Talk:Malankara Church

Moving the article
A more historical and verifiable title for the article would be the Puthenkoor. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , Hi. I've seen that you have reverted the page move. Actually it wasn't an unnecessary disambiguation. I was going to create a new article for Malankara Church (Palayakūr). This is supported by many sources including Istvan Perczel's. It would've been better if you had discussed before the revert.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages are not moved preemptively. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Page move should not be done without proper discussions in talk page - --John C. (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * //I was going to create a new article for Malankara Church (Palayakūr)//. Lets verify the evidences Palayakūr is also known as "Malankara Church" or continued to be known like that after Coonen Cross Oath - --John C. (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In no way, shape, or form are Pazhayakoor or Puthenkoor free of bias or neutral. Puthenkoor is a pejorative and outright rejected by the Malankara Church. In addition, Pazhayakoor is a self-designated appellation used and propagated exclusively by the Syro-Malabar faction, which left the Malankara Church despite the oath at the Bent Cross, preferring suzerainty by Rome, to the rightful independence of the Malankara Church, granted by its own Apostolic foundations. Please see the various reasons why it can only be POV vs POV as listed under the entry made earlier today, under the heading July 2022. 144.62.173.200 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

, It was part of the Malankara Church, i.e, Saint Thomas Christians, and it was called Malankara Church even after the Coonan Cross Oath until very recently. Varthamanappusthakam and Angamaly Padiyola are primary evidences for that. So, I will be reverting your move. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

, No you can not revert my edit. What ever you mentioned above are not valid references in this context. John C. (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have any hurry. However, Varthamanappusthakam and Angamaly Padiyola are good primary sources repeatedly referred in a number of reliable secondary sources. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , I am quoting some verses from the Angamāly Padiyōla which is obviously a Pazhayakoor document.
 * The document signed by all the people of the Church of Malankara (beginning with Angamāly) who were assembled in the Great Church of Angamāly, on the first of February in the year of our Lord, 1787....
 * The honoured Kariātil Malpan was consecrated as Metropolitan of the Diocese of Malankara...
 * We, the representatives of eighty-four churches in the diocese of Malankara...
 * Malankara Church is the name of Saint Thomas Christians as a whole. Not just the West Syriac Community, otherwise called Puthenkoor.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I already said, after the split pazhayakoor faction never officially referred them as "Malankara Church" like Puthenkoor faction, also Pazhayakoor faction never had a primate or bishop addressed as "Bishop of Malankara". You are bringing some vague remarks from here and there. You should prove unified pazhayakoor faction (Syro-Malabar and Chaleden Syrian Church) officially referred as "Malankara Church"   ---John C. (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yours is a funny argument. The Angamāly Padiyōla is a reliable and official church record of the Pazhayakūr signed by all the representatives of its churches. The Varthamanappusthakam is the first travelogue written in an Indian language and its author is none another than Paremmakkal Thoma Kathanar, the then head of the Pazhayakūr and the administrator of the Archdiocese of Cranganore. Both evidently mentions Malankara Church. What I have quoted above is from the Angamāly Padiyōla and it is sourced. Just because you don't agree with it, Angamāly Padiyōla does not become unreliable.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

, In fact your arguments are very funny because all your arguments revolves around a few remarks in Angamaly Padiyola and in Varthamanappusthakam (a travelogue). Who presided the function at Angamaly ? Its Paremmakkal Thoma Kathanar. Who is the author of Varthamanappusthakam? Its again Paremmakkal Thoma Kathanar. Yes, Thoma Kathanar was the administrator of the Archdiocese of Cranganore, but he was not even a bishop in Pazhayakoor community. Now let us check what is "Angamaly Padiyola" - It is a set of decisions taken at a meeting in Angamaly. Actually this meeting was a revolt against the church ecclesiastical authorities of that time. How can you bring the remarks in a rebel meeting as supporting evidences for your claims? Do you have any strong evidences to prove the Pazhayakoor fraction referred as "Malankara Church"?? ---John C. (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

,, , , It would be great if you can participate/moderate in this discussion. Otherwise can you please help with sharing the contact of Admins who can help in topics related to Saint Thomas Christians. I am looking for some moderators to avoid edit-warring - --John C. (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If this church is part of the Saint Thomas Christians, General sanctions/South Asian social groups most likely applies. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 02:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , These are just your personal interpretations and these are undoubtedly wrong. Paremmakkal Thoma Kathanar was the ecclesiastical head of the Pazhayakūr Malankara Church. And the Angamāly Padiyōla is not a fabricated document. It is a historic declaration signed by all parishes of the church. Every historical document, let it be the Padiyola or any other, clearly calls the Pazhayakūr Catholic faction as Malankara Church. There are numerous other sources too. The circulars of Louis Pazheparambil, Augustine Kandathil.. all speak of the Malankara Church. I don't know what you found laughable in all these. I think your arguments are childish. Malankara Church is not a monopoly of any particular faction. Just because you have heard its usage only in the Puthenkoor faction, doesn't mean it wasn't used by anyone else. Hope that's clear. And finally I will have to remind you. You seem to have a tendency to deny all sources which go against your arguments. But that's not going to work here in the way you expect it to work. Angamaly Padiyola and Varthamanappusthakam are reliable documents just like any Puthenkoor document. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

, Please come out from "Angamaly Padiyola" and "Varthamanappusthakam" for now (because I already commented on that) and show some circulars of bishops of Pazhayakoor fraction mentioned them some thing like "Bishop of Malankara Church" ? Any of the pazhayakoor Metrans ever used such titles? Lets see that first ---John C. (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not going to do what you wish me to. Angamaly Padiyola is the most important one. However others are also there. Let's see. I will try to bring up others [sources] shortly.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, please invite others. I welcome that - --John C. (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2021

 * 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: no consensus

Two editors disagree. The same two editors disagree in the section above and at Talk:Malankara Church (Paḻayakūṟ). Despite relisting and having been open for 25 days, no other editors have joined the discussion and there is no realistic possibility that the discussion will reach consensus. The article names may currently be inconsistent (unless the current article subject is WP:PRIMARY) but there is no consensus as to which should move. What is required is a wider discussion rooted in the usage of independent reliable English language sources. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Malankara Church → Malankara Church (Puthenkur) – Malankara Church is a title used to refer to Saint Thomas Christians as a whole. Both Pazhayakoor and Puthenkoor denominations have used the title to refer to themselves. This will help in disambiguation. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose the proposal of User:Br Ibrahim john. Please refer above section for details. ---John C. (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * My proposal is the following:
 * Let Malankara Church be a redirect to Saint Thomas Christians or India (East Syriac ecclesiastical province).
 * Malankara Church (Puthenkur) for the post-1653 and pre-1771 defunct West Syriac Church (before schism between MISC and the those under Dionysios I).
 * Malankara Church (Paḻayakūṟ) for the post-1653 and pre-1882 defunct East Syriac Church (before schism between Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Syrian).
 * This proposal is modelled on the same grounds as of how Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic Church each have distinct articles different from Church of the East, which is for the pre-schism Church that is treated defunct.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

, First of all, we need to see Pazhayakoor (Paḻayakūṟ) fraction of Saint Thomas Christians officially used the name "Malankara Church" to refer themselves. That is what asked in above section - --John C. (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Angamāly Padiyōla is an official Church record of the Pazhayakūr. It uses only one name for the Pazhayakūr, Malankara Church. Circulars of Louis Pazheparambil, Augustine Kandathil etc are also Church records. Another reliable source would be Varthamanappusthakam.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. There are no valid evidences produced for supporting this page move request in this session or in above session except a claim that some vague mentions in a travelogue (Varthamanappusthakam) and in a memorandum (Angamāly Padiyōla). They are NOT sufficient to state Pazhayakoor (Paḻayakūṟ) faction also was officially known as Malankara Church!! ---John C. (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 2022
The descriptions of the Malankara Church as 'Jacobite Syrians" and "Puthenkoor" are outright pejoratives used by the Chalcedonian Roman church and its Uniate subdivision, the Syro-Malabar Church, (the self-proclaimed) 'Pazhayakoor faction' which departed from the undivided Malankara Church. From the Malankara Church’s standpoint, if anything, for purposes of historical accuracy, the Syro Malabar should be calling themselves either the 'Ottikodithavar' or at best, the 'Vittevar' faction with the West Syrians being the 'Vishwasthawar faction'. That is, on the one hand, they are the ones who betrayed the leadership and office of the ethnarch, the Malankara Moopen (which translates as Malankara Elder, with 'Elder' in its proper context being synonymous with the title of Bishop) or else, they are those who left his authority to turn towards a foreign and canonically imperialistic power - while on the other hand, it is those who stayed loyal to their own historical independence and autonomy under their traditional local leadership, who comprise the Malankara Church.

That the Malankara Church itself is divided over the extent of autocephaly that is its natural right as an Apostolically founded Church and that as a result, one faction of the Malankara Church recently began to adopt the Chalcedonians’ use of the term and self-identify as ‘Jacobite Syrians’ in protest against the other, is tragic and a shame, but it does not detract from this truth - the word 'Jacobite' (followers of Jacob Burdono) is a slur, invented by the historical Chalcedonian Church and used to describe the historical non-Chalcedonian Church in the Middle East, just as 'Melkite' (followers of the Emperor) was used by non-Chalcedonians to describe the Chalcedonian Church. Using the term 'Jacobite', which was imported to Malankara by the Chalcedonian Roman Church is arbitrary and for parity, should require the Syro-Malabar Church, a Roman Uniate, to be described as 'Melkite'. Non-Chalcedonians in Malankara self-identify as Orthodox, period.

Until recent unfortunate events, the Malankara Nasranis who have resisted a capitulation to the Roman Church's historical takeover attempts have never accepted the need to adopt an arbitrary, biased, invented, and ultimately, pejorative term created by their adversaries. They identify their faith as Orthodox, not ‘Jacobite Syrian’ just as the Roman Church doesn’t see itself as ‘Petrine Latin’ (It should be noted here that Orthodox, in this context signifies the Orthodox faith of the undivided one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church referred to in the Nicene creed - the ‘Catholic’ here in this context as used in the Creed, referring to the description used by St. Ignatius of Antioch for the Church and much later, to that used by the pre-Chalcedonian Latin, Vincent of Lerins. It does not refer to the recent self-assumed title of the Latin Roman Church of ‘Catholic Church’, which has been its default self-appellation since the diktat to his followers by their ecclesiastical head, the Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, in the not-too-distant past, to stop self-identifying as Roman Catholic and instead, exclusively use ‘Catholic’ in public). In literal terms, the usage of the word Orthodox implicitly assumes the right worship and praxis of the faith of the Apostolic and Catholic church, distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, with its historical and canonical jurisdiction limited to the West, with 'West' here meaning Western Europe and Western North Africa. In addition, in terms of the broader and more ancient historical context, it should be pointed out - what is now termed the East Syrian (or, by the Roman Church as the Chaldean) Church, was simply that part of the Syrian Church which was under the dominion of the Persian Empire, but an integral part of the canonically and ecclesiastical undivided Syrian Church, with its headquarters at Antioch, the seat of the Patriarch of all the East. Until the East Syrian Church was forcefully separated from the Church of Antioch by the Sassanid Persians, the East Syrian Church was nothing but a subset of the larger Syrian Church, which today organically continues as the West Syrian Church. Even after this split and de facto ecclesiastical independence, the East Syrian Church continued, in de jure canonical terms to be under the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, as it was so historically since the age of the Apostles and as later affirmed per the canons of the Council of Nicea. This remained the state of the Syrian Church until the takeover of the East Syrian Church's ecclesiastical structure in 496, by émigré sympathizers of Nestorius who moved from the Roman Empire to Persia.

Having done so, they gained the confidence of the Sassanids who didn't want a religious group in their domain with organizational allegiance to an authority that resided in the territory of the Roman Empire, the enemy of the Persians. Thus, they openly preferred control of the Syrian church within Persia to be taken over by those who didn’t find support within the Roman empire and had no allegiance to it or any ecclesiastical powers residing within its boundaries. The takeover of the hierarchy of the Syrian church within the Persian Empire was thus a departure from its state since antiquity and a schism enforced by a State power, and not directly as a result of theological differences. It should be clear that in terms of reference to the Syro Malabar Church's use of the word Puthenkoor, the East Syrian Church itself was formed as a new faction and its rite too was new, compared to the rite used at Antioch and it was thus a 'Puthenkoor' (new party). The fact is, up until four and a half centuries after the traditionally claimed arrival in AD 52 of Christ's Apostle, Thomas in Malankara, the East Syrian Church was a subset of the Syrian Church, and both the East Syrian Church and the Church at Malankara which adopted East Syrian traditions and rites and depended on the East Syrian hierarchy for ecclesiastical support and ordinations, fell under the canonical territory of the Patriarch at Antioch.

From this, it logically proceeds that if at all there should be any application of the term Pazhayakoor, it should be to the portion of the Malankara Church which returned to the fold of the West Syriac Church and its authority and embraced its more ancient rite, the liturgy of St. James, which was celebrated in the most closely related of Aramaic dialects to that of the prevalent East Syriac, rather than accept the forced Latinization and alien liturgical practices of an entirely different tradition, that of the Roman Church, forced upon it by Portuguese colonizers. Moreover, the West Syriac rite has its roots, in part, in the worship of the Church at Jerusalem, headed by Jacob (James), referred to in the Book of Acts and Paul’s letters, as the brother of Christ. This rite, used by native Aramaic-speaking Christians as well as Greek speaking Christians, can claim the greatest antiquity of all Christian rites, with portions of it going back according to the Church’s tradition, four centuries further back than the East Syrian rite. West Syriac belongs to the same sub-dialect of Aramaic, as East Syriac - its adoption by the Syriac-Aramaic speaking Church of Malankara was a far easier transition than the enforced Latinization that the Syro-Malabar Church endured – and the result of which, it suffers to this day. For all its claims of adherence to East Syriac-Aramaic Christianity, it is the most Latinized of all Uniate subdivisions of the Roman Church - a fact recognized and affirmed by the Roman Church itself and which it has acknowledged and has stated in public on the Vatican website.

With all of these facts, unless the motive is a clear bias for the position of the Roman Church and its Uniate Syro-Malabar sub-division, it makes no sense at all, whether in terms of 1) the application of antiquity of the rite, or 2) the application of fealty to the Malankara people's sacred oath at the Bent Cross (Koonan Kurishu), or 3) the application of loyalty to the native ethnarch and leader of the Malankara people, or 4) the application of seniority of canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch over all of the East, including the territory of the Syriac-Aramaic speaking worshippers within the Persian Empire as well as the territory in India populated by the Syrian Nasranis of Malankara, to accord any group or Church, but that part of the Malankara Church alone, which returned to the canonical authority of the Patriarch of Antioch and the most ancient of all Christian rites, the West Syriac rite rooted in the oldest Christian traditions of Antioch and Jerusalem, the exclusive right to the term Pazhayakoor. That would only be logical, but the Malankara Church itself rejects the invented terms of Pazhayakoor and Puthenkoor. It views the Latin incursion by the Portuguese and their takeover of the Church and the subsequent departure of the Syro-Malabar Church from native leadership to non-Syrian, foreign Latin control as the only significant new or 'Puthen' development.

Therefore, the self-assumed title of Pazhayakoor by the Syro Malabar Church, which accepted Roman dominion in defiance of the sacred oath at the bent cross and the Malankara Nasrani people’s loyalty to their native ethnarchs, is at best, deft marketing and at worst, plainly illogical. The biased, illogical applications of Pazhayakoor for its Uniate subset, the Syro-Malabar Church, and Puthenkoor for the Malankara Church which stayed loyal to its ethnarch were and continue to be driven by the Roman Church’s ecclesiastical imperialism and its biased and self-interest driven claims of absolute ecclesiastical superiority over all churches of Apostolic foundation.

It should not have any place or support on Wikipedia which aims to be fair, balanced, and accurate, without clear identification as being an exclusive position of the Roman Church and its adherents. Its perpetuation would simply be a capitulation to a tyranny of the majority, with the greater population of the Roman Church combined with its Uniate subdivisions resulting in a greater number of online Roman Church contributors, all intent on pushing the naming-based narratives of the Roman Church. To illustrate further, only the latest of these efforts were - a) the Roman Bishop Benedict XVI's moves to drop his own see's ancient and accurate title of Patriarch of the West, along with b) his directive for a sustained drive to replace the correct and accurate usage of the prevalent term Roman Catholic with the more general and inaccurate 'Catholic' as used in the Nicene Creed, which allows for easy misidentification of the term Catholic, associated with the ancient, undivided Great Church (which included multiple territories outside of the Roman Empire) as being exclusive to the Roman Church, which was only the portion of the Catholic Church based at Rome, with its historical authority restricted to the Western portions of Europe and North Africa.

These measures are evident efforts to create default acceptance of the Roman Church's claims to jurisdiction over all other churches including those of greater antiquity than its own. That is, the Roman Church's claim to authority over its own parent Churches in the East, namely the original church which existed at Jerusalem (the birthplace of the Christian Church, the see of the Lord's Brother, chair of the first Christian council) until its destruction by the Roman Empire and the church at Antioch, the first see of Christ's Apostle, Peter which in addition, owns clear Scriptural evidence (Acts, Chapter 11) to its claim to the title of the first see of all Christians, which absorbed the Aramaic speaking Christian population of the Jerusalem Church after the city’s destruction.

The ‘Pazhayakoor and Puthenkoor’ naming-based narrative is simply an older version of such kinds of naming-based narratives, self-marketing, or self-promotion, or to put it plainly, propaganda by the Roman Church and its continuous, ongoing, and relentless drive to assert authority and superiority over all Apostolic Churches including those older to it and in fact, to its obvious lack of any embarrassment, those with even older Petrine foundations. Wikipedia cannot and should not be an arm of the Vatican's public relations machine, no matter how powerful it is or whatever the number of adherents it has. If Wikipedia includes these kinds of claims made by the Roman Church, they need to be qualified by the legitimate, logical, and factual claims that exist in opposition to them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.62.173.200 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider listing your requests in a simple "Change X to Y" format with supporting reliable sources. Also attempt to avoid assertions of grand conspiracy, as that is generally considered uncivil. If you have concerns about potentially point-of-view issues in an article, please list them individually alongside sources that would help alleviate this issue. More information can be found at WP:FIVEPILLARS. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Connected contributor tag
A connected contributor tag was placed on this article today following an editor stating they are a member and likely paid employee of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. As such, I think it is important to note that this article is absolutely open to edits by members or affiliates of any Saint Thomas Christian denomination or grouping, but that employment within these denominations requires self-identification and edits should be done in accordance to WP:NPOV. As this is an article on a historic entity, though, limitations on paid contributors extant elsewhere are less applicable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)