Jump to content

Talk:Jacobite Syrian Christian Church

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

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project

[edit]

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 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of interest

[edit]

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)[reply]

Why are they called Jacobites?

[edit]

The article doesn't seem to spell out why this religious groups are called Jacobites. A brief history would be usefull. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am a jacobite and the history as told to me by fathers/priests in our parishes is that during the time long ago when christianity was at its nacent stage, christian were very much persecuted for being christians and at that time Bishop Jacob (presumably Jacob Bardaeus) was jailed and pretty much all christian priests were killed. Since the rite of becoming a priest in line of St. Peter continues only by putting ones hand on the one who is to be consecrteated as a priest and no other person could simply declare anyone priest, christianity was at the grave danger of being finished. but during his time in jail when ever people come to visit this bishop he would simply put his hand on the head of his faithfull visitor and consecreate him as priest so that the christian faith would continue in his subject. such was his devotion to christianity.

When did we came to be called as jacobites thats a confusion it was either since long ago, or after the koonan cross oath event or after some judicial order resulting the split of saint thomas christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.238.8.105 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion...

[edit]

This article says that the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church is also known as "Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church". There is also an article called Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which is also in Kerala. This is very confusing, and there should be something in the article that explains that they are different (if they are different — otherwise the articles would be merged). ... discospinster talk 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite Syrian church is a integral branch of Syriac orthodox church also known as Syriac orthodox church of India. Malankara orthodox church is a independent church when they accept saint Thomas apostle is founder of church but Jacobite Syrian church believe as per tradition of Syriac orthodox church. Now, The Malankara orthodox church doesn't accept the lineage of Patriach of Syrian orthodox because As per constitution of Malankara orthodox church "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox). The Jacobite Syrian Christian follow continue as under the Patriach of Antioch, They are called Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite Syrian Church Robyrajan916 (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite Syrian church is a integral branch of Syriac orthodox church also known as Syriac orthodox church of India. Malankara orthodox church is a independent church when they accept saint Thomas apostle is founder of church but Jacobite Syrian church believe as per tradition of Syriac orthodox church. Now, The Malankara orthodox church doesn't accept the lineage of Patriach of Syrian orthodox because As per constitution of Malankara orthodox church "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox). The Jacobite Syrian Christian follow continue as under the Patriach of Antioch, They are called Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite Syrian Church Robyrajan916 (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Different Churches

[edit]

They are two different churches in Kerala, both being part of Oriental Orthodoxy but this one being autonomous and the other being autocephalous. ܠܝܛܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are Syriac Orthodox Church in India(Malankara) Phantom (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite Syrian church is a integral branch of Syriac orthodox church also known as Syriac orthodox church of India. Malankara orthodox church is a independent church when they accept saint Thomas apostle is founder of church but Jacobite Syrian church believe as per tradition of Syriac orthodox church. Now, The Malankara orthodox church doesn't accept the lineage of Patriach of Syrian orthodox because As per constitution of Malankara orthodox church "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox). The Jacobite Syrian Christian follow continue as under the Patriach of Antioch, They are called Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite Syrian Church) Robyrajan916 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Church or Parish?

[edit]

I was trying to do some copyedits to the above article and found this odd sentence The Church has dioceses and churches in most parts of India as well as in the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Western Europe, and the Persian Gulf nations. A Church can't have churches!

Of course a Church can have churches ! The Roman Catholic Church has churches all over the world. The Church of England has churches all over England. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, both have churches in many countries. The paradox arises because "church" has two different meanings --- a Christian organisation, OR a building used for Christian services. See foe example the Concise Oxford Dictionary : church 1. a building used for public Christian worship. 2. a particular Christian orgaisation with its own distinctive doctrines. (Also 3, which means basically the whole Christian religion taken together) 

I think the editor means parishes. Do Jacobites call them parish? I have inserted hidden text with that question there and if it is fixed can the editor please remove the inserted text. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Removed.Student7 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses and bishops

[edit]

I think dioceses and bishops should be associated together in some less demonstrative way. Supposed to be about church, not people, so list diocese first with their associated bishop(s). Student7 (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) The dioceses are listed above the list of the bishops, aren't they? ܠܝܛܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present situation of the Church

[edit]

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.

How does the above affect this article? We need WP:RELY references to document all statements, particularly controversial ones. "Fighting in the streets" appears to be documentable. Does either side support violence? Again, need references. The split in loyalty I think is already documented. But if it isn't, it should be. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Malankara orthodox church have autocephelous head. The Jacobite syrian christian church are branch of syriac orthodox church. As per constitution of Malankara orthodox church, they don't have patriarch or any relation between syriac orthodox church because of constitution says "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox). The Jacobite Syrian Christian have only relation between syriac orthodox church and Jacobite syrian church together and continue under the throne of Antioch. Robyrajan916 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Common History

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity#About the articles on Saint Thomas Christians common history Pamparam (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bishops of the Church

[edit]

This section is horribly mismanaged, with all caps, misspellings and errors. 122.166.154.248 (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-edited originally. Suggestion: try to correct one or two when you are looking at the article. With a couple of us doing this, it won't take too long. Of course, no one wants to read such a list now. All sorts of editors in the world!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malankara Jacobite Syrian Christian Church

[edit]

This should be the name, not Jacobite Syrian.... Credit Risk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

note that his sermon at mass was in English. Not clear on whether the chantings were Aramaic. 67.161.249.235 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support, Malankara to be included in the church name.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deposed Patriarch??

[edit]

It is common understanding that desposition was not the crux of the issue... The issues started from the late 19th century itself. Concluding that a consecration of a bishop led to all trouble is nothing but terrible wrong history. Whoever has done so, is creating blocks for unity. Credit Risk (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So who is Jacob?

[edit]

It would be nice if a link could be provided somewhere in the article, or even in the intro, to this church's namesake. Rwflammang (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the Mass Ceremony, Israel is Jacob at the conclusion of the sermon.
Another good question would be, is Jacobite communion wine or grape juice? 67.161.249.235 (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


ST. YACOUB BURD'ONO

http://jacobitesyrianchurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=67 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibumjohn (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read this article on wikipedia Jacob Baradaeus Robyrajan916 (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who founded the Church?

[edit]

The Jacobite Syrian Christian Church website gives the following information.

[1] THE FOUNDING OF CHURCH

Who established the church in India? People belonging to every Christian denomination of Kerala, in one voice would answer St. Thomas. Syrian Orthodox Church also believes so, St.Thomas reached Kodungallur by ship in AD 52. The widely accepted tradition is that St. Thomas visited various places and baptized many Jews and Hindus and thus began the process of establishing the Church. Middle east countries and Kerala had trade relations during the early centuries. So it may not have been difficult for St. Thomas to reach the coasts of Kerala.

[2] CHURCH IN INDIA

St. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, is the founder of the ancient Church in India. Christian writers and historians from the 4th century refer to the evangelistic work of Apostle Thomas in India, and the Indian Christians ascribe the origin of their Church to the labors of the apostle in the 1st century.117.202.114.86 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language in coat of arms?

[edit]

What are the two languages which are seen in the emblem? The one on the right can be confused between Urdu, Arabic and Persian.

On reading the article one may guess it to be Persian, but could someone please confirm it, and explain why these two languages were specifically chosen? Yetanotherwriter (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its Syriac Robyrajan916 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users like Roshyf2 & Iravikorthanan are continuously making impulse moves and changes in the article with out any proper reference. Also they edit Wikipedia in a way to confuse readers that Marthoma church is the true successor church of the Malankara church forgetting the facts in references which says Marthoma church got separated from Malankara church in 1889 with results of Anglican reformation. Also argues with unnecessary claims like Marthoma Church is another Malankara Church. Here I want to make it clear that Malankara Church is an Oriental Orthodox Church , however Marthoma church is an Anglican Reformed church got legally separated from Malankara church in 1889 with the Travancore Royal Court verdict which declared that the Reformist faction in the Malankara church has NO rights spiritually or temporally in the existing Malankara Church. The Reformists organised as a new independent church called Reformed Syrian church. After the death of Thomas Mar Athanasius, they adopted a new name for the church called Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar. They cannot claim any spiritual or temporal lineage of the Malankara Church. Iravikorthanan and Roshyf2 knowingly or unknowingly want to hide this fact and want to project that Marthoma church is another Malankara church to confuse wiki readers. User:Kokkarani Phantom (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 July 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church → Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church – There was a series of moves here without any discussion or explanation. As such, I'm going to request that this be returned to the page move done as an allegedly uncontroversial move. That makes a lot more sense that User:Roshyf2's odd page move to some JSCC naming allegedly based on church records and then second move a minute later without any explanation. There's incoming links to maybe a half dozen different names here so that does not help matters. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 July 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The discussion had a lot of assertions, but very little evidence and policy-based arguments. And huge presence of inexperienced or single-purpose accounts did not help. No such user (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church → ? @Ricky81682 and Iravikorthanan: – a new move discussion was started in my user talk page. Please discuss here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Exact Name Has to be Jacobite Syrian Christian Church . Pls See http://www.syrianchurch.org/ which is the official website of the Jacobite church which erroneously Wiki is calling Malankara Jacobite Orthodox church. In fact there is no church named Malankara Jacobite orthodox church in kerala officially. A church may be called by different names , which can be detailed in the article but a totally non existing title for a church is misleading and confusing. Also see the website of their Parent church Syrian Orthodox Church http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/directories/world/india/ . It clearly states that the Jacobite syrian christian church which is erroneously detailed under the Title Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church is only a Malankara Archdiocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India .
Now see the google search record. It is seen that this name is not used as title name any where but only in wikipedia .The google news search with "Malankara Jacobite orthodox church" yields only 136 results however with "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" Yeilds 665 results. Similarly in Google books The name "Malankara Jacobite church" figures only 1600 times but the name Jacobite SyriaN Christain Church Yeilds 27000 results. This Statistics itself shows that 'Jacobite Syrian Christian Church' is the name used for the church and they are commonly refered as jacobiteS.
However I do not ignore the fact that Malankara church of 1653 comprises of those believers now in five different churches some independent and some under the jurisdiction of other churches. And they use The name Malankara along with them.
pls see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Malankara_Church Iravikorthanan (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
pls see the constitution of Jacobite church http://www.malankaraworld.com/LIBRARY/constitution/Malankara/Yakobaya%20Bharanaghadana.pdf and in particular the Article 12 - 14 Since the document is in Malayalam i will translate the same for better understanding The church is a part of Syrian Orthodox Church and has the name as Jacobite syrian christian church
pls see the Constitution of Syrian Orthodox church http://www.malankaraworld.com/LIBRARY/constitution/syrian-orthodox-church/constitution-syrian-orthodox-church.htm and in particular the article 4 and sub 31 That Jscc is referred as a arch diocese.
pls see the internet tv of this church http://www.malankaravision.com/index.php which clearly states Jacobite Syrian Christian Church
Hence suggested the name , Jacobite Syrian Christian Church which is the legal and official name of the church , the other details such as Malankara and others can be referred inside .Thus the name Malankara JaCobite Syrian Orthodox Church Is inappropriate as the name don not exist in anywhere even church records or official Government channels or documentsIravikorthanan (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request moveThe more common name is Jacobite chuch , Without Suffixes or prefixes , Malankara Jacobite syrian Orthodox church as a name doesnot exist at all, Neither official nor colloquial, However some Jacobite people started using the name it is not widely accepted nor used. The article had the title Jacobite Syrian Christian church from 2007 onwards till 19:37, 2 February 2016‎ till a wiki editor moved page Jacobite Syrian Christian Church to Malanakara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church aka Malankara Syrian Church giving the reason that Title is incorrecet. From The statistics based on Google News and Google books ,it is well proved the title Malankara Jacobite orthodox church is highly un popular and un common. And church website , church constitution , Church tv (links given above)categorically states that the name of Church is JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Moreover Malankara Jacobite Orthodox Syrian Church does not figure in any independent, reliable English-language sourcesWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or neither official sources Wikipedia:Official names. Hence its is strongly requested to rename the article to pre Febrary 2016 which was holding for almost 10 years.Iravikorthanan (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move
  • Please see the 1934 constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.(authenticated by the Supreme court of India)

Orthodox Syrian Church ( Syrian Orthodox church) is erroneously called as Jacobites. So the Malankara Church is also erroneously called as Jacobites. Please see the third clause of the constitution which states that [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.

So what is the problem with Malankara usage ? It says Malankara Church was also erroneously called as Jacobite Church. That means Malankara Church is restricted to the Jacobite Church(Orthodox&Jacobite). Malankara Church=Jacobite Church(Orthodox&Jacobite)(Oriental Orthodox Church) Phantom (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move
The church referred here is Jacobite syrian christian church under the Patriarch of Antioch ( they have their own constitution) . The 1934 constitution is applicable for the Metran kakshis now called as Malankara Orthodox church under Catholicose and they believe the authority of Patriarch in their church is null. The supreme court has verdict ed in favor of them and . Malankara churches include those churches which was under Marthoma I in 1653 which includes Jacobites, Orthodoxians, Thozhiyoor, MarThoma Syrians , mALANKARA cATHOLICS and evanjelikals of today. Why the Jacobites which got Royal court verdict in favor of them could not succeed in Supreme court of India Later? Because the false canon provided in Royal court was proved manipulated and fraud later ( Recall Kappi canon) in Supreme court. However that is different topic of discussion, Here the name now projected after feb 2016 is just to moot a false and confusing impression , that is why it is requested to move the name to old one which was there since 2007 in wikipedia , which is more common and officialIravikorthanan (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move

  • 1995 Supreme court of India verdict

Court Findings

In A.D. 37 Apostolic See at Antioch was established by St. Peter to whom the stewardship of Church was entrusted by Lord Jesus Christ. It took root in Kerala within 20 years of the epoch making events in Jerusalem, the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. St. Thomas, one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ visited India in A.D. 51/52 and established 7 Churches in the Malayalam speaking parts of South India. They are known as Malankara Jacobite (or orthodox) Syrian Church, "Malankara" means "Malayalam speaking" `The two Syrian Orthodox Churches in Syria and India, along with the Egyptian (Coptic), Ethiopian, and Armenian Churches, belong to the group of Ancient, or Oriental Orthodox, Churches, wrongly called "monophysite".

Thus the learned Supreme court of India authenticated that the Proper uasage is Malankara Jacobite(or Orthodox) Syrian Church. Not less Not more... Phantom (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move-1995 Supreme court of India verdict* The copy paste is un- reliable. More over its courts interpretation of the conflict between two factions of Jacobite church and not suggesting any name.We are discussing on a name all these explanations of your interpretations can be detailed in the article if need? The discussion is that the name of the article is neither common nor official. It is immaterial what you or a group calls a churchor inteprets its church to be?Iravikorthanan (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move

If copy paste is unreliable, please go and read it in Google..this is the link- www.malankaraorthodoxtv.in/Court%20Orders/Court%20Orders.htm Phantom (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move

Please read the Supreme court of India verdict----- 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. Phantom (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move I really surprised seeing Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church(?) as title for this article. I do not know the relevance of this discussion itself. Here one user deliberately creating confusion among Wikipedia Editors and Admins by quoting Malankara Orthodox Church's constitution and Supreme Court verdict (in 1995) on Malankara Church Case. Jacobite faction of Malankara Church formed a new constitution in 2002. In this constitution it is clearly written in Malayalam that church name is YAKKOBAYA SURIYANI KRISTHIYANI SABHA that is nothing but JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Also please click on church's official news portal (http://www.jscnews.org)link provided in Infobox . It is written there this site is " Official News Portal of Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". Still any one having doubt, please call up on the Patriarchal Centre(Jacobite Church Center) phone number provided in that website and check with church officials or please send a mail to the e-mail ID given there. Hence requesting the ADMINISTRATORS to change the article title as "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" at the earliest ---45.125.147.173 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move

I don't want to confuse anybody. I just quoted the 1932 constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and 1995 Supreme court of India verdict in Malankara Church case to show that Jacobite Syrian church is a Malankara Church or Malankara branch of the Syriac Orthodox church of Antioch. If you simply say Jacobite church it means Syriac Orthodox church of Antioch. If you say Malankara Jacobite you mean Jacobite christian in India. So Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is a good title to describe the Indian branch of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Also please see the references I quoted for the names in the Article.Thanks Phantom (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move Keep the official name of the church. Also church is known by this name only. There is no valid reason I am seeing for keeping the article title as "Malankara *Request move". For indicating this church is Malankara branch of the Syriac Orthodox church of Antioch, we can not change the name of the church. Mention that in the article. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to take church synod's role ---45.126.207.114 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move

Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use the legal name, instead use the commonly recognized name as title of an article. Also consider reliable third party references . Hence use the most popular and easily recognized name as the title. If we use Jacobite, Malankara should come in front of it because in English wiki, readers are from different parts of the world. It would be easier for them to identify it as an Indian branch of the Jacobite church. Phantom (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Phantom (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move - @Kokkarani, I dont think your statement If we use Jacobite, Malankara should come in front of it because in English wiki, readers are from different parts of the world. does not look valid. Proper description in the preface of the article will resolve this issue. Also use aliases are redirects if needed.- --45.126.206.4 (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move

  • ' @Kokkarani, I dont think your statement If we use Jacobite, Malankara should come in front of it because in English wiki, readers are from different parts of the world. does not look valid.'

Why not valid? Please state your reasons. Thanks Phantom (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move

@Kokkarani, now let us discuss first on the references provided by me. For me, it proves "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" is the official name and the one in usage also. I request you to provide similar proofs for the current title "Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church". Thanks in Advance -59.95.67.190 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move

I am also convinced that the legal/official name of the church in discussion is 'Jacobite Syrian Christian Church'. However the article title in Wikipedia might not necessarily be the same. The most common and easily recognizable name is preferred. In that sense I prefer Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church . However this title got confused with Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Actually Jacobite is a derogatory term like Nestorian. (Jacobite-followers of Jacob Baradaeus; Nestorian-followers of Nestorius). The church in discussion uses this derogatory name as its official name. I just explained it before that they do it because it is popular and easily distinguishable from the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. So in my opinion, Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church is the apt title .

The term "Jacobite" was not even their own choice, but was given to them by their Greek Orthodox rivals. They readily accepted it, however. Read more: http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Jacobites-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html#ixzz4EjY5s8vl

Thus, the church was called Jacob-ites by other Chalcedonian churches to insinuate that the church was new body that formed under Jacob Baradaeus rather than the direct continuation of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Antioch.- see the NAME part of this article. Phantom (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request move

About the statement The term "Jacobite" was not even their own choice, but was given to them by their Greek Orthodox rivals. Yes, I agree, this was true in 6th century. But in 2002, it was own choice of holy episcopal synod of Jacobite Church. Then why we need to discuss here whether the term Jacobite is erroneous/derogatory?? Wikipedia should use the official name as title. Again, I want to reiterate the fact "Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Christian Church" is not only a official or legal name of the church but also the common name referred since June 2002 (once the church constitution formed).
Please see below articles from different newspapers. In all theses articles the church is referred as Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. All are recent news on the Church

You can confirm this by Google-News Search by giving "Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church" "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". But if you try with current title of this wiki article ("Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church") you may not even get a single news article after June 2002. !! -59.95.66.123 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Kokkarani and Iravikorthanan:: Please don't write a bolded "vote" ("Request move"; "oppose move") in your subsequent comments. I've stricken them for now, but please don't do any more. It confuses who's saying what and may give a false impression about the level of support and opposition. While you're welcome to make additional comments after your first one, don't add a bolded "vote". And Iravikorthanan, please stick to one account.--Cúchullain t/c 15:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier Malabar/Malankara Jacobite should be distinguished from the Jacobites. Simply Jacobite means Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. So in order to avoid confusion Malankara be used. More over if we read the history, we know this church is called Malankara church. Phantom (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also don't need to repeat the same points over and over. That is also confusing.--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cuchullain, Please note, the IP edits are NOT from Iravikorthanan. I am a different user. Accidentally we both are supporting "Request Move". If you can count the IP edits as one vote, pls do otherwise pls consider them as comments from an anonymous user. By the way,are we going to take decision based on just votes? or based on the evidences/proofs/references providing by both the sides?? I think I have given enough evidences for Admins to verify the "actual" name of the church (Jacobite Syrian Christian Church). Even Iravikorthanan has also provided some evidences. Unfortunately User:Kokkarani has not provided any evidences for his stand , rather he talks about court's verdict in church case in 1995 or about constitution of a different church or about the history of the term Jacobites which are not having any relevance in this matter -59.95.66.123 (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've unstriken the first IP "support" vote. It could still be a problem that you're commenting here with various IP accounts, so thanks for clarifying that they're all coming from one person. To your questions, no, move requests aren't straight votes; the closer will weigh the strength of the arguments and Wikipedia policy. As I say, it's fine to leave additional comments, but repeating the same things isn't going to help us find consensus, it just confuses the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 17:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately User:Kokkarani has not provided any evidences for his stand , rather he talks about court's verdict in church case in 1995 or about constitution of a different church or about the history of the term Jacobites which are not having any relevance in this matter -

Here you go. References which says Malankara Jacobite- these are Independent reliable published works.

1) Russell, Thomas Arthur (2010). Comparative Christianity: A Student's Guide to a Religion and Its Diverse Traditions. Boca Raton, Florida: Universal Publishers. p. 40. ISBN 1599428776.

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

3) Lucian N. Leustean (2010). Eastern christianity and the cold war, 1945-91. New York: Routeledge Taylor&Francis Group. p. 317. ISBN 0-203-86594-4.

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

5) Frykenberg, Eric (2008). Christianity in India: from Beginnings to the Present, p. 374. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-826377-5.

Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These references are useful only to prove that the church is also known as Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. In 2002, church declared its name as "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". Some of these books had their first edition before 2002 and might be continuing contents without updating all these changes happening around the world. One of these books listing Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church in first place as the name of the church - That is not accurate too !! Another important thing we need to notice is that Lucian N. Leustean edited the book Eastern christianity and the cold war, 1945-91 (#3 in the list provided by the User:Kokkarani), he is referring the church as "Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church" but when Lucian N. Leustean edited next book in 2014 on the subject Eastern Christianity Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century he mentions the church name as THE JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH (OR THE MALANKARA JACOBITE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH). In his first book it is just a loose remark but in his second book it is a detailed explanation. Now my question is: Why do Wikipedia go back in time and pick one of the old names or aliases. I request co-editors and admins to change the article title to "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". We can have the redirection link as "Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church" , also mention in preface that this church is also known like this. This will resolve the issue of confusion arises for any reader with the official name (and commonly using name in present time) of the church. But I am not even anticipating any such confusions. Looks like it as an unnecessary worry of some editors. But I can say, if we are not using the actual name of the church in title and first place in Wikipedia article, it will lead to confusion. Thanks ---45.126.206.72 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malankara Jacobite Syrian church existed from 1665 as Oriental Orthodox church in different names at different points of time. All are the same church- Malankara Syrian Church Please see the preface in Malankara church.

The Malankara Church is a church of the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala, India, with particular emphasis on the part of the community that joined Archdeacon Mar Thoma in swearing to resist the authority of the Portuguese Padroado in 1653. This faction soon entered into a relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, and was thereafter often known as the Malankara Syrian Church.(Gregorios & Roberson, p. 285.; Vadakkekara, p. 91.) Malankara Syrian Church means Malankara Syrian Orthodox church. Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kokkarani is cleverly distorting facts
Marthoma 1 who was the Archdeacon of the entire st thomas Christians was elevated as Marthoma in 1653 by an indigenous tradition of laying hands of 12 priests. In fact Archdeacon Was not only a spiritual leader but also a political leader of St thomas christians. However the jesuits and carmalites propagated a theory that the consecration practiced Among St Thomas Christians is invalid. This prompted the St thomas christians and Mar Thoma I to write letters to different see's which st thomas christians have historic fraternity. They wrote letter s to Church of East, Church Of alexandria, Church of Antioch. The Patriarch bishop of Jerusalem (whether he is a Jacobite??) heard the plea and he came over Malankara to consecrate Marthoma 1 with proper apostolic validity in 1665. There is no reference that the church became under church of Antioch or any other because of this act. Mar Thoma Christians followed the same old chaldean east syriac tradition.If instead of a Jacobite prelate if an alexandrian or armenian prelate came in 1665 whether church would have been under them?
  • None of the Mar thoma Thirumenis were consecrated as Bishops or metropolitans of church of antioch or with consent or permission of patriarch.
They were all consecrated as Bishops of SURIYANI PUTHENKOOR CHRISTIANS.
  • Church of St Thomas was never called as Malankara Syrian Church till 19 th century. Missionary registers called the church as Syrian Church Of malabar. Jesuits and catholics called the church as Church of Malabar. The Book cHRISTIAN rESEARCH IN ASIA he narrates his conversation with a priest in mavelikara. there was no mention of a alleged church of antioch connection as suggested. Malabar and Malankara are used in same context t o show the kerala coast,
  • TRAVANCORE ROYAL COURT VERDICT WAS A TURNING POINT IN JURISPRUDENCE PRACTICED OR BELIEVED TILL THEN all earlier court verdict and royal decrees favored independent status for puthen koor christians
  1. oath of Koonan Cross 1653: Church is not under Pope
  2. Arthat Padiyola 1808 : Church is not under Jacobites
  3. Kandanad Padiyola:1806 Church is independent
  4. deportation of Abdul Mar athanasious :1825 Those who oppose Malankara Metropolitan will be deported
  5. allepy court verdict against eUYAKIN MAR KOORLOS to be Malankara metran :1850s: Malankara church is independent and dissolved Cheppad divaniyos decision of handing over power to euyakim mar koorlose
  6. mAdrass court verdit against Euyakim Mar koorlos and in favour of Thozhiyoor church.:1862 :Thozhiyoor church is independent
however the following documents suggest antioch subordination
  1. consecration of Palakkunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasious by Jacobite patriarch :1843 :First time a prelate consecrated directly by patriarch for Malankara .
  2. Mavelikara padiyola- first document to show malankara church was jacobite:1836. Malankara church cannot accept anglican reforms as we are jacobites under patriarch
  3. Mulanthurathy Padiyola- the formal agreement that brought Malankara church under complete control of patriarch:1876: We are Malankara dioceses of Jacobite church. Malnkara church was divided to 7 diocess and demolished Supremacy of Malankara Metropolitan by consecrating 6 Metropolitans for each diocess
  4. royal court verdict. based on above two document and the exhibit 15 kappi kanon (non existing law book) . Majority verdict(hindu judges): Malankara church is not independent however Minority verdict (christian judge) Malankara church is independent and as ols as church of antioch
In any circumstance JSCC cannot claim that they are Malankara church just by editting 20-30 yrs of 2000 yrs of malankara history to prove antiochian subordination.However the present title dof the name does not exist as at all.Iravikorthanan (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am not distorting any facts, however I present these facts for your consideration.

1) ( Marthoma 1 who was the Archdeacon of the entire st thomas Christians was elevated as Marthoma in 1653 by an indigenous tradition of laying hands of 12 priests.)

No. There was no such indigenous tradition of ordination of a bishop. This was an emergency step as there were no bishops available to ordinate him as a bishop. Marthoma knew this ordination was not canonical. He could not submit any valid canonical document in front of the King to prove his ordination is valid. Even now we know that some priests together couldn't ordain a bishop. So we accept that the ordination was not regular.

2) ( However the jesuits and carmalites propagated a theory that the consecration practiced Among St Thomas Christians is invalid.)

They didn't propagate a theory, however they just took advantage of the fact that the ordination was not proper; and people believed it. Catholics could reclaim a large people to their fold.

3) (This prompted the St thomas christians and Mar Thoma I to write letters to different see's which st thomas christians have historic fraternity. They wrote letters to Church of East, Church Of Alexandria, Church of Antioch. The Patriarch bishop of Jerusalem (whether he is a Jacobite??) heard the plea and he came over Malankara to consecrate Marthoma 1 with proper apostolic validity in 1665.)

The Syriac Orthodox Bishop of Jerusalem Gregorios Abdal Jaleel regularized the consecration of Mar Thoma I in 1665 and they forged a relationship each other.

4) (There is no reference that the church became under church of Antioch or any other because of this act. Mar Thoma Christians followed the same old chaldean east syriac tradition.If instead of a Jacobite prelate if an alexandrian or armenian prelate came in 1665 whether church would have been under them)

You may check when the Chaldean church was formed. It was formed only in the 16th century AD. What you mean by the East Syrian tradition? Is it Nestorian? or Chaldean? Whether Malankara church came under the authority of the Syrian church or not, it adopted Oriental Orthodox faith from Mar Gregorios Abdal Jaleel. Hence the rival faction, the Catholics called them Puthenkoor Syrians showing their new loyalty. This itself is a good reference that the Malankara church adopted Oriental Orthodox faith from 1665. Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to discuss the church history here for deciding the title for the article. I think we need to do this immediately in another section because I am seeing a chart St Thomas Christians divisions.svg is being replaced by a new one Saint Thomas Christian's - Divisions- History.png in many places in Wikipedia by an editor without a proper reasoning or justification. I am not sure the new chart has gone through a review by other editors/admins OR at least it is noticed by other editors. But in this section let's limit our discussion on finding the actual name of the church. I am saying in 2002, Jacobite church formed a new constitution. Here we don't need to discuss, whether Jacobite church existed from 1665CE or 52 CE in same form or different form or which was the constitution they had been following till June 2002. But once this constitution formed , Jacobite church clearly mentioned in the constitution that name of this church is "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". Then onward Church has been using "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" as the title - legally , officially and in common usage. Here again we don't have to discuss whether the term "Jacobite" is derogatory or erroneous because this decision has taken by the episcopal synod of Jacobite Church. In my previous talks I provided evidences that even media is referring this church as "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". Also the authors started referring the church as "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" who referred this church as "Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church" in their previous books. Let Wikipedia also use same title for the article - "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". Why do we need to use a non-existing name or some aliases and bringing confusion to readers? Looks like some wiki editors for some reasons do not like the name "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" and wanted to hide this name. That is the only reason I am seeing for changing the actual name in the title and taking it out from the preface in the article. What we will do if another user come tomorrow and claim for a new name for the church using another permutation-combination of the terms "Malankara", "Malabar", "India", "East", "Jacobite", "Syrian", "Syriac", "Orthodox", "St.Thomas" with some references from here and there. This is not only going to happen for this article. Similar claims can arise in articles of other Kerala Churches too if we are taking a deviation here. Hence let's stick to the actual name of the church as the title of the article that is nothing but "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" -59.95.64.184 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any complaint about the diagram as you mentioned, it should be discussed there. Please don't divert the matter of this discussion saying this and that. Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not diverting the topic. I am confident and consistent in my arguments. Seeing a long discussion in Malankara Church history, I am requesting everyone, not to get into the church history for this topic. It is irrelevant here to take a decision in this matter. These arguments would be useful when we are verifying the diagram/chart. Yes, we need to verify that once we close this. -59.95.64.184 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have given enough independent reliable published references, I request the the present name (Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church) to be kept. Also please note that my opponent/opponents only produced some news paper references. Thanks Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be seriously noted that there were a set of edit war in all related pages of Malankara Church and ST Thomas christian after the deliberate change of this particular Article. The Name WAS Changed to Malankara Jacobite Orthodox Church Aka Malankara Syrian Church. And there by reverting a large number of positive edits of the past to suit that Jacobite Syrian Christian Church is Malankara Church IN fEB 2016 . The detrimental efforts are noticed in wIKI pAGES lIKE St Thomas Christians, Malankara Church, Marthoma Church, Malankara Orthodox Church, Malankara Metropolitan, Marthoma Metran, Malabar Independent syrian Church, Syro Malankara, Syro mALABAR etc.The counter productive edits have resulted in chain edits in all those pages. IS there a ANTIOCHIAN Subordination FROM BEGINING or FROM 1665 IN PARTICULAR. Which is totally debatable and un-accepted by any church or church historians (other than jacobite). NBKokkarani Chaldean is used in Ref to the area Mesopotamia and Babylon where east syriac (estrangelo) is prevalent and it is not in ref of a rite church. The puthenkoor term is in relation with their loyalty to "Marthoma . the consecration by Patriarch Abdul Mar gregorious of Jerushalem happened many years after that. West syriac was formally introduced in Malankara after centuries later from the time of Maphrian Ivanious Mar Hidhayathulla popularly called as Idol breaker of Malankara. The authenticated use of west syriac started in malankara from 1876 onward. This is the reason why even now many syriac word in Marthoma ,Thozhiyoor churches are spelt in east syriac style
  1. However now we have to focus only one aspect the Name of the article .whether Jacobite Syrian Christian Church has a Name "Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church?
  2. Whether it is a officially approved name? By constitution, census reports, church publication, church websites,etc
  3. whether the name is a popular one?Iravikorthanan (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • (The puthenkoor term is in relation with their loyalty to "Marthoma . the consecration by Patriarch Abdul Mar gregorious of Jerushalem happened many years after that.)

NO, Coonan cross Oath was in 1653 & Regularization of Marthoma was in 1665. It took only 12 years. The faction who was loyal to Marthoma was called Malankara Church and the other faction was called Roman Catholic church. However in 1665 Marthoma forged a relationship with Greorios Abdal Jaleel and accepted Kaiveppu(traditional apostolic succession). Thus the learned historians say that they accepted new loyalty or Puthen koor. It is at this point the rival faction started calling them Puthen koor Syrians. The term Syrian is associated with the Syrian church, not with the language they use. If it was with the language they use , then they should have been called Syriac Christian. Chaldean church was called Chaldean. East Syrian Church was called Nestorian. Monophysite church was called Syrian. Those monophysites who united with the catholic church are called Syrian Catholics(middle east, not in India)

Jacobite church is definitely a Malankara Church , the other being Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.(Both are Malankara branch of the Syrian Orthodox church of Antioch). (vide ref. 1995 Supreme court of India final verdict in Malankara church case) Please see the link - www.malankaraorthodoxtv.in/Court%20Orders/Court%20Orders.htm

Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Kokkarani(aka Phantom and Mandrake the Magician), many of your above arguments are highly debatable. I can say its extreme Jacobite biased version of Kerala Church History. Anyway, lets come to the point - What is the ACTUAL name of this church? You said:As I have given enough independent reliable published references.....my opponent/opponents only produced some news paper references, Did you not see links of Jacobite church constitution, Official Website, SOC Patriarch's & Regional Head (Catholicos)'s pastoral messages which I shared above? "independent reliable published references" are good in many cases as a third party reference like in claim of population etc. But in this case, church references are IMPORTANT. This church had been referred by many names in past. But in 2002, Church declared in its constitution that this church name is "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" without any doubt . Wikipedia can not take a deviation here for one editor's POV unless the editor is not proving otherwise. Please see below the links from church publication website:

Since some editors here are big fans of Court Orders, I am providing link to a court document (in 2013):

Media/newspaper references are also important. if it is in one newspaper we can ignore it. But if all of them refers the church in same way we can not ignore that !! Requesting everyone to check the news on one recent incident related to Jacobite church: Please search in Google with the keywords "Priyanka Chopra" and "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" including quotes and again with "Priyanka Chopra" and "Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church" including quotes- ADMINS can easily find out the fact that "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" is the common name using for referring the church. Thanks - 45.126.205.180 (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above link is just your reference. It just says Jacobite & Orthodox factions of the Malankara Church. The news media also knows Jacobites and Orthodox are 2 factions of the Malankara Church. Thanks.Mandrake_the_Magician (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kokkarani, I am not understanding what you are trying to say! Here no one said its not a Malankara Church. But as wikipedia editors we can not alter the name of a church to indicate its a Malankara church or its an Orthodox Church. By the way, you please read the last line in that article: Catholicos Baselios Thomas I, head, Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, welcomed the SC order: “The Jacobite Church has been demanding a permanent solution for the stand off with the Orthodox Church. Jacobite Church wants to find a solution through talks and by settling cases,” the prelate said. There is no "Malankara" and "Orthodox" in the church name -45.125.146.48 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the many churches earlier part of unified Malankara Church or in a simple way its one of the Malankara churches. It is integral part of Syriac Orthodox Church also. So what?? -45.125.146.48 (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Nasrani church too. So what?? -45.125.146.48 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Totally against this proposal. Reason is: it's a POV edit/proposal from one User. There is a high chance tomorrow another user will come and propose a different name Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church or some other name using a different combination of the terms Malankara, Jacobite, Orthodox, Syrian, Syriac, Nasrani, India, East etc. Wikipedia is not encouraging POV edits. Also similar proposals will come up in other Kerala churches articles too if we take a deviation here. For example, in Syro-Malabar Catholic Church there is a demand from individuals including priests that the present name is a misnomer and it need to be changed as "Mar Thoma Nazrani Church". Similar case with Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, many forums in the church wanted to change the name officially as "Indian Orthodox Church". All of them come to Wikipedia with these kind of name change proposals, we can not agree with that. We have to use official name of the church as the the title of Wiki article including this church. As I said before its not just a name which is in papers. This is the name commonly using since June 2002. ---45.126.205.206 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain and other Wikipedia Admins, Let us stick to the official name of the church ("Jacobite Syrian Christian Church") instead using a POV proposal of One User as the title of this article.-45.126.205.206 (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain and other Wikipedia Admins, Please restore the original title ("Jacobite Syrian Christian Church") of this article. I have given enough references from church websites and other materials available online which clearly states name of this church is "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". I could understand from the edit history, title of this article changed with below edit. (cur | prev) 19:37, 2 February 2016‎ Kokkarani (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (62,336 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Jogytmathew moved page Jacobite Syrian Christian Church to Malanakara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church aka Malankara Syrian Church: Title is incorrecet). Anyone can understand, this is a pure POV editing and POV editing is NOT acceptable as per Wikipedia policies. - 59.95.66.234 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:RM discussion. It will be closed by an uninvolved admin in due time. It will likely take them quite some time to get through the above back and forth, which is one reason i suggested you all stop repeating your positions again and again.--Cúchullain t/c 02:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

erroneously referred to as Jacobites?

[edit]

First line of current version of this article is that The Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church aka Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church commonly and erroneously referred to as Jacobites. This is a contradictory statement as the official name of this church is "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church" - --45.125.147.173 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If use common sense , we could understand that the church preferred to use the derogatory erroneous name Jacobite as it's official name because it is popular and easily recognizable. Hence it is stated commonly/popularly and erroneously called as Jacobites. The usage of Jacobite for this church is an error, how ever even though it is an error they use it because it is popular. Phantom (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very "special" common sense needed to understand this !! -> Church preferred to use the derogatory erroneous name Jacobite as it's official name because it is popular and easily recognizable. Let it be like that. I just pointed out here in talk page. I don't want to comment further on this. ---45.126.206.243 (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I just explained it why?. If you go and check the history of edit, you can see that somebody did it(not me). Also I welcome the removal of this unwanted part by the Administrator.ThanksPhantom (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kokkarani, Please patiently read my comments above. I never said, that was your edit. I "said" the first line of current version is like 'this' and it looks a contradictory statement. But you were advising me to use my common sense to interpret that !! But the administrator understood what I am saying and he took off that statement from preface. Thanks all - 59.95.67.190 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need Reference for "also known as Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church"

[edit]

Need a reference for this church also known as Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church . Any churches in Kerala, known by this name? ---45.125.147.173 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is there in the article. Phantom (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now a reference has been added there. Probably it is the only place that name is used. Not seen any other article or church websites referring Jacobite Church as "Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church". Since this is not a serious point, no more comments on this from my end. ---45.126.206.243 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the reference has been added by an administrator before and he himself suggested the title name Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox church. I just second his view.ThanksPhantom (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits with Name of the Church

[edit]

Lot of POV edits happening with the name of this church and title of this article as well. Actual name of this Church is Jacobite Syrian Christian Church - legally,officially and by all means.Please verify references provided below:

I am keeping the official name of the church in preface in first place.

@User:Kokkarani aka Phantom, Please do not push this name to 20 lines below in the article as you did yesterday. Actual name of the church should come first and clearly appear in the article.

@Wiki Admins, Please do not allow any editors to take out this name from this place. Also please revert back the title of the article to Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. In my opinion, Wiki Editors or Wiki Admins are not supposed change the name of a church, an institution or an organization. This will take out the credibility of Wikipedia. Thanks -45.126.206.4 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. Generally the first sentence needs to match the article title. Other variants can come after.--Cúchullain t/c 14:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, We will discuss this in Title move discussion (above section)- 45.125.146.72 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the actual name of this Church (Jacobite Syrian Christian Church) in the article which was lost on a mass clean-up -122.179.55.191 (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early History of Saint Thomas Christians

[edit]

The remark " Historically, the Saint Thomas Christians were united in leadership and liturgy, and were part of the Syriac Orthodox Church" is NOT correct. They were in communion withChurch of the East from 496 to 1599 and not part of any foreign churches till the Portuguese arriving in Malabar. - 122.179.55.191 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Malankara Syrian church or syriac orthodox church of malankara known as after arrival of Jerusalem Bishop of syriac orthodox church Gregorios Abdal Jaleel Robyrajan916 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Malankara Church in Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church

[edit]

Jacobite Syrian church is a integral branch of Syriac orthodox church also known as Syriac orthodox church of India. Malankara orthodox church is a independent church when they accept saint Thomas apostle is founder of church but Jacobite Syrian church believe as per tradition of Syriac orthodox church. Now, The Malankara orthodox church doesn't accept the lineage of Patriach of Syrian orthodox because As per constitution of Malankara orthodox church "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox). The Jacobite Syrian Christian follow continue as under the Patriach of Antioch, They are called Malankara Syrian Church(Jacobite Syrian Church). Robyrajan916 (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suppose I suppose this statement ! Malankara orthodox church is not any part of Syriac orthodox church. Malankara orthodox church Believers destroy syriac orthodox (Jacobites) Emblem on varikoli jacobite syrian church.[1] eldhose 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Two different entities. PPEMES (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite Syrian Church is Malankara Syrian Church

[edit]

After the Coonan cross oath the church divided into two, one is under Catholic Church other is under Syriac orthodox church. The first Bishop of Malankara syrian church is Mar Thoma I by Gregorios Abdal Jaleel and to be last Malankara Bishop consecrated by Syriac orthodox Church. Some of Bishops seperated from Syrian orthodox church in India, establish two different churches is also known as Marthoma Syrian Church and Malankara Orthodox Church. After the establish of Catholicos of the East by Ex-Patriach Ignatius Abded Mshiho II, The Malankara Orthodox Church accept the new throne of thomas apostle and disagreed Shalmusa[2] of Syriac orthodox church and to be independent, The one and only church that is Jacobite syrian church under the throne of Syriac orthodox church and follow old tradition. Robyrajan916 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/KefaOnline/videos/1932342073693803/
  2. ^ http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/MGregoriusGChathuruthil/18761216shalmootho.html

Why Coptic church is not Jacobite?

[edit]

Jacob Baradaeus ordained patriarch for Coptic Orthodox church also,why don't call as jacobite whenever how malankara orthodox church became Jacobite? traditionally after catholicate by deposed patriarch, the malankara orthodox church under throne of saint thomas apostle not Antioch. The Jacobite Syrian Church continue the throne of Antioch.The Jacob Baradaeus strengthened various parts of Antioch Church, who believe Miaphysitism. The other churches like Coptic Church known as their thrones so Malankara orthodox not jacobite.Robyrajan916 (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedly merge Malankara Church into Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church

[edit]

The catholicate of Malankara orthodox church established by deposed patriarch of Ignatius Abded Mshiho II[1]. Now, Syriac orthodox church or malankara orthodox church does not have any other contact with together as well as constitution aricle says "The Malankara orthodox church shall not recognize the Patriach, canonically consecrated with the co-operation of catholicos"(Constitution of Malankara orthodox).[2]and rejected the shalmootho of Syriac orthodox church[3]. As per constitution of malankara orthodox church Article 101 is Absent, whenever Article 1 have no value. The Jacobite syrian church only continue as the branch of Syriac orthodox church then immediately merge Malankara syrian church into Jacobite syrian christian church. Robyrajan916 (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suppose I suppose this statement ! Malankara orthodox church is not any part of Syriac orthodox church. Malankara orthodox church Believers destroy syriac orthodox (Jacobites) Emblem on varikoli jacobite syrian church.[4] eldhose 13:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.morgabriel.org/dictionary_patriarch.html
  2. ^ http://mosc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MOSC-Constitution.pdf
  3. ^ http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/MGregoriusGChathuruthil/18761216shalmootho.html
  4. ^ https://www.facebook.com/KefaOnline/videos/1932342073693803/

Removing the merging suggestion

[edit]

Seeing a merging suggestion template proposing Malankara Church article to be merged into this article. But could not find any reasoning in talk pages why the merging required. Malankara Church or Malankara Syrian Church is now an umbrella name which includes many churches. There had been splits happened in Malankara Church and today many churches like Malankara Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Marthoma and Malankara Catholic church share the lineage of Malankara Church. In this case, not sure on what basis some user made this merge proposal. Hence removing the invalid merging proposal. Next time some one adding this kind of merge template , please clearly mention in talk page for the reasons for merge suggestion. Thanks - 122.167.225.188 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The file Marady church.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved; most editors cite evidence of usage of current title over logic of proposed title. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:CONSISTENCY with Syriac Christianity, Terms for Syriac Christians, Syriac rite, Syriac Orthodox Church, Syriac Catholic Church, etc., as well as per WP:PRECISION to distinguish from national identity Syrian of Syria. PPEMES (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church (Jacobite Syrian Christian Church)
  • Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
  • Malabar Independent Syrian Church (The Thozhiyur Church)
  • Mar Thoma Syrian Church (Malankara)
  • Chaldean Syrian Church
As you can see: no Syriac, all Syrian. The only exception is Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church, which at WP is a redirect to Jacobite Syrian Christian Church. We have simply reversed the order preferred by GEDSH. Srnec (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it doesn't, for anyone initiated in this topic. Please see Syrian, and Syriac. PPEMES (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Jacobite Orthodox Church" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jacobite Orthodox Church. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Members field data from Infobox

[edit]

Not sure some users are repeatedly removing the population from infobox which is added with references. Please discuss here before removing/editing this filed - 122.182.247.136 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the references are invalid. Adherents.com does not conform to the standards of WP:RS, and the CNEWA site does not list a number for "Jacobite" anything, separately from the Malankara Orthodox. Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. But please go through the CNEWA site , its mentioned that " 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 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." The group under the supervision of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate is Jacobite Syrian Church ---122.182.247.136 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

[edit]

Unfortunately, this article (and others in the Malankara Church and Syro-Malabar Catholic Church have been the target of sock puppetry as well as meat puppetry and we will be seeking page protection in the long term against vandalism and POV-pushing editing. Thanks for your cooperation. Elizium23 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobite vs. Orthodox: confusing redirect, missing history

[edit]

Does any reader who notices the subtle difference between Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church win some kind of reward? Since the second one is a redirect to this article, which is properly titled with the church's official denomination, why is that redirect so? It's very confusing.

By the way, both articles are extremely vague or even reticent, in their History sections, about the 1911 dispute that started the split between Orthodox and Jacobite churches, which is better described here. --176.247.145.53 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of dubious content and removal of sourced content

[edit]

@Johnchacks: most of your latest edits in this article has been undone due to the following reasons:

  • You have not provided citations to show that the content is correct (eg. Archdioceses belong to JSCC etc.)
  • You have not explained why you removed the cited contents (eg. Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India etc.) Jude Didimus (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jude Didimus:, Your statement //most of your latest edits in this article// is NOT fully correct. Recently I did only one change in this article - reverted the changes you made in the article from 16th to 18th March and it was for the reason which I mentioned in the edit summary. Again, the title of this section //Addition of dubious content and removal of sourced content// is NOT correct in its true sense. I have not added or removed anything from my end. The addition/deletion happened was as part of the restore, and I clearly said its a temporary restore until reaching a consensus in other talk page. Since you already reverted my edit, I don't think anything more to discuss on the above bullet points here.--John C. (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnchacks:, what exactly do you meant by "temporary restore until reaching a consensus in other talk page"? Other articles, and their talk pages, should have no influence on this article. Also, just as a general notice, you are responsible for your edits, even if you're restoring material previously added by other editors. You essentially take "ownership" of that content, and are required to make a good faith effort to support it with reliable sources. More importantly than that, there's no good reason to remove reliably sourced information. If it was done as part of a reversion, you're generally expected go back in, and restore the cited information. I'm not chiding you here, but rather, hoping that you take this advice on board in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

[edit]

Change the title,Jacobite Syrian Christian Church to Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church 103.82.77.158 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please see WP:RM/CM for the process of requesting a new article name. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

[edit]

Please add irenaous paulose bishops name in the bishop list as he is the bishop of Calicut diocesan 152.58.203.100 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article seems to erroneously suggest that Saint Thomas Christians were subject to the authority of the Miaphysite Patriarch of Antioch from ancient times. This is in stark contrast to the view put forward by many authoritative sources which unequivocally state that Saint Thomas Christians were part of the Nestorian Church of the East, headed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century. Sources include,

While the dominant view is that the Thomas Christians were continually in communion with the Ch. of E. under the Cath.- patr. of Seleucia-Ctesiphon until the arrival of the Portuguese in the 15th cent., the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church holds that Thomas Christians held in great esteem the ecclesiastical authority of the patr. of Antioch over the ‘East’,...The first head of the Church, after it asserted a Syr. Orth. identity, was Archdeacon Parambil Thomas (1637–70), the chief protagonist of the ‘Coonan Kurishu Satyam’ of 1653 (Oath at the Leaning Cross, Mattanchery); shortly thereafter, he assumed episcopal dignity with the name Mar Thoma I and was subsequently consecrated canonically by the first Syr. Orth. delegate, Mor Gregorios ʿAbdel al-Jaleel, who arrived in 1665.

— Thomas Joseph

This means that the story about ancient ecclesiastical ties of Saint Thomas Christians to the Miaphysite Patriarchate of Antioch is Jacobite point of view. I could not find any reliably published, independent source that attests such a connection before 1665. In other words, Oriental Orthodoxy in India, began in 1665. It is also noteworthy that many other Wikipedia articles such as Saint Thomas Christians, Church of the East in India, India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province) and Malankara–Persian ecclesiastical relations are in line with the mainstream scholarly view supporting ancient ties with the Nestorian Church of the East. Pinging user Logosx127 and Pbritti for their opinion on this matter as both these users have quite a lot of experience editing articles related to the historic Malankara church.--Macinderum (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macinderum I'm not entirely sure what issue you're trying to convey. What part of the article did you find objectionable?
The section history says: According to Indian Christian tradition, the Saint Thomas Christians of Kerala were evangelized by Thomas the Apostle, who reached Malankara in 52 CE. Due, at least in part, to migrant East Syriac Christians, the Saint Thomas Christian community gradually gravitated towards the Persian Church of the East headed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and became part of its archdiocese of Rev Ardashir, by 420 CE.[1][2][3] This communion with Nestorian church lasted till the arrival of Portuguese colonists in the 16th century.[4] Inconsistent with this mainstream scholarly view, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church maintains that Saint Thomas Christians always acknowledged the ecclesiastical pre-eminence of the Patriarch of Antioch over the "East", which covers Persia and India. This teaching is primarily based on the canons of the ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. The Jacobite church further argues that the Persian bishops who governed Saint Thomas Christians, recognized the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch before 500 CE. Still, even the Jacobite church admits that Saint Thomas Christians had perpetual connections with the Church of the East from the 14th to 16th centuries.
I think this is in line with the available academic literature on the topic , which includes the above mentioned sources as well. Logosx127 (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Logosx127, Thanks for responding promptly! If you check the edit history of the article, you will find that it says what it says because I edited it a few minutes ago, based on reliable sources. It previously contained wrong information. I do not want an edit war over that change, so I decided to listen to a couple of experienced users.--Macinderum (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Macinderum: Good fixes. There is a common misconception that the Antiochian connection has been present since ancient times, despite its origins in the early modern period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, few things:
1) "Church of the East" does not always refer to Nestorianism, although that is the popular use. There were two factions of the Church of the East, one being the Syriac Orthodox Church of the East, under the Maphrian of the East, and the other, the Assyrian Church of the East.
2) The reason why most scholars would only attest to the Nestorian presence, is because the largest of the St. Thomas Christian sects, is the Syro-Malabar Church.
3) There was the presence of the Nestorian Church in India, but according to St. Dionysius Bar Salibi, in his book "Ten Chapters", "the majority of the Indians.. accept the faith of the great Severus". (unfortunately can't find a copy of this online)
4) According to the "Narratives of Joseph the Indian", which was published in 1509 as "Novus Orbis", about an interaction between a St. Thomas Christian and the Pope of Rome, the Catholicos got his authority from the Patriarch of Antioch, which could only refer to the Maphrian. This is also present in this [4]https://www.nasrani.net/2010/06/05/the-story-of-joseph-the-indian-with-a-historical-appraisal-of-the-affairs-of-st-thomas-christians/ "During his visitation to Pope Alexander VI, Joseph declared that Church in the East is governed by the Catholicos Patriarch at Babylon and his right of appointing Bishops to Malabar. When Joseph was asked about the authority to the Catholicose Patriarch, Joseph clarified that when St Peter, who was the Bishop of Antioch, had to move to Rome, he left a Vicar at Antioch. It is from him, the Catholicos get the authority to govern the Church in the East."
5) According to "Christian researches in Asia" by Claudius Buchanan, "The European priests were yet more alarmed, when they found that these Hindoo Christians maintained the order and discipline of a regular Church under Epispocal Jurisdiction: and that, for 1300 years past, they had enjoyed a succession of Bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch"(pg 106) [5]https://archive.org/details/christianresearc00buchrich/page/106/
6) According to a Latin translation of the election of Patriarch Ignatius David II in 1581(which I believe is in Vatican Archives), the Catholicos, under the Patriarch of Antioch is known as "Basilius cath(holi)cus orientis et Indiae sed. scil sancti Thomae Apostoli." (Pg 177) [6]https://archive.org/details/lecouventdebarsa0000honi/page/176/
7) According to Byzantine monk Neilos Doxapatres, who lived in the 1000s, he says "The Patriarch of Antioch holds all of Asia, and the East, and India, where until the present day, catholic who ordained catholics, sends the so-called Romogyreos, and Persia. Now and this Babylon, the now-called Bagda; and from there the Patriarch of Antioch was sending a katholikon to Eirinoupolis, the so-called Eirinoupoleos and the Armenians, and Avasgian, and Ivirian, and Midian, and the Chaldeans, and Parthian, and Elamites, and Mesopotamia.” This was brought up in the nodern jurisdiction arguments between Antioch and Jerusalem in the Eastern Orthodox Church, [7]https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/blog/2013/04/29/the-official-response-of-his-beatitude-theophilos-iii-of-jerusalem-to-his-beatitude-john-x-of-antioch-concerning-the-canonical-jurisdiction-of-the-emirate-of-qatar/?print=print Halershes (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsvoLYCUvQE This is from Mar Aprem Mooken, who is the head of the Assyrian Church of the East in India. As you can notice the vestments and the altar style is from the Syriac Orthodox Church. Halershes (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong video, you can study the history of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church in that one, but here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWpAeUIC_cU Halershes (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halershes, First of all, let me point out that two your sources (1 and 2) are blogs, which are not admissible in Wikipedia. We need reliably published, secondary or tertiary English language sources, preferably having no connection to the Syriac Orthodox Church. Even according blog 1 (nasrani.net) that you cited, Joseph the Indian was a Church of the East priest, directly ordained by Catholicos-Patriarch Shemon IV. A reliable article on the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church authored by Thomas Joseph and published by Gorgias, clarifies that Joseph the Indian incorrectly identifies his Catholicos-Patriarch as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch. I have not seen any reliable source that uses the term 'Church of the East' to refer to the Syriac Orthodox Church. Scholars always use that term to denote the Nestorian Persian church. However, I agree that Claudius Buchanan's 1811 book Christian researches in Asia does say in page 107 that Indian Christians were under the jurisdiction of bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch for 1300 years. That is certainly incorrect. It must be treated as an exception that is very much inconsistent with a plethora of scholarly sources which explicitly state that Saint Thomas Christians were historically part of the Persian Church of the East headed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Logosx127 and Pbritti, if you don't mind, please share your views.--Macinderum (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your objections to the source I've shown you records from the Vatican Archives? From the election of Patriarch Ignatius David II Shah that shows that the Jacobite Catholicos had authority over India, (Pg 177) [6]https://archive.org/details/lecouventdebarsa0000honi/page/176/]. Additionally, the source that I showed you about the Byzantine Monk, is not from a blog but from the translation of the official response of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem to the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, published on their official website "[8]https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/".
Further evidence for the Catholicos of the East being under the Jurisdiction of Antioch, is "But in any case the diocese of John was ‘ great,’ beyond the power of any single man to do justice to; and it ia probable therefore thet he held the rank of Metropolitan, with other bishops subject to his supervision. He himself was subject to the Archbishop and Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, who was, in his turn, a man placed under authority ; for this Catholicate “ was, as it w’ftre,^a vicarial jurisdiction of the see of Antioch, in the same manner that the Metran of Ethiopia was dependent on that of Alexandria.”"[[9]]
Also, I agree that Joseph the Indian was mistaken for calling his Catholicos appointed by the Patriarch of Antioch, but this nonetheless shows that the Syrian Christians of Malabar shows how the Indian Christians viewed the Patriarchate of Antioch. Patriarch Ignatius Yacoub III says the following about this, in his book "Syrian Church in India."
> He says "The Nestorians penetrated the church of Malabar in the name of the See of Antioch, as the above mentioned Joseph said in his book. In fact, when Pope Alexander VI asked him, 'By what authority does the Nestorian patriarch administer Malabar?' Joseph answered, 'The Apostle Peter first administered the Church of Antioch. But when the evil heresy of Simon Magus spread in the Church of Rome, Peter went to Rome to defeat Simon and help the distressed Christians. Before he left, however, he appointed a deputy. The present patriarch is his successor.' By this means, the Nestorian catholicos extended his authority over the church of India for a time. Joseph’s words remained firm in the minds of the Malabarians until the arrival of orthodox metropolitans to Malabar for the second time. We read in a Syriac manuscript that the Malabarian Abraham, priest of the Church of Angamali, wrote in 1702, to Paul, priest of Parur that, 'The Catholicos of the East is the same Patriarch of Antioch whose authority extends from Antioch to the farthest end of the East.' " [10]https://www.gorgiaspress.com/history-of-the-syrian-church-of-india
Evidence for Miaphysitism in India, cited by William Palmer in "A treatise on the Church of Christ: designed chiefly for the use of students in theology", "https://archive.org/details/treatiseonchurch01palmuoft/page/322/mode/2up" where he cites from Buchanan that " "the creed of the Syrian Christians of St. Thomas in India is stated to include a condemnation of the errors of " Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Manes, Marcianus, Julianus, Nestorius, and the Chalcedonians."[11].
Further evidence that the Church of Malabar viewed itself as under the Patriarch of Antioch is in "Narratives of religious identity" by Dr. Sarah Knight which was a Thesis submitted to the University of London. [12].
I'll make changes based on this, that I hope you'll be happy with. Please lmk if you have any objections. Halershes (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, further evidence that the Church of the East was under the Patriarch of Antioch, pre-1600. From World Council of Churches, "In 280, the Church of the East was officially organized under the Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Papa bar Gaggai of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and in 410 it renounced all subjection to the see of Antioch." https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east#:~:text=During%20the%20first%20century%20of,bk%201%2C%20ch%2013). Halershes (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti Can I ask why you revised by changes? I provided the evidence clearly, mostly from outside the Church, including from the World Council of Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as Syriac Orthodox Church evidences that reference primary sources and manuscripts. And the edits I had made addressed the East Syriac relationship aswell. Halershes (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halershes I urge you to disengage yourself from edit warring as it is obvious that other users here clearly disagree with your arguments. Instead, I suggest you to get involved in the discussion. I am glad that you are already here. Wikipedia builds articles based on consensus. Logosx127 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with my edit? I've cited the sources as well as acknowledge the other side. I did not revert to my original edit, but acknowledged that it was under the Nestorian Churches Catholicate, which originally was under the Patriarch of Antioch, per the evidence above from multiple sources from various Christian denominations. If you can't tell me where I am wrong, please stop reverting my edits. You guys asked for independent sources. Meanwhile the current version of the article says "Inconsistent with this mainstream scholarly view, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church maintains that Saint Thomas Christians always acknowledged the ecclesiastical pre-eminence of the Patriarch of Antioch over the "East", which covers Persia and India. This teaching is primarily based on the canons of the ecumenical councils of Nicaea and Constantinople." This is wrong, as I've showed you before.
Source from Eastern Orthodox Church:
Cited in jurisdictional arguments between Jerusalem and Antioch: [13]https://en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/blog/2013/04/29/the-official-response-of-his-beatitude-theophilos-iii-of-jerusalem-to-his-beatitude-john-x-of-antioch-concerning-the-canonical-jurisdiction-of-the-emirate-of-qatar/?print=print
Neilos Doxapatres: "The Patriarch of Antioch holds all of Asia, and the East, and India, where until the present day, catholic who ordained catholics, sends the so-called Romogyreos, and Persia. Now and this Babylon, the now-called Bagda; and from there the Patriarch of Antioch was sending a katholikon to Eirinoupolis, the so-called Eirinoupoleos and the Armenians, and Avasgian, and Ivirian, and Midian, and the Chaldeans, and Parthian, and Elamites, and Mesopotamia."
Source from Anglican Church:
[14]https://anglicanhistory.org/england/riley/wolverhampton1887.html
"As Christianity gradually spread eastwards from Antioch, the Christians on the borders of Persia began to be known as the "Church of the East," and their chief bishop, or primate, as the "Catholicos of the East," who took rank as sixth in the Catholic Church, immediately after the five great Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This primate was immediately dependent on the Patriarch of Antioch, by whom he was invested with the dignity of the Catholicate, and this continued until the rise of the Nestorian heresy in the fifth century. In 431, Nestorius and his teaching having been condemned by the third Oecumenical Council (of Ephesus), the Church of the East threw in her lot with the arch-heretic, and was formally cut off from communion with the Catholic Church; shortly afterwards the Catholicos of the East assumed the further title of Patriarch.
Separated from the mother See of Antioch, the Church of the East [1/2] continued to flourish and increase; for a time, indeed, it seemed as if Nestorianism would vanquish the truth. "
Source from World Council of Churches(which the ACOE is a part of):
[15]https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches/holy-apostolic-catholic-assyrian-church-of-the-east#:~:text=In%20280%2C%20the%20Church%20of,Afghanistan%20and%20south%2Dcentral%20Asia.
"In 280, the Church of the East was officially organized under the Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Papa bar Gaggai of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and in 410 it renounced all subjection to the see of Antioch. The eastward movement of the church saw Christian communities flourishing in what is now Afghanistan and south-central Asia."
Source from Scottish Missionary in India:
[16]https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501998/page/n107/mode/2up
"But in any case the diocese of John was ‘ great,’ beyond the power of any single man to do justice to; and it ia probable therefore thet he held the rank of Metropolitan, with other bishops subject to his supervision. He himself was subject to the Archbishop and Catlntlicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, w'ho was, in his turn, a man pla<red under authority ; for this Catholicate “ was, as it were a vicarial jurisdiction of the see of Antioch, in the same manner that the ]Metran of Ethiopia w-as- dependent on that of Alexandria.”"
So it is not against the scholarly consensus that the Patriarch of Antioch did not have authority over the East. I've also cited evidence before that the Malabari Christians viewed their Catholicos(even if incorrectly) as subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. All these points were acknowledged in my edit that it was based on "Christian Tradition" and the "Churches" beliefs. Halershes (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halershes Information on the pre-sixteenth century history of the St. Thomas Christian community comes mainly from Portuguese records. The decrees of the Synod of Diamper, Jornada of Alexis Menezes, etc. are prominent among them. Per the accounts in these primary sources, Thomas Christians were in continuous relationship with the Church of the East also known as the Nestorian Church. How far this relationship extended is a matter of dispute, but it is clear that Syriac Christians in Kerala alligned with the Nestorian Church in terms of beliefs and rites. The Catholic Church emerged in Kerala in the 16th century and the Jacobite Church after 1665. According to the Roman ecclesiastical tradition, it is common practice to assume that the whole of the East was under the jurisdiction of Antioch. The same idea can be seen not only among Jacobite historians but also in the writings of Catholics and Protestants alike (Different versions of the same presumption can be seen in books by Ignatius Yacoub III, Placid Podipara, Milne Rae and Buchanan). However most modern historians reject this view. By 'The East' in this context is meant only the East province of the Roman Empire. The notes you quote from the 'Narratives of Joseph the Indian' are errors that occurred when the interviewer recorded the account given by the priest Joseph the Indian incorrectly . It must also be noted that this same Joseph went to the Nestorian Patriarch and received priestly ordination. Moreover, there is no evidence that he ever went to the Patriarch of Antioch (be it Jacobite, Melkite or Maronite). Moreover, it is a fact that by the time of the Diamper Synod in 1599 and by the Portuguese threat, the Christians of Kerala had begun to reject Nestorius. Among those who did this was Mar Abraham who was formerly a Nestorian Metropolitan. For the same reason, it would not be surprising if someone else did such a similar anathematisation in the 17th or 18th centuries. Logosx127 (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your objections to this?:|
According to tradition, the Malankara Nasranis of Kerala were evangelized by Saint Thomas the Apostle, who reached Malankara in AD 52. According to Christian tradition, the Patriarch of Antioch had jurisdiction over the East, which included India. The Patriarch of Antioch had sent delegates to the Church of Malabar, evidenced by the Knanaya Migration in AD 345, when St. Eustathius of Antioch had directed the migration of 72 families of Syriac Jewish migrants from Edessa to Malabar, alongside their bishop St. Joseph of Edessa under the leadership of St. Thomas of Cana. In AD 420, the church came under the jurisdiction of the Catholcios of Selucia-Ctseiphon, who was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch in the beginning, as part of its archdiocese of Rev Ardashir. In the 5th century, it broke communion with Antioch and declared autocephaly, largely in part to its Nestorian Christology. Still, the Church holds that the Syrian Christians of Malabar viewed itself and their Catholicos as under the jurisdiction of Antioch, and there is evidence that it still adhered to a Miaphysite Christology. The Nasranis were administratively under the single native dynastic leadership of an archdeacon, which was a hereditary role held within the Pakalomattam family, traditionally viewed as having been appointed by St. Thomas the Apostle. Halershes (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Logosx127@Macinderum@Pbritti Please let me know which parts of this you find objectionable. Halershes (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again please @Macinderum lmk what your issues with these edits are. Halershes (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the Synod of Diamper and the Portuguese records are considered objectionable by basically every single denomination of the community, including the Syro-Malabar Church. Considering that as the main source is questionable. Halershes (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the main authority of the Patriarch of Antioch was only over the Eastern diocese of the Roman empire. This is actually why many say the Catholicate was established, as the deputy of the Patriarch of Antioch over the area outside the Roman Empire, which is why when conflicts between the and Roman Empire increased, the Catholicos of Selucia broke from the mainstream church, and broke communion with the Patriarch of Antioch. Afterwards, in the Syriac Orthodox Church we had the Maphrianate of the East, which was founded in 559, abolished in 1860 and reestablished in Kerala in 1964, the Maphrianate being the "Jacobite Syrian Christian Church". The same jurisdictional practices was practiced by the Patriarch of Alexandria, who appointed a Metropolitan of Ethiopia. Halershes (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halershes, I'm afraid this discussion is becoming an intimidating WP:TEXTWALL and I'm struggling to make sense of it. I do not know whether the doctoral thesis of Sarah Knight that you cited is peer reviewed by recognized specialists or independent parties. If not, I very much doubt whether it is admissible as a source in Wikipedia. From the sources you provided, it seems like the Persian church had ecclesiastical connections to the See of Antioch before 410 CE. However, this connection was perhaps nominal and not very consequential or relevant because several superior sources don’t mention it. For example, the Gorgias article on the Church of the East does not mention the original link to Antioch, but rather says that it is a distinctive church that developed outside of the Roman Empire, which had a presence in South India, since 500 CE. It is also clear from a number of good sources that the Saint Thomas Christian community got integrated into the Church of the East archdiocese of Rev Ardashir by approximately 420 CE, after the church has severed all ties to Antioch. In other words, the supreme religious leader of Saint Thomas Christians from the early 5th century to the 16th century was the Catholicos-Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and not the Patriarch of Antioch. Please check the reliable sources in the Wikipedia articles related to the Knanaya community. All of them say that the Knanaya were East Syriac Persian migrants, who were atleast, in part, responsible for drawing Saint Thomas Christians to the Church of the East. I have not seen a single reliable source confirming the prevalence of Miaphysitism in Kerala before 1665. Trustworthy sources, instead, say that Saint Thomas Christians were Nestorians till the 16th century.--Macinderum (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you have stated, the Knanaya, who came in 345 AD predates the Church of the Easts independence from Antioch. The Gorgias article doesn't mention it because the unique nature of the Church of the East only comes after its independence from Antioch. Church of the East would trace themselves back to the preaching of St. Addai in Edessa, same as the Syriacs within the Syriac Orthodox Church. Obviously all these communities are interlinked. Dr. Sarah Knight is a recognized expert on the Syriac Orthodox Church in India and thus is a reliable source. [17]https://www.gorgiaspress.com/sarahknight Knanaya tradition itself traces it back to St. Thomas of Cana, who was sent by St. Eustathius of Antioch, and I have sent you relibable sources, and also the official website of Knanaya Valiapally Ranni, which is a major cathedral of the church. The sources on the [Knanaya] wikipedia, [St. Thomas Christians] wikipedia doesn't even provide nearly as many sources, or nearly as reliable sources as the ones you are asking for, so I don't understand what the issue is with my sources. My main issue with all these edits is that it is undermining the Churches traditions, not just of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India but the entire St. Thomas Christian Community. I think most of the pages in Wikipedia need to be edited to account for St. Thomas Christians own perception of history, instead of solely relying on the Portuguese and colonial era sources(which can be addressed ofc), which all St. Thomas Christian denominations both East and West Syriac rite reject. We have great historians such as those from Gorgias Press, SEERI, EM Phillips, and other historians that have documented and spent their lives researching on this issue. [Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View].
> But again, even though with us in the region of the East the catholicus and the patriarch are one; yet the holy apostles did not so deliver (to us); but they specified [or, “ordained"] either a simple bishop, or a metropolitan bishop, or a bishop-catholicus, or a bishop-patriarch. And this canon sustained in all part of the East until the time of the King [= emperor] Theodosius the Younger. In his days, when Cyril and John of Antioch and the rest of the Westerns had lawlessly anathematized saint Nestorius, and he had been driven into exile, then the East rejected the headship of the patriarch of Antioch from her, as was right, and set him aside, because he had erred, and did not accept his dominion. Nevertheless formerly he of Antioch was a patriarch, he of Seleucia a catholicus, and [the latter] was set under his [the former’s] authority. And also the Patriarch of Antioch was proclaimed before him [in the diptychs].
Excerpt from Tract 2 Chapter 6 of Pseudo-George of Arbela Commentary of the Ecclesiastical Services (9th century?)
^ This is from a source from the Church of the East itself
[18]https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Gewargis-of-Arbela-Pseudo- Halershes (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/71559/3/Mar-Emmanuel_Emmanuel_J_201511_PhD_thesis.pdf
Please also view Pg 98 of this source Halershes (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this:
"The Anglican biased historian argues that the emergence of Jacobites in Malabar was a switch of allegiance from Nestorian Edessa and Babylon to Jacobite Antioch and thus from the tradition of St. Thomas to a heretical tradition of St. Peter.28 E.M. Philip29 in his book The Indian Church of St. Thomas, upholds “the tradition that St. Thomas himself came to India in A.D. 52, citing indirect evidence in its favor and arguing that, while it could not be proven, Rae had failed to disprove it with his conjectures.”30 He rejected Rae’s “neat division of the church history into Nestorian, Roman and Jacobite periods, largely because he was not convinced that the Syrian church to which the Kerala Christians were ecclesiastically linked had been consistently Nestorian prior to 1500; he saw it as a mix of Jacobite and Nestorian, with the Jacobite being the stronger part of the mix.”31
https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9781506461366/St-Thomas-and-India
This book has been endorsed by Malphono Sebastian Brock, and numerous number of other scholars. I've also showed you previously that Mor Dionysius Bar Salibi who lived in the 12th century said the same thing. Halershes (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halershes, I'm sorry to say that most of the sources that you provided are either dubious or of poor quality. The Gorgias press article on Sarah Knight that you presented says that she is from Kerala, India.(Exhibit 1) Other sources confirm that she is actually a member of the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church and that her works reflect her community's own narrative.(Exhibit 2,Exhibit 3,Exhibit 4) The website of the church in Ranni that you spoke about, belong to the Jacobite faction within the Knanaya community.(Exhibit 5) Obviously, Jacobites would want to propagate their point of view by all means possible. But an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should not be used for that. Frankly, this WP:TEXTWALL that you helped significantly to build, will repel well-meaning users, who might otherwise have participated. Bring verifiable sources authored by recognized, independent experts in Syriac and Indian Christianity, from well-known publishers with page numbers. We can discuss those. Or else, I am not interested to further extend this textwall by talking to you, endlessly. On top of that, I urge you to abstain from edit warring to make this article in accordance with Jacobite point of view.--Macinderum (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not based solely on church traditions or community traditions. What we need are critical academic sources. Each church in Kerala has different traditions which often contradict each other.Most churches in Kerala accept the idea that St. Thomas the Apostle came to Kerala and spread Christianity, but each church differs as to which church family they were associated with after that. For example, according to Catholics, Christians in Kerala were Catholics from the beginning. Similarly, Jacobites believe that their ancestors were Jacobites from the first century. The problem is when these church traditions are added to Wikipedia articles, each church's history will become inconsistent to each other. That is why the books of independent academic historians should be taken as references here. All of these point to a connection with the Church of the East, or the Nestorian Church. Available primary sources, such as the 16th century records and pre-16th century accounts of various travellers, are consistent with these as well. While citing traditions, it is important to note when these traditions were actually recorded. Because traditions can be created at any time. Each church has developed traditions according to its interests. Examples of these are the Jewish tradition of the Knanaya and Bahminical tradition of the other St. Thomas Christians. Among the seven and a half churches said to have been founded by Saint Thomas, Syro-Malabar Church counts Palayur while the Orthodox counts Arthat. There are many such conflicting traditions among St. Thomas Christians. So it is difficult to record history based on existing traditions alone, especially when traditions of different denominations are at odds with each other. As far as I know Sarah Knight is an English linguist and professor and incidentally a Malayali Jacobite Christian living in the UK. Logosx127 (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my voice to express my support for the version restored by Logosx127. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll keep it as is, but I will add the Jacobite view, and the evidence for that(all from sources from outside the Jacobite Church aside from Dionysius Bar Salibi who lived in the 12th century, but the translation is from someone in the Church of the East). Halershes (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halershes, I have already advised you to stop making arbitrary edits which are clearly opposed by the majority of users involved in this discussion, and to add new edits only after a consensus is reached in the discussion. But it bothers me that you have not followed the path of discussion. It is the way Wikipedia functions and should function. Kindly realize that such attitudes of yours will end up causing troubles for yourself. So you should undo the edits you just made in this article and restore the status quo ante until a new consensus is made. Along with this I would also like to elaborate some of the errors in the content that you have unilaterally added.
The Jacobite Syrian Christian Church recognizes the ecclesiastical authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the East. Canon 33 further grants him authority over the Bishop of Seleucia and the entire East, a decree signed by John of Persia, then Bishop of Seleucia, who had claimed authority over Christians in India.
There is no Canon 33 in the First Council of Nicaea. It actually has only 20 canons as per the corresponding Wikipedia article on the topic. The sources you have added to support this erroneous statement are unreliable ones.
The Church of the East itself emerged when the Catholicos of Seleucia reorganized itself in AD 410 and declared independence from the Patriarch of Antioch around AD 424.
This is one of the passages where you have added content that is completely contradicted by the reference given. For instance, the Baum source in p. 21 says: Concerning relations with the patriarch of Antioch, no claim of Antiochene jurisdiction over the Church of the East during the synods of 410, 420, and 424 can be found. In fact, none of the ancient ecclesiastical sources claims a dependence of the East Syriac church upon Antioch as mother church.
Additionally, in the 12th century, Dionysius Bar Salibi, the Metropolitan of Amid, noted that most Indian Christians followed the teachings of Severus of Antioch.
The source you have added here is a primary source which cannot be used without the aid of a secondary or tertiary source. Unless it is not satisfied, the statement cannot be included.
Local historian E. M. Phillip argues that the belief that Nestorians were the dominant Christian group in India stemmed from a Western bias, and that there was both a Nestorian and Jacobite presence, with the Jacobite's being the stronger faction. According to Vatican archives from the 16th century, the Maphrian of the East viewed itself as having authority over the St. Thomas Christians in India.
This is yet another example of the distortion of the given source. The source clearly says Sedes Sancti Thomae Apostoli which cannot be translated as 'Saint Thomas Christians'. Even if the phrase is translated as throne or a diocese, this interpretation is never correct.
However, the Jacobite Church acknowledges the longstanding connections between the Saint Thomas Christians and the Church of the East, particularly from the 14th to 16th centuries. Despite these ties, the Church maintains that the Saint Thomas Christians still regarded themselves as under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch. This is supported by the account of Joseph the Indian in the 16th century, who incorrectly claimed his Catholicos derived authority from the Patriarch of Antioch. Although Joseph was ordained by the Catholicos of Babylon, this is interpreted as evidence that the Saint Thomas Christians still perceived themselves as being under Antioch's authority.
This interpretation you are making is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. Such an interpretation itself is wrong as the editors here have repeatedly demonstrated to you. It is a known historical fact that Priest Joseph was ordained by the 'Nestorian' Catholicos-Patriarch (see the GEDSH source) and the source that you provided clearly say about what Joseph said to the narrator: the authority they say they have from the Roman Pontiff. It is obvious that the priest is talking about the Pope and not about the Patriarch of Antioch. Logosx127 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, I support Logosx127's arguments. It seems like Halershes is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their sole focus is on pushing Jacobite point of view. They intentionally turn a blind eye to what reliable sources explicitly say. Talking to them appears to be a sheer waste of time.--Macinderum (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I would appreciate it if we can reach a consensus that is actually reasonable to all sides, including the Jacobite Church, which is the subject of this article. I do understand somewhat why you might want to keep this article consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. However, the vast majority of the sources on the other pages, like St. Thomas Christians are not even from independent sources, the majority of them are from Syro Malabar and Chaldean Syrian Church sources, including Mar Aprem Mooken, thus not independent sources.
1) Canon 33 does exist, I believe, I have provided the sources. It might be a part of a pseudo-Nicene Canon which isn't accepted by the West, but it has been historically cited by the Church of the East to validate their Catholicate of Selucia-Ctszeiphon, which is established in the same canons. I will amend it to say that.
2) Yes, and I addressed that in the edit. "The Church of the East itself emerged when the Catholicos of Seleucia reorganized itself in AD 410 and declared independence from the Patriarch of Antioch around AD 424." The source said that the Church of the East declaring independence of Antioch in 424 wasn't necessary after it was reorganized in 410.
3) I understand your point, I misunderstood the reason of your edit as promoting the "Throne of St. Thomas" POV, which is a matter of controversy in present legal disputes between the IOC and the JSCC. I will amend it to "Diocese of St. Thomas."
4) I added a secondary source from Ignatius Yacoub III quoting the same. As this is just a secondary source and Mar Aprem Mooken was cited extensively in the St. Thomas Christians article I assume that this is fine. He actually offers a variety of sources and even talks extensively on the Nestorian presence, trying to give a wholistic history.
5) This exact view is present in the Gorgias article. [19]https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/entry/Malankara-Syriac-Orthodox-Church Mor Ignatius Yacoub III also talks about this "As late as the 16th cent., when the ecclesiastical relation with the Ch. of E. was in ascendancy, the recognition of the canonical pre-eminence of Antioch in Malankara is attested in the ‘Narratives of Joseph the Indian’ (1507), although incorrectly identifying the cath. as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch. It further argues that the fragmented evidence concerning the pre-Portuguese period is insufficient to establish the doctrinal confession of the Malankara Church as that of the Ch. of E. or preclude at least intermittent relations with the non-Chalcedonian Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch. However, it concedes continuous relations with the Ch. of E. between the 14th and 16th cent."
Please let me know if you have any additional changes you have concerns with. Wikipedia seeks to have a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which the vast majority of St. Thomas Christian articles don't have, entirely basing the article on colonial era sources(from people that burned the majority of St. Thomas Christian books in Syriac), as well as Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Syrian(ACOE in India) and Anglican sources, all of which cannot be considered "Independent". Atleast the Jacobite page should have the evidences for the Jacobite POV. Halershes (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you respond to the talkpge, the first thing you should do is revert your edits and restore the article to its status quo ante dispute. NPOV is not meant to accept all arguments on equal footing. There's nothing wrong with including a Jacobite POV, but it should be done in a way that makes the reader aware that it is simply a POV and not academic opinion. The Aprem Mooken reference is included in the St. Thomas Christians article for details specific to the Chaldean Syrian Church and not for the general history. When talking about general history, the books of generally accepted historians should be taken as references. Although this is an article about the Jacobite Church, the controversial issue here is about general Saint Thomas Christian history. On such a subject, it is wise to adopt references from academic historians, rather than a Jacobite Patriarch whose version is incompatible with the academic versions available. I'm not saying don't include it. But how to include it should be discussed and decided here. I have already pointed out the error in your interpretation of other references. I must reiterate especially the Baum source which actually says: Concerning relations with the patriarch of Antioch, no claim of Antiochene jurisdiction over the Church of the East during the synods of 410, 420, and 424 can be found. In fact, none of the ancient ecclesiastical sources claims a dependence of the East Syriac church upon Antioch as mother church. Logosx127 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of my sources are from independent academic sources. I only added the source from Patriarch Yacoub as a secondary source, the primary source being from an academic translation by a member of the ACOE. I will add "According to the Jacobite view". Halershes (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Determining whether this is the case and, if so, how to build the article is subject to consensus that has to be reached through discussion. Therefore kindly restore the status quo ante dispute before proceeding any further in the article page. Logosx127 (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew 7:3-5. "Consensus" on wikipedia isn't the majority opinion, but something everyone is happy with. I have been the only one making actual consensions Wikipedia:Consensus, using only secular sources, aside from one secondary source from a Jacobite Patriarch. Yet everyone here is adament that the Jacobite POV shouldn't be accurately represented on the Jacobite wikipedia page, when all the other articles are one sided. Please tell me what revisions you would be happy with for this "consensus" instead of reverting my changes. Halershes (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halershes, These are not simply one-sided but academic sided and are fundamentally based on reliable sources. Editors cannot add original research into Wikipedia. Jacobite POV is necessary in the article but not as a substitute for academic history. Logosx127 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you specify your desired changes here, other editors can give their suggestions and make necessary modifications. Logosx127 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mallampalli, Chandra (2023). South Asia's Christians: Between Hindu and Muslim. Oxford University Press. pp. 24–28. ISBN 978-0-19-060890-3.
  2. ^ Baumer, Christoph (5 September 2016). The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 58–68. ISBN 978-1-83860-933-7.
  3. ^ Kanjamala, Augustine (21 August 2014). The Future of Christian Mission in India: Toward a New Paradigm for the Third Millennium. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-1-63087-485-8.
  4. ^ Brock, Sebastian P. (2011). "Thomas Christians". Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Beth Mardutho.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacobite_Syrian_Christian_Church&oldid=1251711909"