Brief History of the Syro Malabar Church - Mar Joseph Pamplany

[@skarmat]

Hymns of St. Ephrem (4th century), a beloved saint from Syria describes the martyrdom of Apostle Thomas in India. Eusebius of Caesaria (4th century), a church historian and Bishop, wrote in his book Ecclesiastical history that Pantaneus visited India in 180 AD and says that he found a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew, left with the Christians there by St. Bartholomew. St. Jerome in his writings mentions a deputation sent from India to Alexandria. This deputation requested Demetrius (127-232 AD), the bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), to send Clement of Alexandria (150 AD- 215 AD) to India. These writings point to a Christian community existing in the first and second centuries in Kerala (India). The aforementioned Bishops and Church father's are revered men of the Catholic Church. The mention of the Church in India by these revered men shows that they considered the Malankara Church (although it's liturgy being persian in nature) as part of their Church and therefore the Catholic Church. But when the Portuguese brought Latin rite Catholicism to India in the 15th century, they persecuted the existing Malankara Church in India which had a liturgy in a different language with its own hymns, rituals and theology. The Portuguese missionaries out of their ignorance of the liturgy and history of the Indian Church, burnt the books of the Malankara church, although not sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome. Further they made attempts to force the Malankara Church to abandon their liturgy. This persecution led to a split in the Indian Malankara Church at the Coonan cross oath of 1653 AD at Mattancherry, Kerala. After this event, a certain section (Pazhaykoor faction) of faithful within the Malankara Church accepted the dominion of the Latin rite Church and in the due course of time re-stablished their unique identity with the East Syriac liturgy and came to be called the Syro Malabar Catholic Church. The remaining faction of the Church (Puthenkoor faction) rejected the Latin Rite Catholic Church's dominion and became the Puthenkoor Church. In time by the 20th century it would split into the Jacobite Syrian Church and the Malankara Orthodox Church. By 1930 a small section of the Malankara Orthodox Church under the leadership of Mar Ivanios would reunite with the Catholic Church and be called the Syro Malankara Catholic Church. There are two Sui Iuris churches out of the 24 suit Iuris churches in the catholic Church which are originally from Kerala, India. The Syro Malabar Catholic Church and Latin rite Catholic Church are the only two Sui iuris Churches which have a continuous and longest history within the Catholic Church.

[@bijuisaac3637]

There were only St. Thomas christans (Nazranis) in the begining . No catholics , Othodox, Jacoboties, Marthoma, CSI etc.

[@Pratsg86]

What happened to the mar Thoma Church? What is their history? They are more protestant than orthodox. Isn't the eucharistic celebration still symbolic to them?

[@josu8666]

According to me threre are only 3 catholics in kerala Syro malabar catholic- liturgy rite east syriac rite, classified under eastern catholic. Syro malankara Catholic- liturgy rite - Malankara rite, classified under eastern catholic. Roman Latin catholic - liturgy rite - Roman rite, classified under Roman catholic. "It is belived" St Thomas came to kerala in AD 52 nd through his evangelistic activities, he created " St. Thomas Nasrani", later in the year 1653 coonan kurisu Satyam took place in mattancheary, they re- converted to catholics by Portuguese which end up to became syro malabar/ malankara Catholics. St francis xavier came to india the year1542 may 6th nd spread christianity in Goa kerala and may other coastal part of India. Which end up to become Roman Latin catholic.

[@savilfrancis9431]

this is wrong, on 12 century Rome had established diocese this first catholic diocese in India and franciscan missionaries had come before portughese missionaries came, so the roman catholics were even before portughese times

[@assyrian7992]

Europe accepted Christianity on AD44 According to ROMAN Catholic tradition, Apostle James, son of Zebedee, spread Christianity in Spain. In the year 44, he was beheaded in Jerusalem and his remains were later transferred to Galicia in a stone boat, to the place where stands Santiago de Compostela Cathedral. The 12th century Historia Compostelana commissioned by bishop Diego Gelmírez provides a summary of the legend of St. James, as it was believed at Compostela at that time. Two propositions are central to it: first, that St. James preached the gospel in Spain, as well as in the Holy Land; second, that after his martyrdom at the hands of Herod Agrippa, his disciples carried his body by sea to Iberia, where they landed at Padrón on the coast of Galicia, then took it inland for burial at Santiago de Compostela.

[@josephjacob3274]

Why did the malabar church betray archdeacon? He was the original leader.

[@savilfrancis9431]

Bishop did not specify how syro malabar church continued connection with Rome or Peter.. if he digs into it he will have to admit Babylon Christians, who were schismatic

[@bijogeojose7209]

What needs to be specified? The early churches were always in communion with the Chair of Peter (Rome) until the orthodox schism in 1054. Early Christians were never like the new age protestants such as the Pentecostals, Seventh-day Adventists or any other new-age church. These are man-made churches and have no apostolic lineage to Jesus. All this nonsense about Babylon was made by the new age churches by twisting the word of God to suit their man-made ideas.

[@MalankaraSyriacOrthodox]

@@bijogeojose7209 Dear Bijo Geo Jose your knowledge of history is very poor. The 1054 schism is between the Greek and the Latin Churches. The schism with the Syriac Churches happened much much earlier.. after the Council of Ephesus AD431 and after the Council of Chalcedon AD451. And talking about the Chair of Peter... it was not just in Rome. In the Early Church when the Chair of Peter is referenced it is of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. This is attested by Pope Gregory the Ist himself. The Roman Pope claiming to the sole successor of St. Peter and then claiming universal jurisdiction of all other churches happened much later. A lot of such uncanonical power grab by Rome was undone at the Second Vatican Council. Still not completely undone.

[@alanjohn5797]

@@MalankaraSyriacOrthodox The bishop of Rome is the sole heir of St. Peter. Alexandria isn't as it has never been St. Peters. Antioch isn't as St. Peter had left it for Rome. When St. Peter was bishop of Rome, the bishop of Antioch was St. Evodius. Jerusalem is also not St. Peters see as he had left it too. Also since first century, only Pope of Rome was regarded as the Prime Bishop of Catholic Church. He was given spiritual and temporal power over universal church. The Church of Marthomite Nasraenes in India were under the Patriarchate Babylonia. It split out from Holy Catholic Church at Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 and rejoined at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. There are documents still preserved in which Payriarch St.Mar Abba declared it Canonical . He is venerated as a Saint in Chalcedonian Christianity. Also in 1552, the church of the East formally accepted Pope of Rome's leadership. So the East Syriac Christians in Kerala are rightfully Catholics thats why they are called Pazhauakoors. Jacobites and Orthodox are Puthenkoots who converted East Syriac liturgy and Chalcedonian faith.

[@alanjohn5797]

@@MalankaraSyriacOrthodox St. Pope Gregory the Great said that Alexandria and Antioch are Petrine sees as they are as old as Rome and St. Mark of Alexandria was a disciple of St. Peter and Antioch and Jerusalem were first served by St. Peter before leaving them for royal Rome. He spoke those when Patriarch of Constantinople started claiming Second position after bishop of Rome and authority over Alexandria and Antioch,due its imperial status. He never said that they are equal to Bishop of Rome in terms of Primacy , supremacy and successorship of St. Peter. Also Pope Gregory affirmed his status of superiority by calling himself "Servant of the Servants of God" and correcting even the imperial patriarch.

[@savilfrancis9431]

@@bijogeojose7209 but how? thats the point, instead these ppl were connected to hereics from babylon

[@directajith]

Hope you all are syro Malabar, aren't you ennanu,are you alla

[@sanjoe7265]

ഇപ്പോഴുള്ള നസ്രാണി സഭകളിൽ ഏറ്റവു വലിയ പൈത്രകമുള്ളത് സിറോ മലബാർ സഭക്ക് തന്നെ ആണ്. Mar Thoma ക്രിസ്ത്യാനികൾക്ക് മാർപാപ്പാ ആയിട്ട് നല്ല ബന്ധമുണ്ട്. 13 നൂറ്റാണ്ട് മുതൽ അ ബന്ധം തുടങ്ങി. കൽദായ സുറിയാനി സഭയുടെ ആരാധന ക്രമം അനുസരിച്ച് സഭ മുന്നോട്ട് പോയി.9 aug 1329 അന്നത്തെ മാർപാപ്പ ജോൺ 22ആമൻ കൊല്ലത്തെ പേർഷ്യലെ കാതോലിക്ക suffagran ആർച്ച് diocese സ്ഥാപിക്കാൻ നടപടി തുടങ്ങി. കേരളത്തിലെ ഏക നസ്രാണി രാജവംശം ആയിരുന്നു വില്വാർവട്ടോം കുടുംബം. 1439 യിൽ Eugene 4th മാർപാപ്പ ഇൗ രാജാവിന് അപ്പസ്തോലിക ഇടയലേഖനം അയച്ചു. കൽദായ സുറിയാനി കൾ യഥാർത്ഥ ക്രിസ്തു വിശ്വാസികൾ ആണെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് അവരെ അഭിനന്ദിച്ചു.ഇതൊക്കെ കൂനൻ കുരിശു സത്യതിന് മുമ്പ് ആണ്. പേർഷ്യൻ മെത്രാൻ മാർ യുഹന്നോൺ വന്നത് 1490 ആണു.പിന്നീട് 1498 ill vasco da Gama vannu.അവസാന പേർഷ്യൻ മാർ എബ്രഹാം മെത്രാൻ വന്നത് 1564 ill aane.അദ്ദേഹം പ്പർഷ്യലെ കാതോലിക്ക പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് അബ്ദിശോ ബാവ പോപ് pius നാലമാൻറ്റെ നിർദേശത്തെ തുടർന്ന് മലബാറിൽ വന്നു. അങ്കമാലി ഭദ്രാസന മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്ത ആയിട്ട് മാർപാപ്പ വാഴിച്ചു. ഉദയംപേരൂർ സൂനഹദോസ് 1599 യില്ല്‌ നടന്നു. മാർ അഹതുള്ള എന്ന് മെത്രാനെ കടലിൽ കൊന്നു എന്ന കിംവദന്തി ആണ് കൂനൻ കുരിശു സത്യം നടക്കാൻ കാരണം എന്ന് പറയുന്നു.അദ്ദേഹം ഓർത്തഡോക്സ് സഭയിൽ നിന്ന് കാതോലിക്ക വിശ്വാസം സ്വീകരിച്ച ഒരു മെത്രാൻ ആയിരുന്നു.1632 ഇല് അദ്ദേഹം റോമിൽ പോയി മാർപാപ്പയെ സന്ദർശിച്ചു.ഒരു വർഷം അവിടെ നിന്ന് Latin bhasha പഠിച്ചു.1652 ഇന്ത്യയിലെ surat പട്ടണത്തിൽ വന്നു. പിന്നെ ഇശോ സഭക്കരുടെ കൂടെ നിന്നു. പിന്നെ അദ്ദേഹം ഗോവ വന്നപ്പോൾ portugese കാർ അദ്ദേഹം ഒരു സിറിയൻ മെത്രാൻ എന്ന് കരുതി തടഞ്ഞു. അദ്ദേഹം കൊച്ചിയിൽ varununde എന്ന് കേട്ട് നസ്രാണികൾ കൊച്ചിയിൽ വന്നപ്പോൾ കണ്ടില്ല. ഇൗ രോഷമാണ് അദ്ദേഹത്തെ Portugese karu കടലിൽ കൊലപെടുത്തി എന്ന് കിംദന്തികൾ പറഞ്ഞ് പരത്താൻ കാരണം.അദ്ദേഹം തിരിച്ച് Lisbon vazhi റോമിൽ എത്തുന്നതിന് മുൻപ് 1655 ഇൽ പാരിസിൽ വെച്ച് മരിച്ചു. ഒരു വർഷം മുമ്പ് 3jan 1653 I'll കൂനൻ കുരിശു സത്യം നടന്നു. പിന്നീട് പേർഷ്യൻ ബന്ധം നിലച്ചു.1662 സിറിയൻ കാതോലിക്ക സഭ ഉണ്ടായി. ഓർത്തഡോക്സ് സഭ സിറിയയിൽ പിളർപ്പ് അനുഭവിച്ചു.കുറെ പേര് മാർാപ്പയുടെ കൂടെ നിന്നു.അപ്പോഴാണ് ഇവിടെ മാർത്തോമ പക്ഷകർ ഓർത്തഡോക്സ് patriarchisine കത്ത് മുഖേന കര്യങ്ങൾ അറിയിച്ചു.അവർക്ക് ഒരു മെത്രാനെ വേണമെന്നു ആവശ്യപെട്ടു.ഓർത്തഡോക്സ് methranaya അബ്ദുൽ ജലീൽ ഇവിടെ 1665 വന്നു archdecan ആയ തോമ ഒന്നമനെ ഇവിടുത്തെ അധ്യ മലങ്കര ബിഷപ്പ് ആകി. ഇവിടെ തുടങ്ങി antiochean ബന്ധം. അത് കൊണ്ട് തന്നെ മലങ്കര സഭയുടെ പൈതൃക തിനെ അഞ്ച് നൂറ്റാണ്ട് ചരിത്രം ഉള്ളൂ. പിന്നീട് മാർ ഇവനിയസ് 1930 il മലങ്കര കത്തോിക്കാസഭ സ്ഥാപിച്ചു,പുണരായ്ക്യം വീണ്ടും ഉണ്ടായി. എന്ത്തിരുന്നലും ഓർത്തഡോക്സ്,jacobites,marthomites,തൊഴിയൂർ എല്ലാവരും നസ്രാണികൾ തന്നെ ആണ്..ഇതിൽ ഏറ്റവും കാലം കേരളത്തിൽ പ്രചാരത്തിൽ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നത് chaldaya ആരാധന ക്രമം തന്നെയാണ്. Second Vatican council nu ശേഷം മാത്രം ആണ് സുറിയാനി മാറി മലയാളം കുർബാന ആർപിക്കൻ തുടങ്ങിയത്.

[@savilfrancis9431]

First wrong thing, First Diocese in India was not a Chaldean diocese but a Roman diocese. First bishop even clled st geroge of Latins

[@savilfrancis9431]

If Roman Missionarie had come so called Church would have been some savages... oru strcture um learning onnum illatha kore thammi thallunna rampanaum, kore heressy yum.. so dont forget, life blood was i jected gto so called nasrani by Roman missionaries. Ividulla nasrani mandanmaar caste um paranjondirikkunnu

[@alanjohn5797]

@@savilfrancis9431 First diocese in India was India (ecclesiastical province of the Church of the East) which is the Archdiocese of Angamaly. It was established in the Apostolic age and was made Metropolitan See in the eighth century by Patriarch Timothy I

[@alanjohn5797]

@@savilfrancis9431 See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_(East_Syriac_ecclesiastical_province).

[@prasanthfrancis1263]

Eventhough the first part was not that acceptable..later part was sensible..

[@joythomasvallianeth6013]

Look at how catholics cook up history !

[@joythomasvallianeth6013]

The early christians are just the children of spice traders who married the local women during their long stay in Kerala ports waiting for favourable monsoon winds for their return journey. These christians are called as "Mappillas". You also have Jootha mappillas and Jonaka ( muslim ) mappillas through such temporary marriages. Suriyani mappillas are the earliest christians of Kerala. There was no St. Thomas visit to Kerala neither there was any migration under Knai Thomman in the 4th century !. They are all cooked up stories. Then came the first migration of christians in the 9th century from Iraq to Kollam under the leadership of 2 Jacobite bishops Mor Sabore and Mor Aphroth and the spice trader Marwan Sapir Iso and several syriac christian families. These christians are called specifically as "Nazranies" . So not all christians are Nazranies. Bishop, you will have to get the terminologies correct. Then you have tbe local christians who were converted by the early eastern church missionaries as well as the later European missionaries such as the Portugese and the British etc. They can be called as Marthoma christians for lack of another better word. Also this term was coined by these missionaries themselves. So the present syriac christian community consists of Mappillas, Nazranies and Marthoma or St. Thomas christians. There is nothing like "Marthoma " Nazranies. Of course now all these 3 communities intermarry each other and hence is difficult to distinguish between each other.

[@SanjayFGeorge]

There is no point in blaming people for things in the past ? 😅 You've got to be kidding me. He is painfully too generous to the Latins 😢

[@joythomasvallianeth6013]

This bishop is a liar like most of the catholic bishops and priests are ! He says that the ancient Kerala church was Roman catholic right from the beginning !. St. Thomas never came to Kerala nor there was any migration under Knai Thomman . It is a lie

[@savilfrancis9431]

Hortus malabaricus is not Malayalam or English it’s Portuguese and Dutch

[@bijogeojose7209]

The bishop does say that is was printed in Portuguese along with passages in Malayalam. Your point is not valid.

[@josephsm4661]

We orthodox and Jacobites didnot leave syrian practises... its syro malabar who left us... syro malabar followed the portugese catholic practises... AD 52 there were no catholics in Malabar.. only St. Thomas nazarani christians!!

[@johnthekkemuriyil21]

All real Christians are catholics.

[@josephsm4661]

@@johnthekkemuriyil21 all traditional Christians are orthodox christians

[@johnthekkemuriyil21]

@@josephsm4661 Orthodox are heretics.

[@johnthekkemuriyil21]

You Orthodox are the ones who left Syriac traditions.

[@josephsm4661]

@@johnthekkemuriyil21 yeah... U sit there believing that...

[@josephsm4661]

When did syro malabar became mother church??? No more syrian liturgical practises then how come mother of all church? We orthodox and jacobites are not !!! Everybody knows who are the roots of St. Thomas Christians!!

[@LibinBaby]

They are rice bag converts who quit real apostolic faith of Syriac liturgy for romanized faith who distorting bible

[@delvingeorge2807]

Jacobites are Heretics. We don't need Orthodox Church though we pray for Unity as Christ Jesus prayed and to be clear today also we have some Syrian Catholics Celebrating Syrian Language Liturgy. Suriyani is not dead.

[@MalankaraSyriacOrthodox]

@@delvingeorge2807 What is the Hesery of the Jacobites? Can you please explain ?

[@delvingeorge2807]

@@MalankaraSyriacOrthodox There are more than one Jacobite churches, I have read about Jacobites who were Condemned in Ecumenical Council though I am not sure if Indian Jacobites are the same ones as those early 4th Century ones.

[@delvingeorge2807]

@@MalankaraSyriacOrthodox You can find out more in Catholicanswers.com I wrote this on the basis of Roman Catholic perspective, so don't get mad on me😅.

[@joythomasvallianeth6013]

What nonsense this bishop talks ! Did God create different rites ? Different rites are satanic ! God would have wanted all of us to be of a single church -the church started by Jesus Christ.