent mean, there is a whole bunch of people working outside. Have you seen any reversions till now., We (again, because ppl do not like to use, I) are in the process of making a better page and other than me , and one Mathenkozhencherry, how many people do you see here ???? 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Fyodor7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyodor7 (talk • contribs)

This is called Cultural Barrier in Communication, I (as u like) have not tried to remove the Chart, when u iniitally told me not to do so, Have just opened a discussion, and have typed something for which I am awaiting reply Fyodor7 (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't have an off-wiki conversation about what you want to do on the wiki. You don't get to decide what the "better page" looks like. You seem to be thinking that "you" will decide what it will be, and then put it in place. Do not do that. Have the discussion here where all concerned can read it and engage in it. You will inevitably be disappointed. If I see a large bulk change, which does not address the concerns of other editors, and which is essentially unsourced, it's going to get reverted extremely quickly. How about you raise here, for discussion, the concerns you have? And--here's the key thing--you must do so without labeling your opponents as terrorists, Hitlers, or the rest. You have to engage with them in good faith, with a desire to take their point of view as serious as you take your own. So long as your goal is to right the wrongs of the past, you'll have to do that somewhere else. Tb (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem, is the current situation of this wiki page is extemely pathtic, and as said before, anyone who sees it for the first time, will say somethin in fit of rage. It will eventually be toned down in a while. I for instance did the same thing, when i saw the chart and eventually turned to discussion , when you guided me.So Please EXPECT, fumiimg words from anyone who is new here, its condition of this page, that makes people do so. Atleast allow us to make a respectable wiki page .. Fyodor7 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you even see that what you say is clearly false? Many people have seen it, and not said anything in a fit of rage. Your rage is your problem, and you should do something about it other than use Wikipedia. Do you even see that others see the same facts in a different light? That those who disagree with you have good reasons for their point of view? Are you prepared to work together with them on a better article? If you want to "make a respectable wiki page" by talking among yourselves off-wiki, it is extremely unlikely your work is going to succeed. I already said: if there are giant bulk edits, which remove and alter large amounts of material without any discussion, and without references, it is extremely likely to get reverted quickly. If you want to succeed, the way to do it is to do your work here, by discussion and careful incremental improvement, and not just censorship of what you don't happen to like. You must find a page which is acceptable to all concerned, and just because you two friends have agreed among yourselves is really quite irrelevant to here. Do your work here, on wiki, and not elsewhere and you are far more likely to succeed in your goals. Tb (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The titles in this site are misleadng, they need to be changed. The british influence(which was negative, but white washed here) is overmentioned that u can see some people mistaking this church for the reformed marthoma church in the discussion page earlier..

Thomachan1986 (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This article seems more of a biased anglican point of view of the Indian Orthodox Church. Page talks more about the english, anglicans and british more than about this church. The article is over emphasising a particular aspect of its history that makes the article seem like a page torn out of the history text of some Anglicantheological seminary in the UK.

Thomachan1986 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How about, then, 1) conforming to conventional style on this talk page, and 2) adding the material you think is lacking? Nobody is going to object if neutral and sourced material is added. How about improving the article then? And, do the Mar Thoma Church's members agree with your assessment of the influence of the English? How about members of the CSI? Can you figure out a way to tell the historical story which all will find a neutral and fair treatment? Tb (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@thomachayan, First of all, what you said is right. Why do we need 2 titles to refer to the english and over-emphasise a negative period in our history, by whitewashing the british and glorifying them?

There are hundreds of more important events and happening that are omitted in the article. Like the Knanaya immigration, the influence of the Persian Church, the Portguese persecutions, the relationship with Syriac Orthodox Church, etc etc. All these are not mentioned, but a comparably trivial aspect of the history of Indian Orthodox Church is hyped up here and over-emphasised. In the discussion titled "Marthoma" in this talkpage, a user confused the church with the Marthoma Church because of this reason. Even the marthoma church which was formed by british missionary activity doesnt have in its wiki article this much words to describe the profitable relationship they had with the British.

@tb, im new to wikipedia and im only learning the ways here, forgive any mistakes i made. I joined after seeing this very painful article tarnishing my church with a wish to changing and bettering it.

Secondly, i would like to answer your question about what the CSI or Marthoma Christians would think of this. For them it was very profitable and the Anglican presence was the reason for their formation in India. So they really should be thankful to the British. However for the Indian Orthodox(when Syriac and Indian churches were united), we lost a third of our believers to the Marthomites, because of the British involvement. And we had to fight in the courts and many churches were closed down and witnessed violence in this period.

So when writing on CSI or Marthoma page, it would not be wrong to say that the British "assisted" them and they have lot of "Anglican influence". But when speaking of the Indian Orthodox, it would be the opposite which is true and im sure no sane kerala christian would disagree.

The Indian Orthodox Church would probably be the only church in the world which made it a tradition to chant Hail Mary after EVERY Lord's Prayer, as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation which happened here with Anglican blessings. How can there be anglican influence for us? and that too not something which is not mentioned for Marthoma on their page? Why not mention on the Indian Orthodox page, the East Syriac or West Syriac influences which are even greater for it??

This article would pain and cause outrage in any Indian Orthodox believer who happens to go through it. I dont know much about your conventions yet, but i know this: Wikipedia or any online space should not be used to hurt people's religious sentiments and attack their religio-cultural identity by misrepresenting facts.

Will follow your advice and add some content with sources and references soon. We need to add a more detailed history of the church starting from AD 52, mentioning the Knanaya immigration in 4th century, the arrival of the East Syriac Persian missionaries, Pantaneus, Nasranis granted privileges engraved on copper plates, Cosmas' writings, Marco Polo's travellogue description, arrival of Saphor-Afroth, Portuguese arrival, Synod of Diamper and persecutions, murder of Mar Ahattallah, subsequent revolt of 1653 etc.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your emotional appeal only weakens your case. Many Orthodox Christians are here, many have viewed the page, and they have not all been afflicted with "pain and outrage". Your emphasis has been to concentrate on what you don't like. How about adding the material you think should be there? As for the CSI or Mar Thoma, the point is that you need to understand that whatever you say must be from a neutral point of view. This page is not owned by the Orthodox, or me, or anyone else, but by Wikipedia as a whole. The text must be from a neutral point of view. So the question is: can you imagine text that would be agreed by all as fair and neutral? If not, then you have a lot of work to do, but it's work building consensus. You may have to lay aside your upsetness and your apparent desire not to work with them to do that. Indeed, perhaps what you should do is to learn more about Wikipedia, and spend some time paying attention to the hard stuff: things like formatting conventions, how we have discussions, English grammar, the need for sources, working for a balanced and measured tone. Sometimes it is best to start work on Wikipedia in an area that you are not so passionate about, so that you can gain the familiarity with the encyclopedia you will need. Note that this article should probably not have a long history of all of Indian christianity: that would best be in an article on the subject which can discuss all the different cases together. The problem you have with this article is precisely because of an attempt to get the history in each article, with the result that it was copied from places without thinking carefully enough about its new context. A detailed history starting from AD 52 does not belong here, but rather, in an article on the history of Christianity in India, in general. Maybe you should start there, and not on this page. The experience working with others and learning what a neutral point of view is would serve you vere well. Tb (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The contents will only be from a Neutral point of view. Nowhere have anyone mentioned, that some hard-line articles are going to be inserted. About detailed history, I see that in almost all churches wikipage. We are not going add volumes and volumes of data here, but simple titles with sufficient information and their references. Fyodor7 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Will you answer that? I've asked you to do your discussing on-wiki. Who are you planning with? Why won't you have your discussion here? Tb (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Previsouly I had clarified, that I prefer using "we" than "I". Would you go above and see Fyodor7 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. In English, "we" means more than one. If you don't mean more than one, say "I". It is misleading to say "we" when you mean "I" here, because it implies that there is some group of people. Indeed, you use "I" all the time, right next to "we". Please use "I" when you mean one, and "we" when you mean more than one, and ideally, simply speak for yourself. Tb (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Am merging the current titles " English Influence" and " British Assist" under the title "The 19th Century". So that graudally I could add more history in between and would make this page a bit more attractive. Fyodor7 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Break for new line of thought on redoing chart

Generally, I agree with Tb, though he's said a lot above. I think we have agreed already to change the line so that everybody forks at Coonan Cross, nobody gets a straight line. Clearly people are upset with straight lines.

The problem about redrawing it immediately is that it is a picture, not a graph. Someone has already suggested redrawing it in graphic form so it can be edited by anyone. Right now it is under the control of another editor, who may be reading this, but rarely participates in discussions.

Either way, it is not simple to redraw and we'd rather do it as best as possible as few times as possible. It has been redrawn once and is better than before.

Second question was what to call the earliest branched divisions. There were Malayam names, translated as "New Party" for Protestants, "Old Party" for Catholics. This was objected to for the same reason as the straight line. So the question is what historical term, for which we can get a reference, and will not provoke laughter or bemusement when it is seen by Keralans that haven't been in on these discussions, can we name these two branches?

A second question relates to administration. Shouldn't we be discussing this on the Indian Christianity Project Page? That way, everyone concerned can participate. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Student7, unless you know the basics of the st.thomas christian history, you cannot re-draw the chart in a neutral way.

There were no Protestants probably anywhere in Asia in 1653. There were only the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian(Nestorian), and the considerably newer Roman Catholic Churches. The Newy Party were not Protestants as you claim, they were Jacobites(Syriac Orthodox). The traditional head of the Saint Thomas Christians was the Archdyakon(Archdeacon). Archdeacon Thomas of the Saint Thomas Christians along with thousands of his followers rebelled against the Roman Party in 1653. 12 years later Archdeacon Thomas was ordinated into a bishop by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem - Mar Gregorios. After that he assumed the new title Marthoma I.

No Protestant denomination was present in India at that period(1653). Maybe a hundred years or hundred and fifty years later the British built the first Anglican churches on Indian soil. And in late 19th century, some of the Jacobites left their church a formed a Protestant/Reformed Marthoma Syriajn Church. In early 20th century the Jacobites split into Malankara Syriac Orthodox(pro-antioch) and Malankara(Indian) Orthodox Church(pro-indian). So your outlook of history seems very funny to me.

In my opinion a straight line should be drawn for the group known as the "New Party". The traditional leader of the Kerala Syrian Christian Nasranis before the arrival of Portuguese was the Archadyakon. After 1599, the portuguese enforced Latin bishops rule upon the Kerala Nasranis. Half a century later in 1653, the Nasrani revolted against this Latin bishop rule under their Archdeacon who led the revolt. This Archdeacon Thomas was ordinated as Marthoma I by a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch in 1665.

So we have the Nasrani community split into two groups in 1653: 1. The faction that stood with their traditional leader Archdeacon and revolted against Rome to embrace Syriac Orthodox Church. 2. The faction that stood with the Latin bishops appointed by the Portuguese in 1599 to rule over the Nasranis.

Definitely the faction that stood with the older leadership should be given a straight-line. Calling them "New Party" maybe misleading, but it is only a word coined by Roman Catholic historians. If we believe the world was created in 1599, the definition is correct. However we have proof of existence of humanity before 1599, and in that period it was the indigenous Archdyakons(Archdeacons) who led the Saint Thomas Christian community of Kerala.

And the Archdeacon was much more than just a spiritual figure-head. He was a "king without borders" and was granted civil judicial authorities by the King and had the right to own a private army for this reason. We can see the Marthomans after 1665 also carrying private armies and having this civil power. While this was not given to the Roman Party bishops by our Kings. Echoing Roman Catholic history by terming the party that stood with their Archdyakon as "New Party"' is misleading and confusing enough. The best way to address these concerns and to present a more clear picture would be to give a straight line to the party that stood loyal to their indigenous Archdyakon(which is the Jacobite/Malankara Syriac Orthodox)- the pre-colonial ruler of St. Thomas Christians. Othervise it just confuses readers further into thinking which is which.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that straight lines are off the table at this point.

Drawing the chart will be challenging. I do not believe it is impossible.

I think you are saying that there is no alternative to "New Party" or the Malayam equivalent. That is not so bad. We can use the Malayam names which people who speak Malayam and are Orthodox or Protestant will absolutely hate. But if there is no alternative what are you going to do? Anyway, readers are mostly Anglophones. It's up to you guys to come up with something different, not merely an objection to documented material. Not everyone likes every outcome. It is documentable in the best and most valid references we have. I am amenable to others. We can explain (in the chart in an explanation, and in the unified history), that the names were supplied by Catholics and the Orthodox and Protestant object to the names.

As a Catholic, I view Orthodox as catholic or Catholic as well. Do you have a reference that indicates that no Indian Orthodox views themselves as Protestant? Sounds like a dumb question, but some have joined world organizations which are essentially Protestant. Student7 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be more accurate to use the description "Archdyakons(Archdeacon) Party" and "Roman Party". Or we can use 'Archdeacon Party' and 'Latin bishops party'. This type of classification is used for every other split in Kerala Syrian Churches. For example during the Orthodox-Protestant split in 19th century the terms used to distinguish the Syriac Orthodox and Reformists were Bava Kakshi(Patriarch's Party) and Methran Kakshi(Bishops Party).

The same terms are now being used to distinguish the Indian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox who parted ways in 1912. The former is called 'Methran Kakshi'(bishops party) and latter is called 'Bava Kakshi'(Patriarch's Party).

To describe any of the two parties that split in 1653 into two groups as 'new' or 'old' can only come from partisan thinking.

Because the Syriac Orthodox(Jacobites) stood with their older leader Archdyakon in 1653, while the Roman faction stood with their Latin bishops who came only after 1599. So term the former as 'New Party' is not only inaccurate, it is only the version of history of Roman Catholic historians which got popular in Kerala later due to their demographic strength and printing presses etc. Inorder to correct this if we term the Syriac Orthodox faction as Old Party, the Roman Catholics will object saying that this was the usual term to distinguish both parties.

The best way is to describe the two factions is by indicating which leader they stood by(Archdeacon or Latin Bishop). As this was the convention followed in all splits post that period and more neutral and objective.

Tb, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are classifications used in the West. Eastern Christendom had neither of these two groups until atleast 16th century. In the East we had the Oriental Orthodox(West Asia, Middle -East, India, Africa) and Assyrians/Nestorians(Persia, India, China), and some Eastern Orthodox in Turkey, Syria and Jordan. Oriental Orthodox refers to a group of 6 ancient churches in Asia and Africa. Eastern Orthodox are a group of 15 or so churches in Eastern Europe and Russia. Both these are neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant.

Some of them are part of the Protestant dominated World Council of Churches, while some are not. That does not mean they can be classified as Protestants. The Orthodox are another classification of Christian denominations, just like the Roman Catholic or Protestant. None of these churches are in communion with any Protestant Churches or accept their Sacraments. But some of them have made arrangements to share communion with Roman Catholic Churches. For example the Syriac Orthodox can now participate in RC Eucharist and viceversa under a recent agreement between Vatican and Antioch.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Drawing the chart is not at all challenging, I got it redrawn in 5 mins. Thats it. Do not know how to load it. Need some help. The chart forks equally and , presently no names are provided. Fyodor7 (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Contributing_your_own_work

The main problem is to ensure that you document the license to Wikicommons thoroughly so that the material is in the public domain. Any problem there will make any here seem minor by comparison. There will be a list of items to fill out someplace.

You might want to rename it uniquely from the current one unless you can get the original author's permission to overlay his. Not sure that works.

This is why we wanted an editable graphic. So it would be (wherever) forever and any of us could edit it. Wouldn't ever have to replace it in each article.

Strongly suggest you replace it here first for comments before replacing it in all the others. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Splited 19^th Century

Have splited 19^th century, mainly for arranging the events that happened in 1912, under 20^th century and for better formatting. Need to add some lines so that, the last line is parallel to the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyodor7 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also added and synchronized images of present Catholicose of the East and the Catholicose designate. Fyodor7 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Intending to synchronize all the pics available with same background, to give a better look to the page. And also to merge Catholicate and Catholicate palace. Catholicate Palace is important because of the Tombs of the Bishops, however mergin, the two, and keeping the details of the Tombs, would save space, make it compact and give room for further expansion. Not necessay to list out wat all are inside the HQ, like offices, admin block ... dosent look professional. These are offices which all churches have.Synchronisation of Pictures will take some time, as they need to be worked on, in Photoshop.Fyodor7 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed World Council of Churches, as it shouldnt apprear here as a title. Necessary details and participation and who held which positions would do. ThanksFyodor7 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Marthomans

I hope to add a new subsection on the bishops from Marthoma I to Marthoma X who ruled Malankara Sabha from 1653 to 19th century. Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Have formatted what you have keyed in , lets leave it for discussion and see if any changes are to be made..stil little for editing needs to be doneFyodor7 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Added picture of Mar Thoma I Fyodor7 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Revamping the first few lines. Presently it start from AD52, and goes directly to the 16th century, thereby creating a void. Hence adding some lines to depict the history chronologically.Fyodor7 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Liturgy

Created a new section - Liturgy

Kazakage02 (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New Title

I feel the current name of the article should be changed. The title Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church seems inappropriate. I would suggest the following 2 titles; Malankara Orthodox Church or Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. I personally prefer the first one. --JovianEye (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the current title isn't optimal. Both your suggestions are good; another option would be "Indian Orthodox Church". The church itself seems to prefer Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.[1] However, its website also uses "Malankara Orthodox Church", and informally refers to "Indian Orthodox Church". Of all the options "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church" gets the most relevant hits on Google Books and Google Scholar.[2][3] Additionally, it will be good to look at other encyclopedias, surveys, and other tertiary sources to see how they treat it; these[4][5] use "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I guess Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is the most appropriate title. The page Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church does exist as a redirect hence we could delete the redirect page and move the article to the new proposed title. I am also suggesting move protection for this page since this article has been renamed several times! --JovianEye (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and moved it; I can't conceive of this being controversial, the previous title in no way matched the style guides (and doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia). AFAICT it was moved there without any discussion 2 years ago and never caught. If anyone wants thinks the new title isn't the best, of course it can be discussed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article! --JovianEye (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Syrian church is a synonym for Syrian Orthodox Church . Malankara Orthodox Syrian church means Syrian Orthodox Church in India. If you check 1934 constitution of MOSC, we can see that the real name of the Malankara church is expanded as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Phantom (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Phantom (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ignatius Abdul Masih II deposed?

Ignatius Abdul Masih II was deposed in 1905, several years before the syonod that established Baselios Paulose I as Catholicos of the East. See, for example, this book by Martin Tamcke of the University of Göttingen which lists the years of his patriarchate as 1895-1905.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source specifically indicating that he had been deposed (illegally, probably) prior to the synod. This is important to mention as it resulted directly in the final split between the Indian Orthodox and Syrian Jacobite churches.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He was desposed by the Turkish Govt and not by the Church, [[6]], the Jacobite group, found it tough to submit an authentic church document, validating the excomunication, during the legal battles, at the courts in India. They never had a document as late as 1940's or so. A syrian bishop, made a forged document and the Indian courts didnt accept it as valid. The famous jacobite priest and theologian V. C. Samuel switched allegiance , after witnessing the forging of the document in a syrian monastery in kerala. The excommunuication by the Govt(muslim) is not considered legal by any church. Can correlate to Berulsconi excommunicating the Pope. 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyodor7 (talk • contribs)

At present the Syrian Church, is most happy, to consider him deposed, because they would want to undermine the the authenticity of the Catholicate. Would be okay, if it is mentioned, " Abdul Masih , Illegally deposed by the Turkish Government ......". The cause of the rift between, Jacobite group and the Orthodox group, was not initially, ' the authority of the patriarch', the story is very different. Local(malayalam) books do have more information than, English books, regarding these matters. Fyodor7 (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, I've reworded it to indicate that Abdul Masih had been illegally deposed and cited all the sources. I would prefer that we keep it simple in the intro and elaborate the details within the article, since the Jacobites have a much different view of this, but the article isn't well organized at this point, so there doesn't appear to be a good place to do it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Indian Church

Lets Discuss here... Which church existed in India prior to Udayamperoor Synod??? Lets discuss it here....

Talk to the point... State proof and reasons... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Djwilms,Cúchullain

I am the one who u talking about.... Now i challenge u back... i think u people have some hidden agenda... why because there are evidences....

ok lets start... u have to command on this....

1. Have u ever heard a book named "paesi nouamente Retrouati" (Novus Orbis) published in 1507 AD. In that book in Chapter 5 its clearly mentions that the Catholicos connected with the Patriarch of Antioch rules the Indian Church. Can u get some thing more authenticated than that??..

Discuss first on this.... Then i ll come with other points....

Modern historians accept that the Indian church was affiliated with the Church of the East in Persia, and was an ecclesiastical province of the church for quite a long time. I've added some sources backing that up. I have no idea if the paesi nouamente Retrouati, but it doesn't matter what I think. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources published by reputable scholars, not editors' personal interpretations of primary sources. And please do not make personal statements to the fact that other editors have a "hidden agenda". Comment on the content, not the contributors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ANd about modern historians.... U know there are some very old crosses avaible in some anicent churches for example Kadamattom Church (popularly known as Persian Cross). If gets time, please read to those inscriptions... and the theological ideas and views behind it. Please dont forget that there were 2 churches under two parallel competing CATHOLICOS there in PERSIA from the 5th century till 20th century.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK.. i ll make it clear... It is a true fact that the church in INdia was a part of the church in Persia. U too accept that. But many including you have forgotten to identify the church in persia. It is a fact that there existed two churches competing each other in Perisa. both under rival CATHOLICOS OF THE EAST... one NESTORIAN and other ORIENTAL ORTHODOX. Both the churches competed to get jurisdiction over the indian church. Both used to send bishops here. The crosses which i stated above are 9th and 10th century makings, the scripts in that say the ORTHODOX theology about the mother of God and not the other. Hence wat i say is that u cannot conclude that the church in perisa was Nestorian alone.. and the bishops who came to india were Nestorians alone. I hope u understood what i meant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexyalex (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor Introduction

The Introduction is very poor... It speaks more about splits and factions.. anyone reading the intro would stop at the initial few lines. I dont see such pathetic Indroduction for any other kerala based churches ... Will need to change all these "split", "faction", "group" etc... 122.167.254.205 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest? The problem with the previous version was that it did not mention the Malankara Church or the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, let alone indicate that they were historically the same church. This may be common knowledge among members of these churches, it is not well known to people outside of them, and the former treatment was horrifically confusing. I've done a little work to the intro thus far, but we need to say right off that the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church emerged from a split within the Malankara Syrian Church, which came to a head in 1912. We also need to specify the relationship with the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Some lines need improvement or total omission,1) 'Faction that supported Evanios', thats a mistake, because, the Church was goverened by Geevarghese Mar Dionysius of Vattasseril and the synod raised Evanios to the position of Catholicose. Evanios never weilded great power.2) " Authority of Patriarch", The intial cause for all the later transgressions, was the power struggle between the co-trustees of the church, who wanted to ouster Geevarghese Mar Dionysius of Vattasseril from power. Later to muster more support for their cause, they found support in Ignatius Abded Aloho II, who was keen to bring the Indian church under the Syrian fold with regesitered deeds.The entire page is poorly shaped and needs revamping. The history of before the portuguese invasion is little mentioned. Problem is finding online English sources, most of the good books are in local language Malayalam. 125.22.97.34 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit appeared to introduce a bunch of the same problems we already had. Namely, there was too much on the history and schism before the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church emerged. We don't need to go into detail about the early history of the Saint Thomas Christians in the intro. We do need to link to the article on the Malankara Church (we can call it whatever we want here).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fyodor, let me ask you this: what would you call the united Orthodox church prior to 1912? The sources I have found all call it "Malankara Church", "Malankara church", "Malankara Syrian Church", or some variant. Just calling it nothing and assuming our readers will catch on is not helpful to them in the least; the current setup is horribly confusing for people who aren't members of these churches.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The word "Malankara church" is confusing to local readers, because it never exists now, and is attached to all mordern churches. Over emphasize on that name will only create confusion to local readers, because none believe, that their existed a spearate church called "Malankara church". Making it a too separate entity is a matter ot concern. The name Jacobite was also used prior to 1912. The connen croos oath, is the very foundation of our church, if not, their wouldnt be two main churches in kerala, avoiding that is bringing a new church out of the blue. Now atleast the intro is chronological, avoidng words like , "splits","factions", "groups", "supporters" and was quite confusing. I dont mind using the word Malankara church, but their should be a proper way to mention that. Fyodor7 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks thats how Malankara church should be mentioned. Fyodor7 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell after doing a good bit of reading on the subject, "Malankara Church" (and variants) seems to be the most consistent way of referring to the "Coonan Cross" Christians in English language sources. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we need to follow what those sources say.

The word "Church" has several related meaning in English; it can refer to a distinct denomination, and it can refer just to any general Christian community and its ecclesiastical organization. When the scholars I've read talk about the "Malankara Church", they use it for both the distinct part of the Thomas Christian community that was under the Malankara Metropolitan, and also as a blanket term for all the Indian Christians who trace their church's independence to the Coonan Cross Oath. This may be a bit confusing for people whose first language isn't English, but again, this is the English Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, the most recent change introduced a number of problems that need to be dealt with. There are quite a few style, spelling, and wording errors. There is also a lot of discussion in the intro on the general history of the Saint Thomas Christians, before we make it clear why it's relevant to an article on the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. There is no indication as to how it's all connected to the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. It might be common knowledge to your average Orthodox Christian in Kerala, but we can't take it for granted that it will be to the average reader.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Emblem.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Emblem.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 5 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of Kerala.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of Kerala.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Malavelikara Matropoleian ? The introductory paragraph of the article has a sentence " The church is locally headed by the autonomous Catholicos and its present primate is Baselios Mar Thoma Paulose II, Catholicos of the East and the Malavelikara Metropolitan." What is meant by Malavelikara Metropolitan? It is "Malankara Metropolitan", isn't it? Shibu jacob (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

MOSC is an Oriental Orthodox Church

Malankara orthodox church is an Oriental Orthodox church. Syriac Orthodox Church is also a member of OO family. Other member churches are Coptic Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic, Ethiopian orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox. But User:Kokkarani changing this without any valid reason. Please discuss this here before changing. 45.125.147.77 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC) _________________________ Malankara Orthodox Church is an Oriental Orthodox Church because it follows the same creed of the Syrian Orthodox Church.Phantom (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

MOSC is also known as Indian Orthodox Church ?

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) is also known as Indian Orthodox Church(IOC) especially diaspora outside Kerala. Below are a few links

MOSC links: Website of Niranam Church: http://niranamchurch.com/IndianOrthodoxChurch.htm , Website of St.Gregorios Church,London: http://www.ioclondon.co.uk/

Other links: Catholic news asia: http://www.ucanews.com/news/pope-calls-for-culture-of-encounter-with-the-indian-orthodox-church/69200

@User:Kokkarani, do not revert the edits without a discussion in this page. Please refrain from editing wars - --45.125.147.77 (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

If Malanakara Orthodox Syrian Church is called Indian Orthodox Church , please cite proper references. The reference you mentioned there is the website of MOSC. I couldn't find this site saying the church is also called IOC. However MOSC is one of the two syrian orthodox churches in India. Please read the reference I posted(Encyclopedia of Christianity online)Phantom (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi Phantom/User:Kokkarani Below link is not a MOSC site: Catholic news asia: http://www.ucanews.com/news/pope-calls-for-culture-of-encounter-with-the-indian-orthodox-church/69200

Also why are you keep on saying MOSC one of the two syrian orthodox churches in India as the name indicates its Orthodox Syrian!!. Here Syrian means the church follows Syriac for divine liturgy. What is the point you are trying to highlight here?? ---59.95.64.55 (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Catholic news asia is NOT a sufficient reference for things like these. What is the Point I wanted to highlight?

These following references says that MOSC is one of the two Syrian Orthodox Churches in India. Rather than asking goofy questions, please read the references I post. Then you will understand what I am saying..Please read these references.Phantom (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 5 by Erwin Fahlbusch. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing - 2008. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-8028-2417-2.

• Gregorios; Paulos; Roberson; Ronald G. (2016). The Encyclopedia Of Christianity Online (Syrian Orthodox Churches in India). Netherlands: Brill Online Reference works. ISBN 9789004169678.

Also you please read the first clause in the church constitution. mosc.in/administration/administration

---

@Phantom, Why Catholic news Asia is not a sufficient reference? This is a reference for MOSC is also referred as IOC by other churches? This is sufficient for proving "MOSC is also known as IOC". Thanks for pointing me to church constitution, I have the hard copy of the same. I know different interpretations of that clause. That is why the church case has been gone over centuries. However that is not stopping informally referring MOSC as IOC by itself or from other churches/media. Since from many years, MOSC and SOC/Jacobite church in kerala are functioning as two separate churches. If I remember correctly Jacobite church formed another constitution in 1992 after Supreme court verdict.-59.95.64.55 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

I don't think catholic news asia is authetic in saying that. You please read the Court orders MOSC: Court Orders Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church: Court Orders

1995 Final Judgment: Supreme Court. html File, PDF File in google Which says MOSC is one of the two rival groups of the Jacobite churchPhantom (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

>>"I don't think catholic news asia is authetic in saying that". Hi User:Kokkarani|Phantom, Let us discuss this point with Wiki Admins. If 1995 final judgement is so favorable, then why Jacobite church formed a new constitution in 1995? ---59.95.64.55 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

If 1995 final judgement is so favorable, then why Jacobite church formed a new constitution in 1995? You are asking a goofy question. Why do you ask me such questions? You just go and ask the Jacobite church, and you will get the answer. I am just a Wikipedia editor.Phantom (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

@User:Kokkarani, In that case you need to check with MOSC officials that why are they referring their church as "Indian Orthodox Church" and letting others to refer in that name. As a Wikipedia editor, I could see MOSC is referring itself as "Indian Orthodox Church" and other churches and public media also referring like that. Please go through below links (they are not MOSC links):

• http://www.copticafrica.org/1/post/2004/10/new-priest-for-the-indian-orthodox-church-in-south-africa.html
• http://westernprelacy.org/oriental-orthodox-churches/
• http://www.armeniancollege.edu.in/very-rev-fr-zaven-yazichyan-meets-the-supreme-head-of-indian-orthodox-church-2/
• http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/dogma/nonchalcedonian.html
• http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.ca/
• http://www.svots.edu/content/indian-orthodox-metropolitan-visits-st-vladimir%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s-seminary
• http://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-oriental-orthodox-churches
• http://britishorthodox.org/3668/new-indian-orthodox-church-consecrated/

We can discuss abt MOSC's 1934 constitution in a different topic. Here that does not matter. Thanks -45.125.146.218 (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

MOSC is also referred as Indian Orthodox Church or Syrian Church of India. Please see the reference I cited for Indian Orthodox Church & MOSC in the article. Those are verified published works. Let us conclude this matter by saying that MOSC is the official name of the church , however this church is also referred by other names such as Indian Orthodox Church or Syrian Church of India.Phantom (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC). Reference: (1)The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 5 by Erwin Fahlbusch. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing - 2008. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-8028-2417-2. (2)Gregorios; Paulos; Roberson; Ronald G. (2016). The Encyclopedia Of Christianity Online (Syrian Orthodox Churches in India). Netherlands: Brill Online Reference works. ISBN 9789004169678.

---

@User:Kokkarani I couldn't see any contemporary webpages in which any sister churches or public media referring MOSC as Syrian Church of India  !!. Also not able find that in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, The Encyclopedia of Christianity which you mentioned. Can you please quote that here?

Even if someone referring/referred MOSC as Syrian Church of India - That would be about the united church (both Catholicose and Patriarch groups). If MOSC is Syrian Church of India, or even Syrian Orthodox Church of India then who is Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church? Dear friend, why you want to confuse Wiki users? First line of current version of the article "The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church also known as Indian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church centered in the Indian state of Kerala" is right statement to introduce the church for the readers all over the world. -59.95.65.145 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) __________ MOSC is one of the two Syrian Orthodox Churches in India, the other being the Jacobite Syrian Church. MOSC is an autocephalous Syrian Orthodox Church. Jacobite Syrian Church is an autonomous Syrian Orthodox Church. Orthodox Syrian Church=Syrian Orthodox Church.Phantom (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) _______________ MOSC is called Indian Orthodox Church is a false claim. It is some times referred by other churches as a Indian Orthodox Church in the sense that it is a Syrian Orthodox Church in India. It is not a separate church other than the Syrian Orthodox Church. Orthodox Syrian Church means Syrian Orthodox Church. Hence Indian Orthodox Church should be removed since it gives a false notion to the wiki readers that this church is a separate church other than Syrian Orthodox Church of India, which is a false claimPhantom (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

St.Thomas Christians: relations with other churches outside India until 5th Century CE

Hi Phantom/User:Kokkarani, You edited the article and added a line that "The Saint Thomas Christians remain in fraternity relationship with the Church of the East, Church of Antioch and Church of Alexandria until 5th century CE". I partially welcome this edit because at least this time you added 2 other churches also in the list, earlier it was only Church of Antioch. But where is the reference for this statement? Are we so clear abt the status of St.Thomas Christians before 6th century? Please provide a reference for this.. ---59.95.64.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It is true that there are no clear cut authetic references for this. However with the available history, we conclude this. Prelates of the Malankara church send letters of request to Church of Antioch, Alexandria and Church of the East. You are just making goofy statement. Church of Antioch is not a Jacobite Church. Phantom (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No friend, I am not not making any goofy statement, I know clearly that Church of Antioch is NOT Syriac Orthodox Church , also I know there are many Patriarch of Antioch. We can not conclude one thing in talk page and mention something else in Article. Article should be changed accordingly ---59.95.64.55 (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What do mean to change accordingly? and what is the conclusion?Phantom (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What I meant is, wt ever put up currently in the article [ie,"The Saint Thomas Christians remain in fraternity relationship with the Church of the East, Church of Antioch and Church of Alexandria until 5th century CE"] should be changed something in this line "With the available history, it is believed that prelates of the Malankara church send letters of request to Church of Antioch, Alexandria and Church of the East". Even we need a reference for this statement!! ---59.95.64.55 (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Rather than changing it immediately, we need more research in this matter , to see whether we could get any reference in this matter. Christians in Asia Before 1500: Ian Gillman, Hans-Joachim Klimkeit ... we should know what this book says ..Phantom (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks -59.95.64.55 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't keep this line in preface for long time without any supporting references. Hence removing this.---59.95.67.44 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

1934 Constitution of MOSC : MOSC is a division of the Syrian Orthodox Church?

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH

---

[1] DECLARATION

---

(1) The Malankara Church is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church is the Patriarch of Antioch.

---

(2) The Malankara Church was founded by St.Thomas the Apostle and is included in the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Primate of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is the Catholicos.

---

(3) The ancient and the real name of the Malankara Church is the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church although it is also wrongly called ‘The Jacobite Church’, for the same reason for which the Orthodox Syrian Church has been also called so.

---

Discussion:

• The constitution says Malankara Church is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church and its head is the Patriarch of Antioch.
• Catholicos is the head of the Orthodox Syrian church of the East.(Malankara Church is included in this)
• Orthodox Syrian Church of the East(Catholicos as its head)(Malankara Church included in this) is a division of the Orthodox Syrian church (Patriarch as its head)
• Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is also referred as Jacobite Church(for the same reason for which Orthodox Syrian Church(Patriarch as its head) is also called Jacobite Church)
• Orthodox Syrian Church of the East in which Malankara Church included is called Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church which is also referred as Jacobite Church.
• The Ancient real name of the Malankara Church is the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Malankara Church(Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church )is a division of the "Orthodox Syrian Church" (and its primate is the Patriarch of Antioch). (Syrian Orthodox Church)

Thus the constitution clearly says Malankara Church(real name :Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) is a division of the Orthodox Syrian Church(also referred as Jacobite Church and its primate is Patriarch). We know that Jacobite Church is the West Syrian Church or Syrian Orthodox church.

@User:Kokkarani, MOSC's constitution was framed (in 1934 and still follows) in a way that there is One Patriarch and One Catholicose in Malankara Church. But is that the reality? There are two Catholicoi in Malankara Church since years(Not including Catholicose of Malankara Catholic Church here as its a different point to debate) If the clause to be valid, there should be One Patriarch and Only One Catholicose in Malankara. Also we can understand that other Oriental Orthodox churches had recognized MOSC as an independent OO church, if MOSC is the division of SOC how come they can consider MOSC as a separate member ?? will they include Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church as a separate member? Being in communion with one another, the Oriental Orthodox churches are hierarchically independent!! -59.95.65.145 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Please read the final judgement of the Supreme Court of India as I posted below to understand whether MOSC is a SOC or not. Please see the references 3&4 in the article for the namesPhantom (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC) _______________ So we can say that MOSC is a Syrian Orthodox Church because ... 1)MOSC Constitution says so 2)Supreme Court of India declared so 3)Published authoritative books and Encyclopedia of Christianity says so. So we should make necessary changes accordingly Phantom (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

---

@User:Kokkarani,
NO, we can not make that change immediately .

1) As I mentioned above, MOSC constitution is framed in a way One Patriarch and One Catholicose in Malankara. If you examine history of Malankara Church from last 100 years, you can realize that there have been two catholicoi existed (parallel in time)in this duration.
2)Supreme court just confirmed the same which is in MOSC's constitutions -One Patriarch and One Catholicose in Malankara. Supreme Court also declared without any doubt that Patriarch is a spiritual head DOES NOT HAVE any temporal power in Malankara!!! Is SOC Patriarch and Patriarch faction (present Jacobite Church)in agreement of the same?? NEED TO DISCUSS ON VIEWS OF SOC PATRIARCH and PATRIARCH FACTION on this. We are going to discuss all the points mentioned over there. Not only one or two points selectively since all points in Supreme Court's 1995 verdict are interrelated !! I need to find some for this.
3)What is written in Encyclopedia of Christianity??
Please quote that here and provide the link which all can go and verify.
4) Why can not SOC and its Patriarch show the fisrt clause of MOSC constitution to Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian and Eritrean Church Heads and withdraw the recognition of Malankara(Indian) Orthodox Church as a separate OO church. Do you think if MOSC is still a division of SOC, how can existing OO churches (including SOC)recognize MOSC as a separate member??

You already put in 3rd line of article that "The church is a division of the Syriac Orthodox Church". Will provide a clarification this based on the constitution and what is the present reality in neural/impartial way. Also will move that line to right section. Otherwise it is going to confuse Wiki readers!! ------117.219.248.106 (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

MOSC & Patriarch faction both are SOC. Pls read the highlighted parts of the court order posted below. If MOSC is a separate Indian Church ,please show proof so that administrator can decidePhantom (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

@User:Kokkarani,
You have not answered for queries raised by me !! or you dont have answers for those!!! You are keep on saying me to refer highlighted portion in court order. That is "highlighted" only for you. For me, all the points in court order are highlighted! we can not selectively pick and discuss one or two points in that. For ADMINS to decide what is correct and what is wrong you need to provide clarification to the queries raising by other wiki editors. Anyway I am coming to your last response. You said: MOSC & Patriarch faction both are SOC . What do you mean by that? (1) MOSC & Patriarch faction are ONE church and part of SOC __Or__ (2)MOSC and Patriarch faction are two different churches and both are part of SOC?? ---117.219.248.204 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

1) 1934 Constitution is valid and binding to MOSC as per the supreme Court verdict listed below.H ere we discuss only about MOSC and not about Jacobites which is out of subject. 2) As stated Patriarch of Antioch is the spiritual supreme of MOSC 3) To see the quote in the encyclopedia,please see the reference 4 cited in the article. 4) Considering as a separate member by other couldn't make MOSC a new church other than SOC.Phantom (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Dear friend, Patriarch faction and Catholico faction of the Malankara Syrian Church (jacobite church) operate independently as two separate churches now. 1934 Constitution is valid for MOSC and it is binding to them. Patriarch faction do not agree with 1934 Constitution and operate as a separate Syrian Church. Both are SOCPhantom (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

yes. wt ever you said in first line is completely correct!Patriarch faction and Catholicos faction operate independently as two separate churches now. That is the REALITY! Now the question, Are MOSC and SOC itself operate as a single church now? or at least MOSC functions as a division of SOC? if MOSC is a part of SOC how other Oriental Orthodox Churches considering MOSC as a different member? Please remember, Oriental Orthodox churches are hierarchically independent!! Why SOC or Patriarch of Antioch is not objecting this? - --117.219.248.204 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

As I said we both know that MOSC is an Independent church. However it is an independent Jacobite church or Syrian Church h in India or Syrian Orthodox(Orthodox Syrian) church in India. It is NOT an Indian Orthodox Church in the sense it is theologically different. It is an independent west Syrian church in India. It is also some times referred by other western churches as Indian Orthodox Church in the sense to distinguish it from the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. Orthodox Syrian church means Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. Malankara Orthodox Syrian church means Syrian Orthodox Church in India. I think you got the point. Phantom (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

YES. MOSC is an Independent oriental orthodox church which follows west-syrian rites.
If it is an Independent church why we should say MOSC is SOC (and providing the link of SOC Article)??.
Obviously the reader will get confused and he will leave the page!!

Who said MOSC can be called as Indian Orthodox Church only if theology is different?
Not only Indian or Syrian, all Oriental Orthodox churches follows same theology
Similarly in the case of Eastern Orthodox church all of them (Greek,Russian..) follow same theology

Who said only Western churches referring MOSC as IOC?? Eastern churches like Coptic, Armenian or Ethiopian churches referring MOSC as IOC (pls cross check the links shared in above section) If they (MOSC) are recognizing themselves as Indian Orthodox Church and sister churches and media is referring them in that way, wt is the problem? I am not understanding? Why you or me should be intolerant to that?
---117.219.248.204 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

When I said MOSC is an independent church ,it mean Catholico can exercise the spiritual powers of the Patriarch subject to 1934 Constitution. The independence is limited with in the boundary of 1934 Constitution &1995 Supreme Court of India final judgement.

What ever other churches say or refer, MOSC is legally bound by 1934 Constitution &1995 court order. MOSC cannot act outside the boundary of these Thus we know as per 1934 constitution &1995 judgement, MOSC is a division of SOC.Phantom (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

---

First and foremost thing here we need to understand that Wikipedia article is not just a legal document, present facts and status also matters here !! As long as MOSC keeps 1st clause in current style we can mention that in article. But how church operates currently, status of church in international church forums, status of church Primate among other Oriental Orthodox Heads are all accountable here. Still you think we need to edit this article based on verdict of Supreme Court, I welcome, but in that case we can not keep Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church as a separate article, because Supreme court is not identifying patriarch faction as a separate church!!. Patriarch/Jacobite faction is also legally bound by verdict of Supreme Court of India ---59.95.67.158 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

1995 Court order: Final judgement of the Malankara Church case

Turning 'away sorrowful', is the long and short of this litigation between two rival groups of Jacobite Christian Community of Malabar which has been going on for more than hundred years apparently for religious and spiritual supremacy over the Church but really for administrative control and temporal powers over vast assets which have accumulated out of 3000 star pagodas created in Trust in 1808 for charitable purposes by one Moran Mar Marthoma VI popularly called `Dionysius the Great'. This is the third round between the parties in this court, the two earlier being in 1954 and 1959.

---

Court Judgement: 1 (a) The civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and suits. (b) The expression 'civil nature' used in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than even civil proceedings, and thus extends to such religious matters which have civil consequence. (c) Section 9 is very wide. In absence of any ecclesiastical courts any religious dispute is congnizable, except in very rare cases where the declaration sought may be what constitutes religious rite. 2. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not debar those cases where declaration is sought for a period prior to the Act came into force or for enforcement of right which was recognised before coming into force of the Act. 3. The following findings in Moran Mar Basselious (supra) have become final and operate as resjudicata:- (a). The Catholicate of the East was created in Malankara in 1912. (b). The Constitution framed in 1934 by Malankara Association is valid. (c). The Catholicos were not heretics nor they had established separate church. (d). The meeting held by Patriarch Group in 1935 was invalid. 4 (a). The effect of the two judgments rendered by the Appellate Court of the Royal Court and in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) by this Court is that both Catholicos and Patriarch Group continue to be members of the Syrian Orthodox church. (b) The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the churches. (c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution. (d) The spiritual powers of the patriarch of Antioch can be exercised by the Catholico in accordance with the Constitution. 5. (a) The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version. (b) There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to ex- communicate Catholicos. 6. The ex-communication of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was invalid 7. All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasna or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution..

(2) The Catholicos and the Patriarch are declared as followers of one creed,namely , Syrian Orthodox Church. (3) The Constitution framed by the Malankara Association as amended from time to time shall govern the Churches attached to the Malankara Association.

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is NOT autocephalous

Supreme court of India verdict 1995---

The most sensitive issue which has been subject of great debate in this Court was posed as Question No.18, "Has the Malankara Church become an autocephalous church?

and it was answered against the respondent by recording the finding:- Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & ... vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/634316/ 25

We, therefore, hold that the Malankara Church is not an autocephalous church but is a part or division of the world Orthodox Syrian Church and set aside the finding of learned single judge that the Catholicos group has now established an autoceohalous church. We hold that while Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the World Orthodox Syrian church Catholicos of the East who is subject to the Constitution is head of the Malankara Church and the relationship between Patriarchate and the Malankara Church is governed by the provisions of the Constitution."

This was the finding recorded in Moran Mar Basselios (supra) as well. It has not been challenged, therefore, it has become final.

Dear friend, Supreme court verdict is not only applicable for MOSC,its applicable for patriarch faction also, Supreme court is not defining a separate Church as "Jacobite Church", its just a group in Malankara Church. If rival faction can form a separate church, new constitution & another Catholicos and then expecting MOSC alone is legally bounded to the verdict, its a big comedy. ---45.125.147.182 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not a comedy. It is a fact . Whether to accept it or not is a different thing. As per the Supreme court of India verdict, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is NOT autocephalous. MOSC neither claimed it as autocephalous church in the court. So the court decided that the church is not autocephalous. Phantom (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Autocephalous is taken off from the Article until is proved. This was a BIG controversy in the Supreme court of India. 01:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing your statement in edit history where you have removed the word 'Autocephalous' - Autocephalous is a controversial matter. Until it is proved in the talk page , it is taken off. This has been a big controversial matter in the Supreme court of India. Please don't revert with out proper reason saying that it is seen in an encyclopedia . Till now you have been using some "Encyclopedia" references as "verified published works" to challenge known facts and references in public media or websites of other churches! When I started providing the references from various Encyclopedia , you are coming with bits and pieces of court order!! I surprise why you are not taking the spirit of court order. A church is becoming Autonomous or Autocephalous as part of its growth. I am adding more references , please be patient. Do not engage in edit war. --45.125.146.72 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You should use your common sense. A matter of controversy, especially going on for 100 years and decided by the Supreme court of India is LEGAL. Trust me, no body can surpass it. Phantom (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If supreme court verdict is LEGAL why Jacobite (Patriarch) faction is not abiding with that?? Laws of Land are not applicable for this faction? Why are you hiding the fact that Jacobite faction is not ready to accept all major points in Court Verdict like:
i> Churches in both the factions are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution
ii> The Patriarch of Antioch has no temporal powers over the churches in Malankara.
iii>There is no power in the Hudaya Canon to ex-communicate Catholicos
iv>The Hudaya Canon produced by the Patriarch is not the authentic version.

So the structure (one patriarch-one catholicos) mentioned by 1934 church constitution and Supreme Court Verdict is not in reality now. The Jacobite (Patriarch) faction formed a new constitution in 2002, enthroned another Catholicos in parallel!!

Now Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is a member in Oriental Orthodox communion along with Syriac Orthodox Church. Oriental Orthodox communion is composed of only autocephalous churches !!!

See the interpretation of Supreme court in the book Eastern Christianity and the cold war,1945-91 Edited by Lucian N. Leustean (published in year 2010): "On 21 January 1995 the Supreme Court of India stated the existence of one orthodox church in India divided into two groups and recognised spiritual authority of the Syrian Patriarchate, acknowledging at the same time the rights of the autocephalous Church"

Encyclopedia of Christianity(published in year 1997): "The autocephalous Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is governed by Holy Episcopal Synod of 24 Bishops presided over by His Holiness Moran Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Didimos catholicos of the east"

The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity (published in year 2011)in page 376 under the title 'Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church' says:"Today the Malankara Church is an autocephalous community and a member of Oriental Orthodox Churches" ---45.125.147.173 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A narration of MOSC and its autocephalous nature from a third party view :
However, in 1912 there was a split in the community when one part declared itself an autocephalous church and announced the re-establishment of the ancient Catholicosate of the East in India. This was not accepted by those who remained loyal to the Syrian Patriarch. The two sides were reconciled in 1958 when the Indian Supreme Court declared that ONLY the autocephalous Catholicos and bishops in communion with him had legal standing. But in 1975 the Syrian Patriarch excommunicated and deposed the Catholicos and appointed a rival, an action that resulted in the community splitting yet again. In June 1995 the Supreme Court of India rendered a decision that
(a) upheld the Constitution of the church that had been adopted in 1934 and made it binding on both factions,
(b) stated that there is only ONE Orthodox church in India, currently divided into two factions
(c) recognized the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch as the spiritual head of the universal Syrian Church, while affirming that the autocephalous Catholicos has legal standing as the head of the entire church, and that he is custodian of its parishes and properties.
This decision did not, however, result in a reconciliation between the two groups, which in 2007 remained separate and antagonistic.

The precise size of these two communities is difficult to determine. But the autocephalous Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church has reported 2,500,000 members in 30 dioceses, served by 32 bishops and over 1,700 priests. The group under the supervision of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate [Syrian Orthodox Church] had about 1,200,000 faithful. ---45.125.147.173 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Whether Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is Autocephalous or not was a controversy. This has been taken to court to decide. In the final verdict of Supreme court of India in 1995 , it was decided that Malankara Church (Malnkara Orthodox Syrian Church) is NOT autocephalous ,but a part or division of the World Orthodox Syrian Church(Syriac Orthodox Church). Hence we can say it was legally decided that The church is not autocephalous.Phantom (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since the matter of controversy, whether the Malankara church(Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) is Autocephalous or not was legally decided by the Supreme court of India in its final verdict/judgement in Malankara church case in 1995, we should take it off from the article. The church is not autocephalous Phantom (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• There may be factual errors in the third party reviews, however an answer to a direct question in the Supreme court of India about the autocephalous nature of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is quoted below. This is legal and binding to MOSC.

The most sensitive issue which has been subject of great debate in this Court was posed as Question No.18, "Has the Malankara Church become an autocephalous church?

and it was answered against the respondent by recording the finding:- Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & ... vs Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr on 20 June, 1995 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/634316/ 25

We, therefore, hold that the Malankara Church is not an autocephalous church but is a part or division of the world Orthodox Syrian Church and set aside the finding of learned single judge that the Catholicos group has now established an autoceohalous church. We hold that while Patriarch of Antioch is the head of the World Orthodox Syrian church Catholicos of the East who is subject to the Constitution is head of the Malankara Church and the relationship between Patriarchate and the Malankara Church is governed by the provisions of the Constitution." Phantom (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunday School Text Book

Is this the text book of MOSC Sunday School or Jacobite church's? Not able to identify ..In 1954 both Catholicos and Patriarch factions were separated. Need to provide the proof for this is MOSC Sunday school .Else keep it only in Malankara Church page -45.125.147.173 (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If you suspect it is not MOSC sunday school text book, provide sufficient evidence for that and it can be removed.Phantom (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The person who uploaded the image has to give the proof for it. How I can give evidence? I already mentioned the reason why I am doubting ---45.126.207.114 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• If you have no evidence to prove otherwise, just believe it or raise arguments with proper evidence or proof. If everybody is convinced of your proof or evidence, you have the right to remove it.

Phantom (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@User:Kokkarani(Phantom), >> If you have no evidence to prove otherwise, just believe it >> This reply is not at all acceptable in Wikipedia! Wikipedia article is not a personal blog. You have to upload an image and use it in an article with proper details. In 1954 Malankara Orthodox church was divided into 2 factions - Methran Kakshi/Catholicos faction (present MOSC) and Bava Kakshi/Patriarch faction (present JSCC). Now the question - Was this book published by Catholicos faction or Patriarch faction ?? Since you mentioned that this "Photo taken from my own collections", you need to prove the Wikipedia community that this book was published by MOSC. I am taking out this image from this article. --45.126.204.141 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Catholicos faction and Patriarch faction were of same Malankara Syrian Church. Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Then why are you keeping this image in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church article??? Move this to Malankara Syrian Church article- --45.126.204.141 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Malankara Syrian church means Malankara Orthodox syrian church and Jacobite syrian church. That's the reason. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is your view. You or me can not deny the fact that Marthoma Church and Syro-Malankara Church are also Malankara Syrian Churches -59.95.67.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@User:Kokkarani, In all Wiki articles you are pushing your views in an arrogant manner -59.95.67.40 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not my view. That is a historical fact supported by references and declared by the Supreme court of India. I am not pushing any views.By the way I understood you are the same person who engaged in edit war in Marthoma church and Jacobite syrian church. I agree that Syro-Malankara church and Marthoma churches separated from Malankara syrian church. If you google what is the meaning of 'Syro', you may get the idea that it is related with Syrian church. There is no use in trying to prove that Marthoma church is the true successor church of the ancient Malankara church. We all know that Marthoma church separated from the Malnkara syrian church. Thanks.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear friend Malankara Syrian heritage lineage can be claimed by Marthoma Church and Syro Malanakara Church also. Why are you limiting that for MOSC and JSCC?? -59.95.67.40 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Malankara Syrian church means Jacobite and Orthodox church together. Marthoma church and Syro Malnkara catholic church separated from it. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kokkarani, I have not even done a single edit in Marthoma Church. I am challenging you for raising a Sock Puppet test if you have such doubts. The fact is that I am not a narrow minded person to deny their Malankara Syrian lineage. Yes, I have had a discussion with you in Jacobite Church page - because you are hiding the actual name of the church JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH with a non-existent name "Malankara Jacobite Orthodox Syrian Church" (??). I have to do that I know the truth - 59.95.67.40 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You say you know the truth. You are talking about the apparent truth or the absolute truth? ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is the Spiritual supreme of MOSC

• 1879 Travancore Royal court verdict (British India) in seminary suit
• 1932 constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.
• 1995 Supreme court of India final judgement in Malankara church case.

1995 Supreme court of India Judgement-quote: On a review of the whole History and evidence, we arrive at the conclusion that the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch's power in spiritual affairs of the Malankara Church (Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) has been supreme: and that the Patriarch have had no interference with the internal administration of the temporalities of the Church in Travancore which, in this respect has been an independent Church. Thus Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is NOT autocephalous.

(c) Effect of the creation of Catholicate at Malankara and 1934 Constitution is that the patriarch can exercise spiritual powers subject to the Constitution.

All churches, except those which are of Evangelistic Association or Simhasna or St. Mary are under spiritual and temporal control of the Malankara Association in accordance with 1934 Constitution. Catholicos of the East is the head of the Malankara Church, however Patriarch of Antioch is his Spiritual Supreme. Patriarch can exercise his spiritual powers in Malankara church in accordance with the 1932 Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church constitution.

If Patriarch is the spiritual supreme and he could exercise his spiritual powers in accordance with the constitution, how could we say Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is an autocephalous church? Rather I would suggest it an autonomous church. Also my another question is who gave autocephaly to Malankara church? Any recordical evidence available to prove that Malankara Church (Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) gained autocephaly from the Syriac Orthodox church of Antioch? Phantom (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 July 2016

I request the word autocephalous used to describe the church in the first paragraph to be removed until we reach a consensus. Whether this church is autocephalous or not was a contention and finally taken to the Supreme court of India to decide it. After a long hearing ,the Supreme court of India in 1995 decreed that Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is NOT autocephalous. Please see the court verdict and details above in the talk page. Hence my request is that the word autocephalous should be removed until it is convinced that the church is autocephalous. Thanks Phantom (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Phantom (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide the link where we can read the complete verdict of Supreme Court (in 1995) I got the link from above talk. This is an observation of Supreme Court based on MOSC's 1934 constitution. But the constitution is written in a way- One Malankara Orthodox Church, One Patriarch and One Catholicos. Here Patriarch is only Spiritual Head. Same thing Supreme court confirmed in 1995 verdict that Patriarch does not have any temporal power in Malankara Church. But Jacobite faction was not in agreement with majority of Supreme Court findings or observations. After Final Court Verdict in 1995, some reconciliation attempts happened from different corners. But in 2002 split completed in Malankara Orthodox when Jacobite faction formed a separate church and a constitution. Currently there is no relation with MOSC and SOC. These churches operates independently. An Orthodox Christian church can become autonomous or autocephalous at any point in timeline. Its the part of Church growth. Today Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is a member of Oriental Orthodox family which is a communion of only autocephalous churches. ---45.125.146.72 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the definition of Autocephaly ? Autocephaly is the status of a hierarchical Christian church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop.. Today Head of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Catholicos of the East does not need to report to any one including Patriarch of SOC. Head of Malankara Orthodox Church is addressed as His Holiness. Only Supreme Head of a Church is addressed by HH. Please see vatican's official news bulletin, Armenian website etc . ---45.125.146.72 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Could you show us any recorded proof that Malankara Orthodox church gained autocephaly from the Syriac Orthodox church of Antioch? We all know from the history that Malankara Church was a part of Syriac Orthodox church since 1665(Oriental Orthodox).
• Also do you agree that Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is the spiritual supreme of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church even now?.

• Also do you agree that Syrian Patriarch of Antioch can exercise spiritual powers in Malankara subject to 1934 constitution?.

• An Orthodox Christian church can become autonomous or autocephalous at any point in timeline. Its the part of Church growth.....don't agree with this statement. It should show valid canonical proof that it attained autocepahly from the mother church.Thanks Phantom (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have disabled the request as there is no demonstrable consensus yet for this. Please allow time for other editors to comment. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Kokkarani, Please see my responses for your questions

• Malanakra Church started a relation with in Syrian Orthodox church of Antioch in 1665. But even then Malankara church did not become part of SOC immediately. Various internal & external factors brought Antiochian "Subordination" in Malankara Church in later years. Though in 1912 Catholicate was established in Malankra, Syrian Orthodox Church(SOC) of Antioch, Patriarch of SOC, Patriach faction of Malankara were not accepting the this Catholicate till the court verdict was against them in 1958. Same is applicable here too. If Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is not an autocephalous church, how come this church became a member church in Oriental Orthodox communion? Oriental Orthodox communion is composed of only autocephalous churches!!!! Why Syriac Orthodox Church and its Patriarch is not objecting this?? Reason is simple: SOC is accepting the autocephaly of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church or they do not have any valid arguments to object the autocephaly of MOSC.
• Do you agree that Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is the spiritual supreme of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church even now. So what?? Have you read about Eastern Orthodox Church?? The Patriarch of Constantinople has the honor of primacy, but his title is only first among equals and has no real authority over Churches other than the Constantinopolitan. Though Eastern Orthodox Church refers itself "THE ORTHODOX CHURCH", all are autocephalous churches. Here also Patriarch does not have any temporal powers in Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. "Spiritual supreme" is just a honorary title, what additional right Patriach is getting by this title when compared to Catholicose of the East who having legal standing as the head of the entire church and custodian of its parishes and properties.
• Also do you agree that Syrian Patriarch of Antioch can exercise spiritual powers in Malankara subject to 1934 constitution? What are these spiritual powers? Catholicos of the East is also having spiritual powers same as Patriarch including consecration of holy chrism (myron).
• It should show valid canonical proof that it attained autocepahly from the mother church. Dear friend, who said Syriac Orthodox Church is the mother church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church???? It is an extreme Jacobite biased view of church history which you are raising in many other talk pages too. You have all rights to believe that. But Sorry to say, no other Malankara Churches as well as Secular Historians won't agree with that statement because Malankara church is not formed by the evangelical activities of Syriac Orthodox Church. Even the relation between both the churches started only in 1655 CE!! -45.126.204.46 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Continous vandalism

The person who was engaged in edit war in Marthoma church and Jacobite church is still engaged in edit war here. This person just want to prove that Marthoma church is a Malankara church and claims the lineage of the Malankara Syrian Church(Orthodox &Jacobite). I opposed this vested interest move. Also Administrators deleted the 'Marthoma Metropolitan' article when I challenged it against the 'Malankara metropolitan' article .Also I resisted the move to claim the lineage of the Malankara church by the Marthoma church. The supreme court of India declared Orthodox and Jacobite are the same church. Marthoma church and Malankara catholic church separated from it. Thanks. Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Admins, I have not done a single edit in Marthoma Church. I do not understand what user:Kokkarani is saying itself? Now I am not having time to understand what is happening in Marthoma Church article or I am not interested. You have all provision to verify that whether I did any edit in Marthoma Church Article. But one thing is clear User:Kokkarani (also known as Phantom and Mandrake) is doing VANDALISM in this article and I am trying protect this page -59.95.67.40 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please understood that you are not the whole protector of Wiki articles. Articles are edited by different users with reasons of their own. POV edits are also allowed in Wiki. However what you are doing is clear vandalism. I request the Admin to restrict edit for confirmed users. IP edits should be restricted for some time .Thanks.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wiki with some user name or as anonymous. But here no one is having the illusion that IP edits are VANDALISM. Who is doing vandalism can be verified their edit. Please understand that too. If needed I will login with a user name. ---59.95.67.40 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a confirmed login name, why you continue anonymous or hide behind the curtain. No courage to come in light?. Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kokkarani, as long as I can edit as IP user I will edit like that. When that is not possible I will login with a user name. Its my wish. You do not need to bother about that -59.95.67.40 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hello Wikipedia Admins,
User:Kokkarani made a comment that However what you are doing is clear vandalism. Let us go through the edit history of this article and examine who is doing Vandalism in this page:
(1)Kokkarani removed the statement that Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church(MOSC) is an Oriental Orthodox Church. Every one who understands eastern Christianity knows that MOSC is one among the Oriental Orthodox Church. Other Oriental Orthodox churches are Coptic Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Syrian Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox church and Eritrean Orthodox Church. This I explained in this talk page in detail. But User:Kokkarani keep on removing the mention that MOSC is an Oriental Orthodox Church. As you can read from the Oriental Orthodoxy article and other sources available in public domain that Oriental Orthodox communion is composed of six autocephalous churches (including MOSC)
2)Then Kokkarani wanted to take out the statement that MOSC is also known as Indian Orthodox Church. Provided multiple reference(sites of sister churches,public media etc) but Kokkarani was not accepting these references and wanted to have references from Encyclopedia and involved in editing war. Finally I had to find a Encyclopedia reference for this known fact !!
3)Again Kokkarani, started an edit war for taking out the statement "MOSC is an Autocephalous church" and Wiki Admins had to protect this page. At the same time Kokkarani couldn't prove his stand yet in this article.
4)Now Kokkarani is engaged in an edit war for limiting preface of the article as he wishes. This time this user is not ready for a discussion in talk page!!
So I think now you can understand who is doing VANDALISM in this page. Thanks -59.95.67.40 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have a confirmed user name and you choose to edit with out login in. Some thing fishy. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kokkarani, Let Admins decide. Please you dont judge. At any point of time anyone seeing this talk page and edit history of the article can easily understand who is doing Vandalism ---59.95.67.40 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear friend Malankara Syrian heritage lineage can be claimed by Marthoma Church and Syro Malanakara Church also. Why are you limiting that for MOSC and JSCC?? -59.95.67.40 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC) The above is his statement. This clearly shows the person's interest.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove by this? I am talking from a broader perspective. I am not doing a biased editing here - 59.95.67.40 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I could say or edit in such a way that "only MOSC is the actual Malankara Church, Not even JSCC". But I do not do that in Wikipedia -59.95.67.40 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is your view. You or me can not deny the fact that Marthoma Church and Syro-Malankara Church are also Malankara Syrian Churches -59.95.67.40 (talk). This is his another statement which shows his interest. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators please note the edit history of the above IP address. He is continuously engaged in vandalism with out login in even though he claim he has one. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear friend, what ever quoted above are my statements. I have signed with my IP there. But I am not understanding What is the problem in that ?? What is my "interest" you identified from that? Let everyone understand, please be open and clear. This is a line from Malankara Church article: The other thirty-two churches and their congregations were the body from which the Malankara Syrian Churches (Jacobite Syrian Christian Church ,Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Malabar Independent Syrian Church , Malankara MarThoma Syrian Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church originated. If Marthoma Church and Syro-Malankara Church are not Malankara Churches , please take out this statement from that article. -59.95.67.40 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

They are Malankara church in wider sense. In strict sense, Malankara church now a days is Jacobite & Othodox. If you say Malankara sabha in short means Jacobite and Orthodox.ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I said it first that I am talking in a broader sense. But still let me ask you one question keeping all respect, You are saying In strict sense, Malankara church now a days is Jacobite & Othodox. If you say Malankara sabha in short means Jacobite and Orthodox. - Where is the reference for that? On what basis you are making that statement?? - 59.95.67.40 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The basis for this statement is that: 1) When Malabar Independent church separated they used another name 2) When Reformists got separated they used another name 3)When Syro- Malankara (Malankara rite) got seaparted they used another name.

still the Malankara Syrian church existed. (Jacobite& Orthodox).

If you are a constructive editor, please don't limit your edit to this article. I request your help in this aricle- Arthat St. Mary's Cathedral ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC) I request to review the article and remove the tag. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Brother, believe me I didn't get your explanation clearly. If we think in that way when Jacobite Church formed its constitution in 2002, they used the name as "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church", no "Malankara" was in the name. My primary interest is in general articles related to Oriental Orthodox churches and Eastern Orthodox Church. I think you are doing a good job in Arthat St. Mary's Cathedral. If I am not contributing to Arthat Church article also you can consider me as constructive editor -59.95.67.40 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The only difference in our view point is that- you consider Jacobite and Orthodox are separate churches in every respect. However I consider they are 2 brothers of the same family. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The constitution of Malankara Orthodox Church defines it as a division of the Syriac Orthodox Church[9] and it follows the same creed. What is partial on this sentence? It only states the FACT that in the constitution of MOSC it is a branch or division of SOC and it follows the same creed of SOC. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is also a FACT "that both the churches have been in administrative schism for a very long time" and Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is an autocephalous community. I added these lines with references. Why you are taking it out?? -59.95.67.40 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You are quoting a court verdict that MOSC and SOC follows same creed. But that is a verdict on a case between MOSC and Patriarchal(SOC) faction of MOSC. No other churches were there!! What is the relevance of quoting this verdict in this context?? The fact is that all oriental orthodox churches follows same creed. Then why there is an unnecessary emphasis for SOC?? Also Why you are taking out the sentence "The Church accepts the Miaphysite Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and uses the Malankara Rite, a local variant of the West Syrian Rite." ??? That is a very important information -59.95.67.40 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If we mention that MOSC is a division of SOC as per MOSC constitution, we should immediately say today both the churches operates independently. Wikipedia can not ignore the present fact - 59.95.67.40 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Friend Kokkarani, Please note, Removing the data added to an article with proper references is a clear VANDALISM. You can request any Wiki Admin to intervene in this topic. Let them decide whose argument is valid -59.95.67.40 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't need too much data in the preface. common people don't want it, that can be explained later to those who continue reading further. let us be short in the preface. thanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kokkarani, If you make a statement in lead paragraph that Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) is a division of Syriac Orthodox Church (SOC), that will give an impression that MOSC's status is same as of Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (JSCC). But that is NOT the present fact !!! Both the churches (SOC and MOSC) operates independently. Today MOSC is having same status of SOC among other Oriental Orthodox Churches. Its a member church in Oriental Orthodox communion. Catholic Church conducting inter churches talks with SOC and MOSC separately. So we need to state the present facts also - 59.95.67.40 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Lengthy description is always better than a confusing short description. If any issues with the data, let me know we can discuss. Removing data is not appreciable. Thanks -59.95.67.40 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether it operate dependent or independent doesn't matter. FACT is important. MOSC is a division of SOC by the constitution.Also it follows the west Syrian liturgy. These are clear cut facts. Please don't try to hide it under the table. thanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I already requested one of the Wiki Admins to intervene in this topic. Will talk once the Admin joins in this discussion - 59.95.67.40 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2016

No problem. Let the Admin decide based on facts. ThanksMandrake_the_Magician (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Major Copyedit and Date Issue

This article is flagged as needed copyedditing, specifically for issues with dates. I have made two edits to the article. The fist is a large revision of grammar and punctuation. This article has a lot of simple flaws like having two spaces where there should only be one and a lack of articles (e.g. "Patriarch did this" instead of "The Patriarch did this"). The changes I made do not cover every issue in the article; I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject, and some of the sentences are too awkward for me to understand their meaning. I would not want to lose the value those sentences might have to someone who can understand them because I changed their meaning trying to correct them. If any of my revisions did change meaning or did not fix sentence structure, I would ask future editors to change them in a separate edit instead of undoing mine.

The second edit I made simply removed all of the AD and CE marks in the article. There were some of both in the article. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style it doesn't necessarily matter whether AD or CE is used, but it ought to be consistent. The Manual also says that era notations should be avoided when they are unnecessary. This article is about a Church, and there weren't many of those around in the BC era, so I don't think they are necessary. If someone else decides that the era markers are important you can just undo that one. In this circumstance, I would ask that the AD and CE marks be changed to either just CE or just AD.

I hope I've help make the article a bit easier to understand.

--FlavoredSpace (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusion over spiritual authority and repeated vandalism efforts

The two factions of the Malankara Church differ over the authority of the Church.

• The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is autocephalous and does not consider itself under any spiritual authority of a foreign bishop.
• The Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church is an autonomous Church within the Syriac Orthodox Church and is under the spiritual and temporal authority of the Patriarch of Antioch.

A ruling from the Supreme Court of India said that the united Church should be under the authority of the autocephalous Catholicos and spiritually led by the Patriarch, subject to the Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of 1934. However, the division remains till date. Hence, at present both the factions function as separate Churches, one completely independent of foreign authority (spiritual or temporal) while the other remains under the See of Antioch. Jinsen John (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)