Talk:Malabar Independent Syrian Church

[Untitled]
It is one of several groups of Saint Thomas Christians tracing their origins to St. Thomas the Apostle who, according to tradition, came to India in the year 52. In 1942 the Metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Church died without consecrating a successor. The Metropolitan of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church then consecrated a metropolitan for the church. The Mar Thoma Church also helped consecrate a metropolitan for the Thozhiyur church. The Malabar Independent Syrian Church and The Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church have created a strong releationship. If the Thozhiyur Church encounter a problem they can ask help from the Protestant-reformed Mar Thoma Church (a reciprocal relationship).most.joseph mar koorilose metroploitan RENOUNCIATD(RETIERED) ON 28.05.2001. The same day MOST.REV. CYRIL MAR BASELIOS METROPOLITAN WAS CONSECREATED has been METROPOLITAN, SUPREME HEAD AND PERMANENT TRUSTEE MALABAR INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH.
 * History

METROPOLITAN OFFICIAL ADDRESS AND E MAIL ID: MOST.REV. CYRIL MAR BASELIOS METROPOLITAN SUPREME HEAD AND PERMENENT TRUSTEE MALABAR INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH SABHA BISHOP HOUSE, ST. GEORGE CATHEEDRAL THOZHIYOOR P.O. THRISSUR (DIST) KERALA, INDIA, PINCODE 680520 mobile: 9447432809, 9447992783. office 0487 2681085 e mail ID: bishopcyril@gmail.com

Anachronism
This refers to the corrections made by 117.196.137.181 on August 17, 2008.
 * 1) Malabar Independent Syrian church was founded in 1772. At that time there was only the Malanakara Church.
 * 2) Do you know of any such document to show that the word “Orthodox” was in use to refer Malankara Church before 1909, the year Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious II died? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This refers to the corrections made by 117.196.137.181 on August 17, 2008 @ 14.25 & 14.35 Before making any corrections to or comments on this article, "Malabar Independent Syrian Church”, please read the verdict given by the Madras High Court on March 21, 1862 for the Appeal No:RA22/1862 filed by Euyakim Mar Coorilos Metropolitan of Antioch. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Eastern Oriental. - Words with almost the same meaning. Oriental is removed. Refer Wiktionary.
 * 2) Oriental Orthodox (Rejects Chalcedon). - How is it possible to have this Orthodox church in India, in 1772? Who brought it to India?


 * The statements made by User talk:Neduvelilmathew is misleading.On the same tune, when did the Navikaranakkar become Marthomite. Your Malpan only cut and pasted the Syriac Orthodx litrugy with Anglcian doctrine. One has to be dumb to write visiting Syriac Orthodox Bishops in this articles. Did they came for Vacation. Pamparam (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another grave misrepresentation of facts- " The Patriarch's influence was not universally popular, and in the eighteenth century a few Nasrani formed a faction decisively independent of the Syrian Patriarch; this faction gathered in Malabar, north of Cochin, and in 1771 amicably split from the remainder of the church.

The faction gathered in Malabar were in the minority, initially having control only over a simple hut in a jungle, but they gradually expanded in numbers; as a result of an 1862 court case, the Madras High Court confirmed that this group was an independent Syrian church, and it has subsequently been known as the Malabar Independent Syrian Church"

Can the editor who put this explain the formation of Thozhyur Church.Pamparam (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

THE HISTORY SHOWN IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE AND MISLEADING.PLEASE DELETE ,I AM A THOZHIYUR MEMBER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.81.248 (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with the comment written above by 122.59.81.248, a member of this Church.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific complaints, and can you offer sources that dispute what is said?--Cúchullain t/ c 20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you show the proof for the below history?

" The Patriarch's influence was not universally popular, and in the eighteenth century a few Nasrani formed a faction decisively independent of the Syrian Patriarch; this faction gathered in Malabar, north of Cochin, and in 1771 amicably split from the remainder of the church. The faction gathered in Malabar were in the minority, initially having control only over a simple hut in a jungle, but they gradually expanded in numbers; as a result of an 1862 court case, the Madras High Court confirmed that this group was an independent Syrian church, and it has subsequently been known as the Malabar Independent Syrian Church" Iam a thozhiyur church member.the history shown not true and self contradictory to the things happened.Because 1.As per the above history thozhiyur group formed by the people against Patriarch of Antioch.But the founder of this church (Mar Koorilose)was consecrated by the delegate of Anthiochean Patriarch (Mar Gregorios)!!(in another part of the article)

The real history of thozhiyur church is started from the fluctuating faith of Marthoma V and MarthomaVI.Please read and try to understand before posting and deleting.

Mor Thoma I remained with the orthodox church and was aware of his infirmity and never executed anything that would jeopardize his conscience. He wrote detailed letters to the Patriarch of Antioch insisting to send bishops to regularize his position. When the news reached the Church headquarters at Turabdin, the Patriarch of Antioch in AD.1665 summoned the Holy Synod and decided to depute a Metropolitan for the Malankara Church. With the help of Dutch Protestants, the Patriarch of Antioch sent Mar Gregorious Abdul Jaleel of Jerusalem (who belonged to the West Syrian Church) and he duly consecrated ‘Mar Thoma’ in 1665 as head of the Syrian Orthodox Church in India. Thus he became the first valid indegenious bishop of Malankara. Together they visited most of the churches in Malankara and reaffirmed the ancient faith and traditions of the Syrian Christians.

Morthoma I until his death in 1670 remained faithful and loyal to Antioch. Mar Gregorius Abdul Jaleel of Jerusalem was associated with the Jacobite Patriarchate of Antioch. Thus began the relation of the Syrian Church with the Antiochene Jacobites. Because of the relationship with the Syrian Church, the Church in Malankara (Malabar) was also known as Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. From 1665 to 1816, 'Mar Thoma' Metropolitans from the Pakalomattom family ruled over the Malankara Church as Metropolitans. In 1670 Mor Thoma I and Mor Gregorious of Jerusalem both jointly consecrated Mar Thoma II. Mor Thoma IV became head of the church in 1688 and administered the Church for 40 odd years.

Story of Mor Thoma V

Just before the demise of MarThoma IV, some of those assembled there, fearing intrusion and intervention by Nestorian Bishop Mar Gabriel, felt it necessary that a successor to MarThoma, should at once be consecrated and suggested Thoma Kathanar, a nephew of Mar Thoma for the high office. The bed ridden MarThoma was informed of the suggestion and also that he should lay hands on his nephew. The strictly Orthodox MarThoma IV, conscious of the consecration of his predecessors and of himself, flatly rejected the proposal. Meanwhile a section of priests assembled there declared that Fr. Thoma has been consecrated as MarThoma V with the blessing of his predecessor, but this was actually without the consent of MarThoma IV. It is reported that several of the priests left the scene in protest and there aroused a division in the Church.

A vast majority of faithful kept aloof from the new Mar Thoma V, saying that he is not a validly consecrated Metropolitan. They even submitted their complaints before Dutch authorities. As Mar Thoma V himself was aware of the invalidity of his said consecration, he appealed to Antioch in 1739, for delegating prelates to 're-consecrate' him. In 1746, there came Mor Ivanious Yuhanon of Amid, sent by Patriarch Geevarghese III. but unfortunately the friendship didn't last long. so exasperated MarThoma V that he renewed his application to Antioch praying for deputation of authorized delegates to re-consecrate him. In 1748, the Patriarch summoned Ramban Shakralla from Aleppo and consecrated him Maphriyono before sending him to Malabar

The Mar Thoma V had no alternative other than requesting for help of the Dutch authorities and they in turn agreed to bring the Primates from Antioch on the condition that Mar Thoma meets the fare. But contrary to the agreement reached earlier, neither Mar Thoma nor anyone authorized by him appeared before the Dutch authorities to clear the accounts which came to Rs.12000.

thozhiyoor church history

The Dutch then filed a civil action before the Travancore Government, which issued a warrant for the arrest of Mor Thoma. For some time he hid himself, but was at last arrested and delivered to the Dutch, who in turn threatened to deport him, if he failed to pay the sum demanded of him. In despair, he consecrated his successor under the title Mor Thoma VI.(There was some dispute over the consecration of Marthoma VI) It was Mor Baselious Shakralla during his stay at Mattancherry, built the Syrian Church located there, and worked hard to reaffirm the Apostolic faith of the Syrian Church. On 30 th Medam the Maphrian consecrated Ramban Yuhanon, who had accompanied him from Antioch, as the Metropolitan of Malabar under the title Mor Ivanios. The consecration was at the Kandanad Church. Towards the end of Mor Baselious's life, a reconciliation was brought about between Mar Thoma V and His Beatitude; but before the accomplishment of re-consecration of MarThoma V, Mor Baselios Shakralla passed away in 1764 at Mattanchery.Mor Gregorios, one of the two representatives of the Holy See then in Malankara, consecrated Kattumangat Abraham Ramban as Mor Kurilose at the Mattancehrry Church in December 1767 for Malankara.Marthoma VI was also unhappy about the authenticity of his position. He attempted to go back to Catholicism, but when his demand to be recognized as a bishop was rejected by the Catholic authorities, he returned to Jacobitism. (Mor Gregorious and Mor Ivaneous jointly again consecrated and renamed him as Mor Dionesius I later) Initially accorded recognition of Koorilose as Metropolitan by the Rajah of Cochin he soon faced fierce opposition from Mar Dionysios who used his influence with the more powerful Rajah of Travancore to have that recognition rescinded and Mar Koorilose dispossessed and imprisoned. Managing to escape to Anjur, only 5 kilometres outside the territory of Cochin and just within British Malabar, he eventually moved to Thozhiyur, which became the centre of his diocese.

Mor Thoma VI was consecrated in despair, and a time when the Dutch were threatening to deport Mor Thoma V. Marthoma VI applied to the surviving delegates for re-consecration, but for some time without success. At last, after Koorilos’ retirement to Thozhiyur, on a certain Sunday, when Mor Gregorios, the patriarchal delegate was celebrating the Holy Eucharist in the church at Niranam, Mor Thoma VI suddenly entered the church, and falling at the feet of the celebrant, earnestly implored pardon, with the result that the delegates consecrated from Tonsure to Bishop-hood and was reconciled with him. On 29th of May 1770, Mor Thoma VI was re-consecrated by the patriarchal delegates, Mor Gregorios Yuhanon (Metropolitan of Jerusalem) and Mor Ivanios (Episcopa of India), by name DIONYSIUS and was invested with the cross and the crozier sent from Antioch for his predecessor. Thenceforth the government of the Church was vested in Dionysius I (alias Mor Thoma VI) and Mor Ivanios (patriarchal representative) conjointly, and Mor Gregorios retired to the church at Mattancheri built by Maphryono Mor Baselios Shakralla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.81.248 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, the part of the article you are complaining about above has been rewritted according to the cited sources. I suggest you check those if you're interested. As to the long post following that complaint, other than some very long background on the subject, it does not appear to conflict with what's in the article currently.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to chuchullain:I have checked all the cited sources before commenting.None of them are said this group is against Syrian Patriarch and made an independent church.Actually they are loyal to syrian church.The cited sources especially by MP KOCHUMON and KC Varghese clearly proving that the ordination of Mar Koorilose to safe guard the syrian tradition.He also got the valid ordination ring from Syrian Patriarch,He ordained by syrian delegate Mar Gregorios.(from"sakthan thampuran" by puthezhathu ramen menon page 286,malabar manual page 286) 'How a rival group of syrian patriarch can ordinate a bishop by Syrian Patriarch Delegate?'

Actually Marthoma5 and Marthoma6 were against syrian Patriarch! Marthoma 5 didnt get any valid ordination from Syrian church as done for his predecessors.(the travancore state manual page 697 vol 1,suriyani sabha charithravum viswasa sathyangalum page 158,pulikkottil joseph mar divannasios page 39,40 He didn't compramise with syrian delegates. Marthoma6 also didn't compramise with the syrian authorities.He actually flirted with Roman church which was against of the Koonan Cross Oath taken by the Malankara church earlier.(travancore state manual page 715,717,the orthodox church of india page 72,vathamana pusthakam 20 page 206,the syrian christians of kerala page 48,"Parishudha kattumangat bavamar" by M P Kochumon)These sources (also in "forgotten bishops" by John Fenwick)clearly states that. It took 10 years Marthoma6 to compramise with syrian authorities only after the retirement of koorilose to thozhiyur .Marthoma 6 had to take from tonsure ordination.(Forgotten bishops by john fenwick,Mrthoma sleehayude indian sabha page183,Travancore statemanual page716,717)

Still i am asking where is the proof for" The Patriarch's influence was not universally popular, and in the eighteenth century a few Nasrani formed a faction decisively independent of the Syrian Patriarch; this faction gathered in Malabar, north of Cochin, and in 1771 amicably split from the remainder of the church."?

"it does not appear to conflict with what's in the article currently".--unsigned comment added by 122.59.81.248 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't be the judge of which side was right or wrong. Both Mar Thoma and Koorilose felt they were in the right and were acting with the true authority of the church. The idea is that Thoma was the official representative of the Syrian Orthodox Church; whether he should have been is a separate issue. In challenging Thoma Koorilose was challenging the established hierarchy. And clearly this split is what led to the creation of this church as a separate body. What do you suggest as more appropriate wording?--Cúchullain t/ c 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cant judge ,that is correct.But by saying 'Thoma was the official representative of the Syrian Orthodox Church" ,you became partial.Even Marthoma had no confidence in that matter and took re ordination in 1772.We are discussing a period between 1762 to 1772.Marthama 6 became official after the koorilose's expulsion from kochi and trvancore.Before that Koorilose was official;whether he should have been is a separate issue! As I mentioned earlier,the real issue was "not over the authority of syrian patriarch,But was Aagainst Pakalomattam Marthoma lineage. You wrote"And clearly this split is what led to the creation of this church as a separate body". That is a separate history after one century! The establishment of Thozhiyur church was within the Malankara church.The only difference was its location (first in british malabar) and the order against Koorilose.As the present article,the whole group moved to thozhiyur.But didnt actually.Only Koorilose and his brother moved to thozhiyur. Others fought against Pakalomattam Family Higherarchy within the church and succeeded. Second bishop went back to malankara.Pulikkottil ittop ramban (supporter of koorilose but not a thozhiyur member) became Malankara metran, ordinated by thozhiyur methran,when a Pakalomattam methran alive.Finally Marthoma 9 excommunicated from the church.Thus koorilose's mission became success and Kattumangattu lineage came into power in Malankara.Later Thozhiyur Kidangan Phelaxinos became Malankara methran.There was no parallel church against Malankara and never tried to expand the movement by establishing more parishes like other splits in malankara. Most of the thozhiyur bishops were malankara church (arthat church)vicars.There was no difference.The people joined and helped koorilose was also included malankara people. The real split only came after one century.In 1857 Yuyakim koorilose filed a case and made this church as a separate body. Hope you understand the real history and the present article to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.81.248 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That source says that Baselios was the one who was Maphrian and bore the name Shakralla, not Gregorios. Baselios is not really relevant to this article.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didnt mention, Gregorios was the Maphrian. Credit Risk (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not according to that source; it says multiple times that Baselios was the one who was Maphrian, not Gregorios.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some facts
This is based on a discussion with Mr. M.P. Kochumonn their Church historian and a few others who have access to their ancient records. The following details are taken from their books. (1) Kochumonn, M.P. ‘’Parisudha Kattumangattu Bavamar’’ (Holy Fathers of Kattumangattu). (2) Rev. K.C. Varghese Kassessa, ‘’Malabar Swathentra Suryani Sabha Charitram’’ (History of Malabar Independent Syrian Church).

Mar Baselios Shakrulla, Mar Gregorius, Ramban Juhanon and six others arrived at Cochin in April 1751 (Medam 14). In December 1754 they agreed that they will not ordain anyone without the permission of the Mar Thoma. (This agreement was prsented as evidence No: 27 at the Seminary case O.S.No. 439 dated March 4, 1879).Mar Baselios Shakrulla died on October 1764 (Thulam 9) at Mattancherry and was laid to rest at Kandanadu church.

In 1772, Mar Gregorius ordained Rev. Abraham Kathanar of Kattumangattu as a bishop and was given the name Abraham Mar Koorilos. Mar Gregorius died on July 10, 1773 and was laid to rest at Mulanthuruthy church. Ramban Juhanon (later Mar Ivanios Juhanon) died on April 18, 1794 and was laid to rest at Chenganoor church.

Above it is written that, “Mar Gregorius was upset  about how Mar Thoma had cared for him in his old age.” Now, why should Mar Thoma care for Mar Gregorius? Mar Gregorius was not ordained by a Mar Thoma and was not a member of this church Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's what the source, Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India, says. The Syriac Orthodox and Malankara churches were aligned at that time, and despite their disputes of authority, Gregorios and the others had been living and working alongside the Metropolitans since they had arrived in 1751. In fact Gregorios had performed the (re)ordiniation of Dionysius earlier in 1772. However, the aging Gregorios became dissatisfied with how Dionysius was treating him, and later that year he consecrated Cyril (Koorilose) as bishop despite his previous agreement not to do such things.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Cuchullain,

You seem to be much interested in the history of Malankara Church. Here is an explantion for your above letter.

The Dutch defeated the Portuguese in 1663 and the British defeated the Dutch in 1795. All these events mentioned above had happened during the Dutch period. The Dutch were keeping record of daily events and this is still in the Tamil Nadu’s State Archives at Chennai, India. After going through this record, I consider this as a very valuable and reliable source. The Dutch authorities are now digitising it. From where did Bishop Stephen Neill get the following ideas? (any references in his book?)
 * 1) ”the Syriac Orthodox and Malankara churches were aligned at that time”. In fact there was only one church, Malankara Church. (Please refer books and other records published before 1900 and are availabe)
 * 2) “the aging Gregorios became dissatisfied with how Dionysius was treating him, and later that year he consecrated Cyril (Koorilose) as bishop despite his previous agreement not to do such things.” Now, why should Mar Thoma care for Mar Gregorius?  Mar Gregorius was not ordained by a Mar Thoma and was not a member of this Church. Just for your information, when he arrived Mar Thoma did not even welcome him. In fact, real reasons are entirly camouflaged in Stephen Neill's work. For real reasons, please refer Dutch Records. Details are also given in, “Dutch Hegemony in Malabar and its Collapse,” by Dr. T.I. Punnen. Pub: University of Kerala, 1978. History of Marthoma Church (Malayalam) by N.M. Mathew, Ch.9. 2006 and afew other books

For more than one reason, I do not consider Bishop Stephen Neill's work, A History of Christianity in India, neither as a reliable source nor as a historical record. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've explained to you before, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources written by reputable authors. The Dutch records you mention are primary sources, which may be used for certain things like quotations, but not for any interpretation of the events. The Punnen book (assuming it's in English) may be useful, but I don't have access to it.
 * You misunderstood my comment. There was only one Malankara Church during this time; however it was aligned with the Syriac Orthodox Church. Gregorios, John, and Baselios were representatives of the Syriac Church sent to India. The Syrian bishops and the Metropolitan were often at odds, especially early on, but they eventually found a working relationship with each other, and Gregorios even (re)consecrated Dionysius in 1772, which is the entire reason he's known as Dionysius. Neill's book doesn't say where he got the bit about Gregorios being upset about how Dionysius cared for him, but it doesn't matter anyway, because it's not in our article. Gregorios was unhappy with Dionysius, so he went against his previous agreement not to consecrate other bishops and consecrated Cyril, and that's that.
 * Neill's book is certainly a reliable source, written by a reliable author and published by a reputable press, whether you personally like it notwithstanding.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malabar Independent Syrian Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.malabar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515061818/http://indianchristianity.org/thozhiyur.html to http://www.indianchristianity.org/thozhiyur.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jacobite Syrian Christian Church which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)