Talk:Mar Thoma Syrian Church/Archive 1

Ukranian Lutheran Church is an Eastern Rite Church?
Quoted from the first paragraph of the article, Prior to 1996, it was the only Eastern rite Church worldwide which inculcated elements of Protestant thinking and reformist theology (the Ukrainian Lutheran Church was established in Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union 

I didn't want to be mean and take out the Ukranian part that's in this sentancebefore checking with some more people. In fact, I'm not really even sure that the Mar Thoma Church's claim to being the only reformed Eastern Rite church is valid, although it is commonly professed. Maybe this sentance altogether should be removed. However, back to the point - the fact that the Ukranian Church is LUTHERAN precludes it from being an Eastern Rite Church. Lutheranism is quintessential western Christianity. Geography is not the only consideration (i.e. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe ergo it is an Eastern Rite church). Case in point, there are Baptist and Methodist churches in India but they aren't considered eastern. Even the Church of South India and Church of North India, though they are in full communion with the Mar Thoma Church, aren't considered eastern churches.

76.186.60.18 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)sue bob murphy

what about these: Armenian Evangelical Church Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists of Russia Evangelical Church of Egypt (Synod of the Nile) Jamiat-e Rabbani all of which are listed on eastern protestant here: Portal:Eastern Christianity/Churches

Most of those church are under the section Eastern Protestantism. 76.186.60.18 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)sue bob murphy

I think the section on Ukrainian Lutheran should be included as they are not Lutheran in the Western sense. Their worship is a reformed Ukrainian-Orthodox/Byzantine-Catholic form, while their doctrine is close to Lutheranism. In the same way the Marthoma Church is a reformed Malankara-Orthodox/Syro-Malankara-Catholic form, while their doctrines are close to Anglicanism. If Ukrainian Lutheranism shouldn't be called "reformed Eastern Rite" and is properly Lutheranism first, then the Marthoma Church isn't "reformed Eastern Rite" either but properly "Malankara Anglican". Also, the Ethiopian Tehadeso group is "reformed Ethiopian Orthodox", it is a mix of reformed-Orthodox praxis and protestant/pentecostal worship (they are different in the sense that this mix went the opposite of the Ukrainian Lutheran and Marthoma groups). MookThala (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is strange how the user Mook Thala came to the conclusion that "Mar Thoma Church is a reformed Malankara-Orthodox/Syro-Malankara-Catholic form, while their doctrines are close to Anglicanism."Neduvelilmathew (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is that strange? I think it's basically true.  Tb (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Joseph Mar Thoma Consecration
The current statement in the "Who's Who" section about Joseph Mar Thoma consecration is incorrect. He was "consecrated" when he first became a bishop, which is February 8, 1975 according to the Sabha website. We need to find who the celebrants of that service were; it is most likely Juhanon Mar Thoma and the Metropolitan of the Thooziyoor Sabha.

There's seems to be tons of confusion (in terms of verbiage) about what exactly happened in October 2007 to Joseph Mar Thoma. He certainly was not consecrated on this date. Rather, he was "installed" or "enthroned" as Metropolitan. This change has been made; again, the missing information is the celebrants of the consecration service in February 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portraitofalady (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Navigation boxes
Recently both the navigation boxes Template:Syriac Christianity and Template:Anglican Churches were removed by. Although this user is a member of the church and has written a history of it, he hasn't been able to give good reason for their removal. The discussion can be read on my talk page (here and here). My reasoning is clear. The Syriac template should be included because this church has a Syriac heritage, in liturgy, language and ritual. This is undeniably true, and the arguments against this were confused. The Anglican template has a bottom line that includes all the churches that are in communion with the Anglican Communion. The Mar Thoma Church is in communion with the Anglican Communion, and so the template fits. The template sits at the bottom of the page and in no way suggests that the Mar Thoma Church is an Anglican church. Historically, the church has had very close ties with the Anglican Communion. I have outlined this in full, but have not received further response. I shall put the templates back and await further response on this page. Please do not remove them again with out full agreement. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Still dont understand why you want to put a category as Anglican church when Marthoma Church is not a part of this. Marthoma Church has lots of friendly relationships with many other churches but that doesnt mean that Marthoma Church is a part of another church. The historians and members of the church have confirmed this. Please revert you changes regarding Template:Anglican Churches .Otherwise this will lead to a misunderstanding and false information. The explanation is clearly given by at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGarzo&diff=188971141&oldid=188737837


 * Tinucherian (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that Mathew's point is well made at all. The Anglican navbox is present on all articles on Anglican Churches and churches in communion with Anglican Churches. The Mar Thoma Church is clearly the latter, and, therefore, should have the box present, just as the Old Catholic Church and Philippine Independent Church, also not Anglican Churches, have. I have stated this repeatedly, but you appear to misunderstand the issue. The navbox appears on all articles on churches that, while not Anglican, are in communion with Anglican Churches. It is at the bottom of the page. It is clearly stated what is meant. It is in no way misleading. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Passage
The section "Independence of the Church" consists of two nearly identical sentences. As I do not have access to the original quote, I am reluctant to choose one; perhaps someone who does can rectify this.Scalasaig (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange discussion page.
Mar Thoma Christians are real Christians, notwithstanding the history-writing questions. What they claim has as much standing as that the Pope claims for the primacy of Peter. Thus, I suggest that much of this discussion be archived. I also suggest thaat Thomas Christian' be the article title.--Ace Telephone (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The present day Marthoma church is only a part of larger St. Thomas Christian community. There are seperate articles about Saint Thomas Christians and Malankara Church. The present day Mar Thoma Church is a denonimation within the Saint Thomas Christians tradition community. - Tinucherian (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions
The definitions of "Sabha" and "palli" are completely wrong.

A "Sabha" is not only used for a Church, for example the Indian Parliament is called the "Lok Sabha"

A "palli" is not from the Buddhist Tradition, the Buddhist Tradition happened to use the same word as the Dravidian language for "learning center/resting place" because the earliest stages of Buddhism moved southward toward the Dravidian speaking areas and adopted the term. MookThala (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Neduvelilmathew cites Psalm 74:8 (???) after "Sabha" and deletes it's definition which is "meeting place" or "assembly" - why not write the proper definition, when even his citation states - [8] They said to themselves, "We will utterly subdue them"; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land. Sabha clearly means meeting place, there is no doubt about it. --MookThala (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mook Thala, which translation of the Bible are you using? There are so many translations. So naturally they will be using different words to explain the same thing. Now I have gone through seven translations: “every place where God was worshiped, God's places of assembly, synagogues of God, God's meeting-places, etc.” are some of the translations. Which one is the correct one?

In this article, just to expalin what this Malayalam word Palli means, is it that necessary to give a long and winding description and explanations? I think, it is enough to use just the mininmum number of words to convey the meaning. In fact it is not even necessary to include Psalm 74:8

So, please leave both words Palli and Sabha as they are.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Neduvelilmathew, All the translations you site state exactly the same thing. Sabha means meeting place/assembly; "synagogue" is simply the Hebrew for "assembly". It seems to me you are misleading in the definition, even the non-religious government body the "Lok Sabha" uses the word and it has nothing to do with God. Why are you citing Psalm 74:8 at all? Another issue to be aware of, this website isn't supposed to lean toward favoring the Marthoma perspective on history, inherently this site should be neutral, why does your writing keep skewing the history? It is simple to keep neutral by using word such as " he viewed himself as correcting error", etc; instead of stating that "he was correcting unbiblical practices". --MookThala (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC) συναγωγή is Greek, not Hebrew. The Hebrew is כנסת (for assembly) and בית-כנסת for the building where the assembly happens. **Agreed, all these terms say exactly the same thing** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.47.16 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Synod of Diamper
The Pope did urge restraint in regard to the latinizing posture of Archbishop Alejio de Menezes.

From Fr. Berchmans Kodackal,JCD/JD - http://members.tripod.com/~Berchmans/western.html:

Synod of Diamper

The Portuguese missionaries wanted to do away with Chaldean jurisdiction over Malabar and wield their politico-religious power over the Thomas Christians. The archbishop of the Thomas Christians, Mar Abraham, sent by the Catholic Chaldean patriarch, was found guilty of heresy by the Portuguese missionaries. In the light of the report of the missionaries, in 1595, Pope Clement VIII sent two apostolic briefs to Archbishop Dom Menezes of Goa. These were only to inquire into the life and doctrine of Abraham and, if he was found guilty or if he died, to appoint a Vicar Apostolic. Mar Abraham died in 1597, and then Dom Menezes, the Portuguese archbishop of Goa, and the ex-officio political ruler during the absence of the Portuguese Viceroy of Goa, entered Malabar, claimed he had authority from the Pope, and visited the churches of the Thomas Christians exercising jurisdiction. Using force, he opened churches and exercised jurisdiction over them by giving confirmation. He did not mind the excommunication served to him by the archdeacon. Visiting churches, he held three ordination services and ordained at least a hundred, making them condemn Nestorianism. He thus gained to his side those who were ordained and their relatives. The Malabar kings, especially the one of Cochin, also were threatened and won over.

Dom Menezes made hasty preparations for his synod to which, sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, were summoned all priests and other clerics and four lay men elected from each church, even from the churches he had not visited. Around 153 priests and 671 laymen (elected ones and specially invited ones) from some 64 churches in 168 villages met at Diamper (Udayamperoor) in the territory of the king of Cochin. The synod was held in June (20-29), 1599, at which the Thomas Christians had to sign the Profession of Faith at the beginning, and the decrees at the close of the synod. They were also to condemn the Patriarch as a heretic and schismatic and to swear they would not accept any bishop except the one immediately nominated by Rome. The Patriarch thus condemned was Denha Simon who was in explicit communion with Rome being also honored with the sacred Pallium from the Pope.

Menezes passed decrees using force which practically converted the Malabar Church into a branch of Latin Church. The synod enacted fundamental changes in the rite, liturgy and ecclesiastical laws of the Thomas Christians. Portuguese and Latin laws and customs supplanted all others. This Latinization was mainly based on the discipline of the Council of Trent.

The Synod cut the link of the Malabar Church with the Mesopotamian Church which was at that time in full communion with the Church of Rome. This Synod was publicized in the west as the conquest of heretics for the Catholic faith. It should be noted that there is a contradiction between this notion and the fact that the Thomas Christians were summoned to the Synod under the pain of "excommunication"! Click here to see the Catholicism of the Thomas Christians.

On the other hand, the laws of the Synod of Diamper had no binding force as it was not a lawful synod because of lack of authority on the part of those who convoked it, absence of intention on the part of those who attended it, lack of form in the manner of conducting it and lack of integrity in the text promulgated. It is Possible that the laws concluded by the prelates who ruled the Malabar Church and which were all Latin in form and content were made under the erroneous assumption that Latin laws were universal.

Roz S.J. and Campori S.J. who were present at the synod, clearly state in their letters to the General of the Jesuits and his Assistant in Portugal that the "synod" was not "in forma". According to these letters 1) the Thomas Christians were not consulted in the "synod", 2) they understood nothing of all that was decided upon there, 3) there was no synod, but only reading of regulations which were not understood by those concerned, 4) Dom Menezes said he behaved like that just to show the way of salvation to the assembled without hindrance, 5) there were many things in the decrees unacceptable to the Thomas Christians, 6) those who assembled put their signature to the acts only at the insistence of Roz S.J., 7) the zeal of Dom Menezes was preposterous, 8) Dom Menezes made additions to the acts after the "synod" was over, 9) Dom Menezes obtained from Roz S.J. the signatures of the assembled detached from the original and had them attached, to his copy prepared to be sent to Rome for approbation, 10) the authors of the letters pray that the Pope may not approve the synod to rectify which they say, Roz S.J. (as bishop) had celebrated a synod at Angamaly "in forma" with the satisfaction of all, undoing certain things which Dom Menezes had ordered at Diamper. Such is the "synod" of Diamper, the acceptance of which was later on insisted upon even as a condition for the reunion of non-Catholic Thomas Christians. There is no document which says that the Holy See ever approved the "synod" of Diamper.

The Synod of Diamper, although not legitimately and properly conducted, is the first formal and canonical endeavor in Malabar Church on such a large scale. It has great historical value. It brings to light many ancient practices of the Thomas Christians. This has become the unique and sole important document in this respect because many of their other books were burned after the synod. The synod helped the organization of the diocese into parishes and their administration. It helped the evangelization of the low castes and also the raising of their social status. Many of the canons and decrees of the synod were just reproductions of the Councils of Trent, Lateran and Florence. Unfortunately the Synod of Diamper effected Latinisation in the Malabar Church, and later the Latin jurisdiction was imposed over this Church.

MookThala (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mook Thala, Thanks for the above article taken from a web site. I have read a number of books on what had happened in Cochin at that time. Also I have been to these places.

But this web site article has nothing to do with the article, Mar Thoma Church. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the professor-scholar Fr. Berchmans Kodackal, he isn't making up this history. What does having been to these places prove? I have also been to some of these places. Being there doesn't prove or disprove to me whether the Portuguese Bishop was doing what the Pope ordered or acting on his own, nor does it show that the Chaldean Bishop that attempted to come to Kerala was in union with the Pope. The Bishop clearly was sent by the Chaldean Patriarch who was in the Catholic Communion. It has to do with the Synod of Diamper, which is mentioned under the Marthoma Church title - if you don't want this included, delete the whole section but don't make up misleading tales instead.--MookThala (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagreements are not "Vandalism"
Mr. Mathew, disagreeing with your version of history is not "vandalism". You repeatedly promote your version of history as if it were undisputed fact, especially when writing about some "original purity". First show evidence that this "original purity" you mention ever existed or if anyone had thought of such a thing prior to the arrival of the low-church Church of England-CMS missionaries to Kerala. Also, if this is the "original purity", why is it that the high-church Anglicans of the same Church of England have the exact same practices (prayers to saints, for the dead, statues/icons, etc), in addition to EVERY Orthodox Church, including the Oriental Orthodox and (Assyrian) Church of the East? The idea that Rome infiltrated every Orthodox Church, inserted these "non-biblical practices" - even the Churches most opposed to the Pope, and forces them to practice these things to this day - borders on insanity. These and other errors make this article against Wikipedia policy in terms of 'Neutral Point of View' and is more a propaganda piece supporting one side rather than history. Deleting sourced and cited information for rhetoric is also considered a Wiki violation. --MookThala (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Marthoma Metrans
Hello Mathew, While reading through your article on Marthoma Church,I came to note a few points.. All the Marthoma Metrans starting from Marthoma I and ending  in Marthoma IX were members of the 'Pakalomattam 'family.Also ,soon after Marthoma IX was consecrated, Pulikkotil Joseph Mar Dionysus  recieved the  royal permission and became Malankara Metropolitan.He also recieved all canonical signs and symbols of authority from Marthoma IX .Thus ended the reign of Marthoma Metrans.Then it was the reign of Malankara Metropolitans.This being the fact how can you say that Marthoma Metrans still continues to exist????? Arunvroy (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it only makes sense if the same Bishop claiming to be Marthoma Metran is also Malankara Metropolitan, Maphryian, and Catholicos. The way it's stated here, the Mathew's Marthoma Church perspective - the Marthoma Metran lineage continued under the authority of the British Crown, if so, when the British left did that authority also(??) Nonetheless, if this is going to be included, it must be noted that this is disputed and only the Marthoma Church's view.--MookThala (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hellow Arun V Roy, A very good question. I shall divide this into three sections.

Pakalomattom Family: Geevarghese Kathanaar was the Malankara Mooppen (leader of the Malankara Church. Portuguese called him Archidiacon). Mooppen means Elder. After his demise Thomas Kathanaar became Malankara Mooppen. Both of them were from Pakalomattom family. A study the the customs, traditions and practices of Kerala people, we find that such postions are passed on from generation to generation. Thus from Mar Thoma I to Mar Thoma IX the Malankara Mooppens were from the Pakalomattom family or were closely related to them.

This brings to another interesting conclusion. Because the first 9 Marthoma Meteropolitans were from Pakalomattom family, it can be assumed that the previous leaders were also from that family. That is from the first century Malankara Mooppens were from Pakalomattom Family. Of course to confirm this more evidences are required.

Royal Proclamations: This has nothing to do with the Malankara Metrapolitan or with his family. It is related to a fixed deposit known as Vattipanam. (see para about Mar Thoma VII). Royal declarations were issued only if there was a dispute after the demise or resignation of a Metropolitan. So I am adding related points to the article. Hope that will answer your question. I have seen some of the original documents regarding these Royal Proclamations.

Malankara Metropolitans: This appointment has nothing to do with the Governmnet(s). First century. The leaders of the parish were called Presbeteros in Greek and Edavaka Mooppen (Malayalam) in Kerala. The head of the churches were known as episkpos (in Greek) and Malankara Mooppen (Malaylam) in Kerala. During the Synod at Diamper in 1599, these were the names used in Malyalam. (Ref. Canons of The Synod of Diamper, 1599).

From first century, members of this church were called Malankara Mar Thoma Nazrani. ((Ref. Canons of The Synod of Diamper, 1599). At the time of Mar Thoma I or at a later stage, the title Malankara Mooppen was replaced by the word Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan. Now this is used for the head of all Metrans (bishops). Metrachen is made up of two words Metran and Achen which means Venerable Bishop.

Malankara Mar Thoma Metrapolitan is a person elected by the followers. He should declared by them in front of a public that he is eligible to hold that position. From Mar Thoma I to the present Mar Thoma XXI, (Dr. Joseph Mar Thoma Metropolitan) were seated on the same throne and were declared that they were eligible to hold that position.

Malankara Mar Thoma Metropoilitan is a position that are occupied by a person elected by its people. Just like The Head of a State who is elected and enthroned, it does not end with a person or a family. Before reformation and after reformation; from Mar Thoma I to the present Metropolitan all of them were called Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitans.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neduvelimathew: I am a new editor to this conversation so forgive me if I make mistakes to the convention as I still have to learn my way around. However, I would like to make a few polite statements on this talk.

Pakalomattom Family: You have made a comment that "A study the the customs, traditions and practices of Kerala people, we find that such postions are passed on from generation to generation. Thus from Mar Thoma I to Mar Thoma IX the Malankara Mooppens were from the Pakalomattom family or were closely related to them." However, may I suggest that when discussing leadership in christian circles we need to consider biblical and reformation history, and so this is a very controversial subject. Christian leaders are chosen by God and are not subject to traditions and practices of a certain people. So to suggest that the Pakalomattom family has a right to this place of leadership is against Wikipedia policy.

"Malankara Mar Thoma Metrapolitan is a person elected by the followers. He should declared by them in front of a public that he is eligible to hold that position. From Mar Thoma I to the present Mar Thoma XXI, (Dr. Joseph Mar Thoma Metropolitan) were seated on the same throne and were declared that they were eligible to hold that position." I would suggest that editors of Wikipedia start verifying the lineage of various bishops in the Malankara Syrian Churches and find out whether this is based on christian principles. I suggest we verify whether there is an interconnection between these bishops before we put them in an encylopedia as prestigious as Wikipedia, which is read by millions. User:Ipe George, B.Sc., B.D. (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.69.6 (talk)

Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation Concerns
I have edited the page to note this article needs cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The concerns that prompted this change are not about the content of the page but about English grammar, usage, and punctuation.

While there has been an encouraging increase in editing activity for this article, the increase has been accompanied by a general decline in the quality of English. Since this is an encyclopedic source, it is essential that contributors do not sacrifice the quality their English for expediency in adding to the article. The errors are so diffuse that it would be impractical for one person to correct the entire article. The onus needs to be on the contributors to make sure their contribution meets Wikipedia's quality standards prior to actually finalizing the change. Wikipedia has provided a reference that can be helpful: the Manual of Style. There are other guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style that can also be used for reference. The errors that are troubling are not simple typographical errors, e.g. a period instead of a comma, but rather, more nuanced omissions or oversights that indicate the contributor has not mastered the subtleties of the English language.

Happy editing! Portraitofalady (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Portraitofalady is correct, the problems that have been stated and restated above primarily have to do with the contributors lack of understanding of the English language - he seems to be unaware that certain terms leave room for neutrality while others lean toward antagonism and misunderstanding to those from outside the societal circle mentioned. Terms like "open Bible" and "best practices" are unintelligible to those who are not members of this group and are unaware of the text being cited - why not simply write the meaning behind the term instead of the term itself? I have tried numerous times to correct these errors, but the contributor refuses to allow anyone else to edit, especially if it disagrees with his strict "party line". This article is not up to normal Wikipedia standards and reads more like a self-promotion piece or something one finds on the website of the group in question, the citations from the pro-MarThoma books that the contributor himself has written for his church is clearly in conflict with neutrality. --MookThala (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Malpan
Abraham Malpan was not excommunicated. Abraham Malpan and Cheppad Philipose Mar Dionysius (Mar Thoma XII), were great friends. But when Abraham Malpan used the revised liturgy and brought about changes in practices, that offended Marthoma XII who threatened him with excommunication. But Abraham Malpan informed him that if excommunicated, he would not come begging to revoke it. Marthoma XII, did not excommunicate him, but refused priesthood to the deacons trained under him. (Ref: George Kassessa, Rev.M.C. (1919). Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan. (Biogrpahy in Malaylam) Page 42.) Neduvelilmathew (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of revisionist "history" is this? It doesn't matter how friendly Cheppat Mar Dionysius and Abraham Malpan were, if Malpan changed the Liturgy without authorization, he brought excommunication upon himself. Mar Dionysius correctly warned the priest, gave him the chance to retract; when Malpan refused to repent, excommunication occurred. Even the Marthoma Church acknowledges this fact. Are you claiming that Judas wasn't excommunicated for betraying Christ, despite Christ telling the disciples that "it would have been better had that man not been born"?

What is your definition of "excommunication"? Excommunication means, especially for a priest, a priest is no longer allowed to celebrate the Sacraments, no longer a member of the Church in good standing, and is being given the final and ultimate chance to repent and be reconciled - you say Abraham Malpan "would not come begging to revoke it", revoke WHAT? Excommunication! - MookThala (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement on Syriac & Anglican References
From the various conversations here and also in the user pages of the editors concerned, there seems to be a disagreement as to whether the Mar Thoma Church article ought to be associated with any references to the Syriac and Anglican traditions. Unfortunately, this has resulted in some disruptive edits in this article. While I assume that some of the editors are members of the Church and would presume to know their tradition more intimately, edits to Wikipedia articles ought to be verifiable as per Verifiability. Original opinions and research should not be incorporated into the article unless its generally considered reliable (see No Original Research and WP:Sources). A good rule of thumb on some of the controversial elements here would be best decided by some level of consensus here in the Talk page or substantiated by a reliable and verifiable source with similarly verifiable counter opinions being left alone rather than removed. - Bob K | Talk 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have in argued in the past for the inclusion of these links, and the matter has been brought up again by the edit of Neduvelilmathew (talk · contribs) which was made without a summary. I find such an edit cynical, disregarding a previous discussion on the matter, and possibly an attempt to get an edit through unnoticed. The Mar Thoma Church shares a history with the other ancient churches of Kerala, and this history is indisputably linked with the Syriac churches of the Middle East. The traditional language of the church is Syriac, even though this has been mostly replaced by vernacular Malayalam. Syriac remains to provide the church with a number of technical terms (including Mar, Thoma and Malpan). The church's liturgy, ceremonial and clothing also reflect and preserve those of the Syriac churches of the Middle East. In a lesser fashion, the Mar Thoma Church is 'in communion with' but not a part of the Anglican Communion, and the infobox makes this distinction clear. The problem is that Neduvelilmathew wishes to play down the Syriac and Anglican connexions, and it looks like this is from some kind of misplaced patriotism: that the church is wholly 'Indian'. He also insists that, because he is a member of the church, he bears more authority than anyone who isn't. This attitude is clearly unacceptable. Every piece of source material on the Mar Thoma Church will mention the place of Syriac language in the church, its historical contact with Anglican missionaries and its being in communion with the Anglican Communion. I would appreciate it if all interested users register that thoughts on the issue. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Going through the edit history and talk history, I get the same nagging feeling. Unfortunately, nationalism is a one tough animal to corral. - - Bob K | Talk 23:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What does 'Orthodox' mean?
Some people (I think most participants in this talk page can probably guess who I'm referring to), seem to think that there is nothing 'Orthodox' about the Mar Thoma Church.

The word 'Orthodox' in 'Oriental Orthodox' is simply part of the name. The Oriental Orthodox are one of the major divisions of Christianity. Calling it 'Oriental Orthodox' isn't saying 'everything else is heterodox/heresy', its saying that 'its not Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Assyrian Catholic, but part of this other group, those called Oriental Orthodox'.

What is the big problem with calling it Oriental Orthodox in heritage? Abraham Malpan was originally ordained as a Syrian Orthodox priest. The main figures in the early history of the Mar Thoma Church were originally Syrian Orthodox priests; that means that the church's heritage must be Syrian Orthodox. And Syrian Orthodoxy is a branch of Oriental Orthodoxy.

Furthermore, the church describes itself as Oriental in worship. That's Oriental as in Oriental Orthodox. The only other possible meaning of 'Oriental' would imply Chinese/etc., which I don't think anyone would believe.

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Eusebius
There is a quote from Eusebius about discovering a copy of Matthew in India in the 2nd century. Omitted is the fact that Eusebius thought it was left there by Bartholomew (and not Thomas!). At the risk of being heretical, I suggest this be inserted along with Eusebius quote. Student7 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alfred's emissary
While I don't have a direct reference, Gibbon's doubt makes a lot of sense. Granted, Alfred actually knew where Ceylon (Sri Lanka) was. Having given him that, how would he know about Karala Indians and why would he care? India was a bit of a stretch for England back then. Look at it the other way around. Had anyone in India heard of England? Or would know where it was? Or would they even care? Inhabitants of both countries were in the same boat. England was a total backwater at the time. There is a remote chance that someone on the Silk Route might have passed along "something" about India, but surely not Karala.Student7 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Common history
Mar Thoma shares a common history with 8-10 other area churches. I would like to take the history here and merge it into History of the Saint Thomas Christians. A short summary would remain here and in five other churches, which have been merged so far. All articles from the founding by Saint Thomas through the Coonan Cross Event would be merged. The remaining history would not be affected. The main problem is that there were 8+ histories, resembling each other, but containing some fantasy as well. Merging them into a common history would give editors a focus for developing and maintaining, which has not been there with the scattered histories. The history subsection in Mar Thoma Church is fairly high quality and a lot of it would not only remain in the next version of the common history, but probably in the common summary as well. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Oommen's edits
This refers, to edits by Abraham Oommen, dated July 8 to the article Mar Thoma Church.

1. Archidãconus is a Latin word and Arch deacon is an English word. Do you have any citation to prove that in Kerala they were using Latin and English before the arrival of Portuguese on May 20, 1498. In fact they knew only pure Malayalam words and they called their leaders, Malnakara Mooppen, Jaathikku Karthavian, Idavaka Mooppen etc.

2. Persian Cross: You have written that there is a Persian Cross in Thiruvithamcode church, (arapalli). I have been to this church, and have not seen a Persian Cross there. Do you have any proof for this correction. 3. Mar Thoma Church is a continuation of the Malankara Church. The Martoma people were never under a foreign bishop. A large number of people left Malankara Church and joined Antioch in 1876. But members who continued with the Malankara Church added Mar Thoma in its name and are known as Malankara Mar Thoma Church. If you have any doubt about these facts, please refer ‘’Mulanthuruthi Padiola’’, the agreement signed and submitted to Moran Ignatius Peter III, H.H Patriarch of Antioch by the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church on June 30, 1876. Details are given in “Mar Thoma Sabha Charitram’’, Vol. 2, pp 80-101, by N.M. Mathew. All these documents are in Malayalam.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Change of Name to Mar Thoma Syrian Church
Why should the main article be Mar Thoma Church and Mar Thoma Syrian Church simply as a redirect. I think exactly the opposit, Mar Thoma Syrian Church should be the basis and Mar Thoma Church as a redirect. The church actually knows what it is called and it clearly says it in its website and all presenetations. Refer to: http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/ I suggest we move the page to Mar Thoma Syrian Church. werldwayd (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct full name of the Mar Thoma Church is ‘’Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church’’, as per its constitution (Article 1). Open the web site to see this name. Among Marthomites, (marthoma people) it is commonly known as Mar Thoma Church. All the parishes and church institutions are preceded by Mar Thoma (see the article for some of such names).  Malankara Mar Thoma Church or Mar Thoma Syrian Church or Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar are also used in official/ unofficial records. Only very rarely the words Malankara and Syrian are used nowadays. So it is better to keep Mar Thoma Church as the title for the main article. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a navigation box
The navigation box Template:Syriac Christianity has been in the article Mar Thoma Church for more than an year. I am trying to figure out why it is still there.

All the members of Mar Thoma Church are Malayalees, none of them are Syrians. There are no records to show, that they came from Syria. They never had any foreign personalities ruling over their heads. Documents kept in the archives, give an entirely different picture. Anybody got any concrete evidence to prove otherwise?

Most probably this is about the visitors from Persia to meet the Knanaya people, who arrived in Kerala from Persia in 345 and 825 AD. (refer relevant articles in Wikipedia). They were worshipping together with the original Saint Thomas Christians. These visitors had been to parishes and attended worship services where there were Knanaya people. But this does not mean that these priests or bishops were ruling over original Saint Thomas Christians. There is no record to show that these bishops ordained bishops in Kerala.

It is wrong to believe that a visiting bishop to a foreign country has the power and authority to go round and rule over other churches in the country they visit. I don’t think that any church or country will allow this kind of nonsense.

I am sure some one (not a Marthomite) has decided to put this navigation box Template:Syriac Christianity in this article. I am planning to delete this unwanted template from the article Mar Thoma Church. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing References
References are missing and in correct information is provided in many sections. Editors please note that WP:RELY or POV is required for the un sourced materials provided.Pamparam (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can some one give any reference for the following claim. There is no citation. Who claims this and based on what- It has been written that Mar Thoma Church claims-- Is it really so. Is this the claim by one of the editor.


 * The Mar Thoma Church claims that the original Malankara Church was established by Thomas the Apostle at the same time as Saint Paul established the church in Corinth. The Mar Thoma Church further claims that it is the continuation of the original Malankara Church of the Saint Thomas Christians and that it still follows the ancient customs and traditions. According to the church, the arrival of the Knanaites in 345 and 825, Roman Catholics in 1500, bishops from Antioch in 1665 and 1875, English missionaries in 1806 did not have any influence on their customs and traditions.

Many statements in this article are simple lie. I hope that some sensible church members should correct those before POV is requested.Pamparam (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Common History

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian ChristianityPamparam (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Pamparam (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Personal Ordinariate
Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Mar Thoma Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Nazrani Evolution
This file does not show the Mar Thoma Church in the right perspective. This file should be removed from this article. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can it be corrected? Maybe we can locate the file owner and get him to make changes? Student7 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. In fact all the entries need to be changed or corrected. I am trying to add my comments about the file on its talk page. Now I am collecting as much correct historical facts from available documents. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The file
Many facts given in this file are imaginative. It is better to delete this misleading file that gives no citations.


 * 1=Portuguese Missionaries/Goa Inquisition

They were not called West Syrian Party and New Syrian Party. Till the arrival of the Portuguese there was only one Church known as Marthoma Nazrani. Arch Bishop Alejo de Meneses called the Marthoma Nazranis the Old Way (Pazhaya Margam = Old Church) and those who joined the Catholic Church the New Way (Puthya Margam = New Church) - Please refer Canons of the synod at Udayamperoor (Synod of Diamper 1599 July 20-27).


 * 2=1772 Dispute over whether the church should be independent of the Patriarch of Antioch

This is not true. Patriarch of Antioch does not come into the picture at all. A bishop from Antioch consecrated a Nazrani priest without the permission of the Malankara Church. So this new bishop was forced to leave Travancore and Cochin and settle in another country, Malabar. There he formed a new Church. For more details please refer the documents kept by these two churches.


 * 3=1845 Protestant-style Reformation.

Can’t trace any important event happening in Malakara Church in 1845. If it is about the formation of Mar Thoma Church, Malankara Church split into two in 1889, after the verdict of a court case. The faction that did not accept the superiority of the Patriarch of Antioch, continued to stand independently and chose the name Mar Thoma Church only in 1900. For more details refer the Seminary case (1879-1889) files.


 * 4=1912 Dispute over autocephaly (Jacobites favour full Patriarchal control)

No comments. Please contact the affected parties.


 * 5=1926 Dispute over revoking the Coonan Cross Oath, and therefore union with Roman Catholicism.

This is about the two bishops with a few followers joined the Catholic Church. For more details please refer the correspondence by these two bishops and the church that consecrated them as bishops. How the Coonan Cross Oath of 1653, played a part in what happened in 1926 is unknown. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your analysis. These questions appear to need an answer. I have reeposted them on [[File:Nasrani Evolution.jpg]]. Student7 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the file. Only discription changes are required. What does Neduvelilmathew mean by not showing in right persepctive ?

Pamparam (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to delete the file. Any changes can be made to the file after discussion in its talk page.User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of "claim"
In the spirit of Words_to_avoid, I've changed a couple of occurrences of "claim" to "believe". This seems to be the verb more usual in articles on other churches/denominations. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted before reading this and you do (as does Wikpedia) have a point. In the case of religious bodies, however, it might be better to find a word that isn't quite so close to religious "belief" which implies membership in the group or not. This "claim" is not on that level and there are people in good standing in the church who don't accept these statements as true. Can another acceptable word be found? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted
I deleted a ridiculous statement that espoused, 'Hinduism being a syncretic religion between Gnostic Christianity and the Vedic religion.' This is slightly bias and factually inaccurate. "Hinduism" as we know it now is highly syncretic but the entire religion is not the syncretism thereof but something that contains syncretic elements (as do all religions) as well as the native socio-historical/religious and philosophical progression away from Vedic influences toward Vedanatic ones; also the interaction between the educated Oxford Indian elite and their systematic classification in Western terms of the varying sects and philosophies of N. and S. India.simonmatt1100 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

reply to Mathew's explanation
Hello Mathew,

You seem to be a very good supporter of your church.Ofcourse ,that is a very good thing. I read your answer to my question.But still i have some doubts..Please take these discussions in a friendly manner,I donot intend to demoralize or make fun of any religion or community.

In your reply ,you said that,Malankara Marthoma Metrapolitha is always selected by the people. Please note that i am not asking about 'malankara Marthoma metropolitan' who is the supreme head of your church. Marthoma is the name of your church, hence naturally Malankara Marthomma Metropolitan becomes the head of your church. Earlier itself i had mentioned that the reign of Marthoma Metrans ended in Marthoma 9,and after that the power was transferred  to  the Malankara Metropolitan.' You may very well note that H.G Mathews Mar Athanasios , founder of the marthomma church, was a Malankara Metropolitan,and reigned here for almost 10 years ,after which he was abdicated from the position, due to his reform movements in the curch,and was replaced by Joseph Dionysious V (Pulikkotiil Joseph Dionysious I). Please also note that the foundation stone for my native church,Holy Innocents Orthodox Valiyapalli,mezhuveli, was laid by Mathews Mar Athanasios ,when he was still the malankara metropolitan.So you cannot deny the fact that the reign of Marthoma Metrans had ended and the power was transferred to the Malankara metropolitan,the current Malankara Metropolitan being H.H Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Didymos I Catholicos Of East, and this position being supported and recognized by the Supreme Court of India This being the fact,how can you say that the lineage of marthoma metrans still continues even today, when the title of Malankara Metropolitan is still being used? Arunvroy (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arun Roy,

Mathews Mar Athanasios was approved by the governments as “Metropolitan of the Syrian Christians” and not as Malankara Metropolitan. (Ref: M.P.Varkey, 1901.Malankara Idavakayudey Methrapolita. Page 9)

You have mentioned that the reign of Marthoma Metrans ended in Marthoma 9, and after that the power was transferred to the Malankara Metropolitan. Probably you are thinking of the proclamation by the government that was given to Mar Thoma X. The declaration uses, “Metropolitan of the Syrian Church in Malabar” and not “Malankara Metropolitan”. (Ref: From one of the original proclamation). So successors of Mar Thoma IX also may be called Mar Thoma Metrans.

Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan is not a title given to one particular church. Mar Thoma belongs to all Malnkara Nazrani people. So all Nazrai churches are free to adopt that title for their church leader. Accepting such a person as Metropolitan or as Malankara Metropolitan or as Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan is left to the individual churches.

You have also mentioned that Mathews Mar Athanasios abdicated from the position. Do you have any proof for this claim?

You have mentioned that you are a member of the Holy Innocents Orthodox Valiyapalli, Mezhuveli. In 1890 it was known as Mezhuveli Yakobaya Valia Palli. Till 1890 worship services were conducted by Bavakakshi and Metran Kakshi (about 110 families) on alternate Sundays as per the agreement. (Hope you know the details of this agreement).

It is better if you can read, Malankara Marthoma Sabha Charitram (Three volumes in Malyalam), by N.M.Mathew, available at Thomsons Book store, College Road, Kozhencherry (which is nearer to Mezhuveli) or at Mar Thoma book stalls. Note that the materials in the book are copyrighted.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

@Matthew Neduvelil,

The name Marthoma stands for Apostle Saint Thomas and can be used by bishops of any church.

But it is false information that the bishops who were known as Marthoma I, Marthoma II etc till Marthoma IX were predecessors of the current chief bishop of Marthoma Syrian Church.

I have mentioned it under the title "Historical Relation with Syriac Orthodox Church".

All of these bishops accepted Syriac Orthodox sacraments, liturgy and faith. Most of them were also ordinated by bishops of the Syriac Orthodox church who arrived from Syria or Jerusalem. All of them are also buried either in Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox churches of Kerala.

While it maybe alright to say that 'Marthoma' is the title of the chief bishop of the Marthoma Syrian Church, it is absolutely false information and propaganda to misrepresent bishops of the Syriac Orthodox Church(Marthoma I to Marthoma IX) as the predecessors of the bishops of Marthoma Syrian Church which is not part of either Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Communion. It isnt Nestorian or Assyrian either. Marthoma Syrian Church subscribes to Protestant Theology, is having communion with the Anglican Churches. How can they claim the Syriac Orthodox bishops legacy??

This is propaganda and false information. Please change it and give some legitimacy to this article and make it seem genuine.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Churches in full communion
The Anglican Communion is an association of these churches in full communion with the Church of England (which may be regarded as the mother church of the worldwide communion) and specifically with its principal primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. – See Wikipedia article, “Anglican Communion”.

In the article, Mar Thoma Church, it is mentioned (3 times) that the Mar Thoma Church is “in Communion with” the Anglican Church. If there is such an agreement with the Mar Thoma Church, then, who were the signatories of that agreement, when and where it was agreed and where is the original of this agreement kept? If there is no such agreement signed by both parties, then the statement that Mar Thoma Church is in full communion with the Anglican Church is wrong. I understand that Mar Thoma Church is a fully independent Church with no strings attached to it by another church.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the website of the Mar Thoma Church, she is:


 * "As a reformed Church with Episcopal traditions, the Mar Thoma Church entered into dialogue with the Anglican Church in India. The Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops considered the question of communion between the two Churches. A commission was appointed by the Anglican Church in India in 1957 to study the possibility of intercommunion. After considering the report of the Commission a concordat was agreed upon in 1961 establishing Communion relationship between the two Churches. It was also agreed that in the consecration of Bishops by either Church the Bishops of the other Church shall participate. Thus ministry of the two Churches was mutually accepted in full. Later the Lambeth Conference declared acceptance of the ministry and full communion relationship. Thus the Mar Thoma Church is now in full communion relationship with the Anglican Communion all over the world."


 * I don't think the context of full communion here means that the Mar Thoma Church is in any way subordinate to the Church of England. - Bob K | Talk 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Like most religious stuff, this is not easy to understand. So when the Anglicans consecrate the Archbishop of Canterbury, kind of spiritual head of the Anglicans, the Mar Thomans are there, but it doesn't really mean anything for them?
 * Having said that, I can give a larger case with smaller ramifications: The Catholic Church "recognizes" Orthodox sacraments. This is clearly not "full communion", for the Orthodox still have the Catholics excommunicated (from AD 1000!). But the real point here, is that Catholics recognizes the hierarchy/priests of the Orthodox even thought they do not participate in consecration! So anything is possible, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong to connect the Marthomas from Marthoma 1 to Marthoma 9 who belonged to the Syriac Orthodox(Jacobite) Church.

It is only after the arrival of CMS missionaries and subsequent Protestant Reformation in the Syriac Orthodox community of kerala that the Marthoma Church was formed.

They were known as Reformist party(Naveekaranakkar) in those days and fought a prolonged litigation with the Syriac Orthodox over custody of churches. They lost in the Royal Court and organised themselves under the name "Marthoma Syrian Church". After that they started naming their bishops as "Marthoma" in the old Syriac Orthodox tradition. But how can their succession be linked to the Marthomans of the Syriac Orthodox Church?

There is already a Syriac Orthodox Church wing in Malankara who is claiming the succession. There is also another Indian Orthodox Church which split from the Syriac Orthodox Church, with a Catholicose and who also claims the succession.

But how can a non-Oriental Orthodox church like the Marthoma Syrian Church claim the succession of Oriental Orthodox bishops in the period from 1665-1830s? This wiki article is very misleading.

It has to be changed for neutrality's sake. We have to remember that this is not the official website of the denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Marthoma I to Marthoma IX were Oriental Orthodox and not Protestants
The article seems to have ignored the historical relationship with the Syriac Orthodox Church which could be considered a very important aspect in understanding the Marthoma Church.

The Marthoma Syrian Church was formed from Syriac Orthodox believers who were influenced by Protestant theology during the British age and due to the activities of the CMS Anglican missionaries. The church still uses most parts of the West Syriac liturgy brought to kerala in 17th century by the Syriac Orthodox bishops from Jerusalem and Antioch and even the same bishop vestments.

No mention is made of the formation of the Marthoma Syrian Church in 19th century after the Royal Court verdict in favour of the Syrian Orthodox Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi MathenKozhencherry,

I was surprised to read your comments on “Historical relation to the Syriac Orthodox Church” and Mar Thoma Church.
 * 1. Mar Thoma Church was not formed from Syriac Orthodox Church. Orthodox Church came to Kerala only in 1912.
 * 2.No mention is made of the formation of the Marthoma Syrian Church in 19th century after the Royal Court verdict because it was then known as Metran Kakshi (those who stood with the Malankara Metran) and the others Bava Kakshi (those who stood with Patriarch Bava of Antioch) during that period.
 * 3. The Royal Court verdict was not in favour of the Syrian Orthodox Church, because there was no Orthodox Church in Kerala at that time.
 * 4. The Marthoma Syrian Church was not a Protestant Church it was a Reformed Church.

If you need more details or want to know more about these points, please refer the latest books by Orthodox Church authors, available at the Library of the Orthodox Church at Pazhaya Seminary, Kottayam, only a few kilometers from Kozhencherry.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi MathenKozhencherry,
 * In the above topic, Churches in Full communion, you suggested that, “Marthoma 1 to Marthoma 9 belonged to the Syriac Orthodox(Jacobite) Church”. From where can we get this information?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

@neduvelil matthew

Im very surprised at your comments.

The event you are referring to in 1912 is the split of the Syriac Orthodox Church into two factions. One of which is called the Indian Orthodox Church.

Even Palakkunath Methran of Marthoma Sabha was a bishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church who served in Mosul, Iraq. He even claimed to be ordinated by the Patriarch of Antioch.

Also dont forget who ordinated Marthoma I in the year 1665. It was the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Mar Gregorios! Many Syriac Orthodox bishops like H.H Eldho Mar Baselios, Patriarch Patrose III etc who arrived from Syria in various years between 1665 and 19th century are entombed in Kerala!

This is basic Malankara history known to every kid, ask every protestant, catholic or orthodox priest in kerala for such basic information. I cant imagine the blunders mentioned in this wiki article.....someone post some History here please....and not British made fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathenkozhencherry (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

@neduvelil mathew,

marthoma 1 to marthoma 9, belonged to an era, when their were no protestants in kerala. Those bishops upholded the orthodox tradtions and believes, and they are bishops, who venerated St.Mary, who prayed for the departed and many many things which the REFORMED(another word for the same old protestant) church do not do.ie what your church do not do. Had they been alive to see all these, what all a mere protestant church claims, they would tore their cloacks off... Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Marthoma I to Marthoma IX have no relation to Marthoma Church.
I saw that this article mentioned the bishops from Marthoma I to Marthoma IX as predecessors of the bishops in the Marthoma Syrian Church.

In 1653, after a section of the St. Thomas Christians revolted against the rule of the latin catholic bishops and the portuguese, they ordinated for themselves an indigenous bishop called Marthoma I.http://www.nestorian.org/church_of_the_east_in_india.html http://indianchristianity.org/orthodox/history.html Archdeacon Thomas was ordinated in 1665 by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem -Mar Gregorios and Archdeacon assumed assumed the name Marthoma I after this ordination. Marthoma II was also ordained by the same Syriac orthodox bishop Mar Gregorios. Marthoma III and Marthoma IV were ordinated by the Syriac Orthodox bishop Mor Ivanios, the Patriarchal delegate http://catholicose.org/PauloseII/Primates.htm Sabhavijnanakosham, published by MOSC

Previous to this event the St. Thomas Christians used the East Syriac liturgy of the Assyrian Church in Iraq. After the Syriac Orthodox connection in 17th century, the revolters switched to West Syriac and got ordination for their bishops from the Syrian Orthodox bishops from Middle Easr.

The Marthoma Syrian Church was formed after 1850s from converts from Syriac Orthodox to Protestantism(Anglicanism). Even Palakunath bishop(nephew of Abraham malpan) who spearheaded the reformation, was having the Syriac Orthodox ordination and was a bishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church. http://www.ananthapuri.com/kerala-history.asp?page=christian

Just because the Marthoma Syrian Church claims in some websites that their own bishops have the succession of the Syriac Orthodox bishops between 1665 and 1830s, does not mean its valid or historically accurate or that such falsifications can be posted in an online encylopaedia.

Afterall, how can a church which is not part of the Oriental Orthodox communion claim its bishops to be successors of bioshops of another Orthodox Church? Please correct such online terrorism against the Syriac Orthodox Church!....To say the bishops of the Marthoma Syrian Church are successors of the Syriac Orthodox Marthomans from 1665 to 19th century is as preposterous as the United States claiming that George Washington is the successor of the British Monarch.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the deal: until you start trying to hear other people, and stop using language like "online terrorism", it's not going to be profitable to engage in discussion. If you want to get consensus on changes to the article, you'll have to try a different method than ordering everyone around and accusing people of terrorism. Tb (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if you found me aggressive but reading this article was a shock for me, as i myself am a regular visitor to Niranam St. Mary's Orthodox Church where two of the Marthomans are entombed. Both Marthoma II and Marthoma V are buried in this church http://niranamchurch.com/MarThomaMetropolitans.htm    #marthomaII and i consider them as my patron saints.

All Marthomans from Marthoma I to Marthoma IX are either buried in the Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox Churches of Kerala http://kottayamcheriapally.com/index/index/content/1493/History.html.

They all accepted the ordination of Syriac Orthodox bishops from Jerusalem and Antioch and most were ordained by them and all Marthomans celebrated the Orthodox West Syriac Mass/Liturgy.

I find it a rude shock that such blatant misrepresentations are made in this article.

Marthoma Syrian Church is our sister Church, they are syrian christians like us who split from us in late 19th century after a Royal Court verdict in favour of the Orthodox Christians. They separated and set-up new churches for their believers. Marthoma Syrian Church does not accept Orthodox Sacraments or beliefs and subscribes to an Anglican/Protestant line of thinking. How can it be claimed that Marthoma Syrian bishops are successors of the Syriac Orthodox Marthomans?

I request the wiki contributors to please correct this mistake because such misrepresentations lend the article as one which is illegitimate and just propaganda in the eyes of readers from the Indian Christian community. I wish all Indian Christian communities articles be written from a neutral perspective, and not be attempts by christians to glorify their own churches by deliberately providing wrong information.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

reply to mathew neduvelil
''1. Mar Thoma Church was not formed from Syriac Orthodox Church. Orthodox Church came to Kerala only in 1912.'' --mathew neduvelil


 * Are you referring to the split between pro-patriarch faction and pro-malankara metropolitan faction in the Syriac Orthodox Church which happened in 1912?


 * I hope you are not out of your mind. Before 1912, the Syriac Orthodox were referred to as 'Jacobites'. They are still known by the name today. The pro-malankara metropolitan faction organised themselves as the 'Malankara(Indian) Orthodox Syrian' Church and established a Catholicate in 1912. After that the word 'Orthodox' " started to be used in kerala to refer to a community.


 * Previouly all Oriental Orthodox Syrian Christians were referred by the name Jacobites in Kerala. Jacobites existed in Kerala atleast since 1665, thats when Mar Gregorios -the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem came to Kerala and ordinated Marthoma I for the Jacobite Church.


 * Jacobite means Syriac Orthodox in Kerala. It was initially a derogatory name used to call the Syriac Orthodox in Middle East, to imply that the Non-Chalcedonian Church was formed by Mar Yakob Burdana(Jacob Bardeus). Yakob Burdana was responsible for reviving this almost dead church and he is said to have ordinated around 1,00,000 priests. So post-Yakobb Burdana the church really grew and so the Chalcedonian christians in Middle-East started calling the Non-Chalcedonian Syriac Orthodox as 'Jacobites'.


 * The name stuck in Kerala, and it is with the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church that the Marthoma Syrian Church(then known as Reformist Party) fought a prolonged litigation in the Royal Court.


 * The Reformist Party lost the case, and got get custody of only 3 churches previously owned by the Syriac Orthodox. So they re-organised themselves as a new church after the defeat in the court and assumed the name 'Marthoma Syrian Church' and built new churches for their believers.


 * 1. It was formed out of converts from the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church.


 * 2. It started with only three churches, and all three were previously owned by the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church.


 * 3. Its founders were previously members of the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church and followed the West Syriac St. James liturgy used by the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch.


 * 4. It fought a litigation with Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church for custody of churches but lost in the courts.


 * 5. Its bishops continue to use the Syriac Orthodox bishop vestments and most of its liturgy is an edited version of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy.


 * So YES, Marthoma Syrian Church was formed out of the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church or from the Jacobite community of Kerala.

2.No mention is made of the formation of the Marthoma Syrian Church in 19th century after the Royal Court verdict because it was then known as Metran Kakshi (those who stood with the Malankara Metran) and the others Bava Kakshi (those who stood with Patriarch Bava of Antioch) during that period.--matthew


 * Yes you are right they were called as Bava Kakshi and Methran Kakshi. Another way to refer to their distinct status was to refer to them also as 'Jacobites' and the others as the 'Reformist Party'.


 * Those who stood with Syriac Orthodox beliefs were called Bava Kakshi or Jacobites. Their only hope for survival was to remove their bishop who suddenly turned into a protestant, to excommunicate him by an authority higher than him. Which at the time was only the HH Patriarch of Antioch. Those who supported Reformation and Protestant ideals were called Methran Kakshi.


 * The Methran Kakshi or Reformist lost the case and re-organised themselves as the Naveekarana Suriani Sabha(Reformed Syrian Church).


 * It was only much later during the reign of the Reformed Syrian bishop Titus II (1899-1944) that the church was renamed as the Marthoma Syrian Church.

3. ''The Royal Court verdict was not in favour of the Syrian Orthodox Church, because there was no Orthodox Church in Kerala at that time. ''--matthew


 * Who do you think they fought with in the courts? With the Jacobites.


 * Refer my reply number 1.


 * Its so frustrating that even an elder keralite christian like you dont know that Jacobites are the term used to refer to the Syriac Orthodox community! (except in Britain where Jacobite was used to refer to something else).


 * The historical awareness of the average keralite if rated on a scale from 1-10, would go no higher than 1.

4. The Marthoma Syrian Church was not a Protestant Church it was a Reformed Church. --matthew


 * Suit yourself, but the bottom line is that the Reformed church does not believe in Intercession of Saints, Veneration of Icons or Relics, Prostration, Prayers for the Church Triumphant, Feast Days or any Oriental Christian practises common to the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian(nestorian) churches.


 * You dont call it 'Protestant' because thats the term used to refer to people who 'protested' against the Roman Catholic Church in Europe. But the same Protestant missionaries from England who belonged to the Anglican Churches were instrumental in causing the split and the litigation in the courts and finally leading to the formation of Marthoma Syrian Church.

78.89.35.143 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I respect the history and heritage of the Marthoma Syrian church, but please do not abuse and misrepresent the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church or its bishops to present a false history of the Marthoma Syrian Church.

Bishops like Marthoma V are considered almost on par with saints in the Malankara(Indian) Orthodox and Malankara(Syriac Orthodox) Jacobite churches and it is very hurtful to see them being misrepresented as something they are not. According to our Oriental Orthodox theology, they are still spiritually alive and they would not be happy about what you are doing, by misrepresenting them. Would you like it if someone tried to present your deceased parent as something they are not? Please correct these flawed history statements made in the article. Please remove the references to the Syriac Orthodox bishops Marthoma I till Marthoma IX as predecessors of the bishops of the Reformed church known as Marthoma Syrian Church. - Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, the Mar Thoma Church claims succession from them. You dispute that.  But that's the way of religious disputes.  We aren't going to decide the question of proper succession here; what we can do is indicate that both claim descent from the same people.  Tb (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That would seem to be the best solution to this impasse. I don't think Wikipedia is the arena to decide on succession issues or the primacy of different official church historical narratives. To indicate that some Syriac Orthodox dispute the historical succession claims of the Mar Thoma Church; provided that there are reliable sources; ought to suffice. - Bob K | Talk 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly is very strange to see a reformed/protestant church claiming bishops of an Oriental Orthodox church, entombed in Indian Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox churches of kerala as theirs. Another dubious claim is regarding the chair used to consecrate Mar Thoma 1 being preserved by this church. Apart from claims in  marthoma church websites, are there any authentic sourcesor references to back this up? - [User:Thomachan1986|Thomachan1986]] (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please play attention to the style of your edits? Your failure to follow indenting conventions and such is already a bad sign; if this is how you want to edit the article, we're in for a bumpy ride.  In any case, it is not at all odd to see a "reformed/protestant" church claim the bishops of the shared lineage before the split.  Consider the Archbishop of Canterbury as a prime example.  Tb (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tb, your analogy with the Roman Catholics and Anglicans claiming the pre-reformation Archbishops of Canterbury for themselves would not apply in the Kerala Syrian Christian scenario because of three reasons:


 * 
 * In my knowledge, the Roman Catholic Church no longer has an Archbishop or bishophric of Canterbury.But the primate of the Indian Orthodox Church still has a primate who is the legitimate successor of the Marthomans and whose title starts with the name "Marthoma".


 * This matter was settled legally in 1899 in the Royal Courts, whose conclusions are legally binding even in post-Independence India. Morever only the Marthomans or his successors had the right to own a private army, and this was a legal and civil privilege granted to him and his successor by the Hindu Kings and the Royal traditions since ancient times.

This is a picture of the Nasrani pada giving guard of honour to Malankara Metrapolita(Vattasseril Thirumeni)of the Indian Orthodox Church in Kunnamkulam in the year 1932: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Uuzq1g4Nh6A/SwTlR2V0cXI/AAAAAAAACSM/IGmmRPSPn7o/s400/400px-Guard_of_honer_1932.jpg

No such legal or civil privileges existed for the Reformed Marthomite bishops after the court verdict in 1899. Note that the term "Malankara Metropolitan" was used to refer to the successors of the Marthomans, even in the period before the marthoma split. The title is granted by the King or the civil authorities and cannot be used by anyone else.

The bishops of Marthoma church post 1899 did not have the right to use the "Malankara Metropolitan" title, neither the right to a private army, which means their claims were rejected by a legal authority, whose pronouncements still carry weight in India. What they post as claims is legally invalid under Indian law for any practical purposes.


 * In the case of England and Anglican Churches, almost the entire island went out of communion from Rome and almost all the churches from then on belonged to the new Anglican Church and the new archbishop of Canterbury. But in India, only 3 out of the hundreds of churches were granted to the new reformist faction which later called themselves as Marthoma Syrian Church.

All the Marthomans are also entombed in either Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox churches of Kerala and majority of the pre-reformation churches(except the 3) belong to these two Orthodox Churches.
 *  - Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It ought to be mentioned here that marthoma church's claim over the legacy of Orthodox Marthoman bishops is illegal.This is not the official website of marthoma church to make such claims which are void under Indian law and infringing on the lawful claims of another church. - Thomachan1986 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will address your concern if and when you decide to follow formatting procedures. I'm tired of spending so long trying to figure out what you are even saying.  Tb (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have formatted some of my older comments to conform better to the rules. Take a look at them and let me know where i have gone wrong(if there are any further mistakes) Please change the reference to Marthoma I to Marthoma IX as the bishops of Marthoma Syrian Church. I think we have shown you that is not the case and that the claims are even illegal according to court verdicts in India. Legally, the successors of the Marthomans(I-XIII) are the Orthodox Church bishops.


 * Morover the names of these bishops are not even mentioned in the Indian Orthodox or Malankara Syriac Orthodox(Jacobite) wiki articles. It is very misleading to then include their names only under the marthoma church article.


 * No law can prevent Marthoma Church calling their first bishop as Marthoma XIV. But bishops upto Marthoma XIII were Oriental Orthodox, the split happened at the time of Marthoma XIII. So its more fair to remove all descriptions of Marthoma I-XIII and mention them as Oriental Orthodox, but over whom the Marthoma Church makes a claim. But a claim which is negated by Indian law. The present Marthoma Church article is biased, misleading and making illegal claims. - Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Total population
The total population of this church is around 3,40,000 or 0.34 million according to government figures. They form about 5% of the total kerala christianpopulation of 6.1 million.

The figure mentioned here is 4 million or 1200% of the original!!

Please correct such huge blunders. Thomachan1986 (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)s.


 * Please stop putting newlines between every sentence. It is annoying.  The blunder was User:Mathenkozhencherry's fault.  He altered "around one million members" to "around 4,00,000 members".  Someone else figure he dropped a zero and changed it to "around 4,000,000" members.  And here, you say "around 3,40,000" which is again, not how commas work in numbers in English.  Maybe if you all were more concerned with getting your formatting and grammar right, you might actually improve the article.  As it is, you are so busy typing newlines and exclamation points and being filled with rage and upsetness, that you can't even edit the numbers correctly.  How about you edit the number, and provide a source?  Tb (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In our Indian number system we have comas this way. Its bad enough we have to confirm to your number system here, but you being very insensitive doesnt help people like me trying to adapt to your ways and keep up with your expectations.


 * Best source of demographic info would be the Malayala Manorama Year book (most circulated year book in india). It gives denominationvise breakup. Also see the government website: http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/religion.aspx (which mentions kerala christian populations as 19% of total- which comes to 6 million and slightly more.


 * The total christian population of Kerala is 6 million. However if we add up the claims in various wiki articles relating to them, it would take it beyond 12 million. Here are the figures from the year book(rounded to approx one hundred thousand or ten thousand):


 * Total Christian Population in the Indian State of Kerala: 6.1 million.


 * Break up:
 * Roman(Latin) Catholics: 1.4 million
 * Syro-Malabar Catholics: 2.2 million
 * Syro-Malankara Catholics: 100,000(0.1 million)
 * Malankara Syriac(Jacobite) Orthodox and Malankara(Indian) Orthodox combined*: 1.4 million
 * Marthoma Syrian Church: 340,000 (0.34 million)
 * CSI: 380,000 (0.38 million)
 * Other smaller protestant sects together: 300,000 (0.3 million- this includes combined of dozens of smaller protestant denominations combined).


 * The classification of the two Orthodox Churches as separate is hard to get, most government gazettes classify them as one community, since the status of their division/unity keeps fluctuation between few decades.


 * I hope this satisfies you and is not against the conventions or procedures. - Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, if I were editing Wikipedia in an Indian language, I would be expected to conform to their conventions. Here, you should conform to English conventions.  Tb (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The 340,000 number is probably accurate for India but this disregards members who do not reside in India and therefore not included in the Indian Government Census. I would suggest that the original figure of 1 million be reinstated as claimed by the Mar Thoma Church itself. - Bob K | Talk 15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathenkozhencherry, do not just replace the number, and say "see talk" as if you even said anything here to substantiate it. You need to address what has been said, and not just repeatedly insist that your change is right. We have a documented reliable source for the one million figure, and a perfectly reasonable understanding of why the Kerala number is lower: because it only includes people in Kerala, whereas the one million number is the number worldwide. Unless you have a source with a better worldwide number, we go with the source we have. Tb (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tb, the actual membership of this church is currently less than 300,000. But what we have is the census taken in the last decade which showed a membership of 340,000. But a recent report published by the Marthoma Church in the year 2007 said that the church lost 20 percent of its members to other protestant sects(especially Pentecostal) in the last few years. The details of the report are mentioned in the 2007 March edition of the Kalakaumudi magazine published in Kerala.


 * Almost every single member of Marthoma Church is a Keralite. The immigration is not so big as you imagine and at maximum 5 percent of the community maybe have citizenship in western countries and maybe residing there with family. However there is a very large expatriate community of keralites residing in the Middle Eastern countries. But these people do not get citizenship there because of the Islamic laws and they come back home for vacation every year and most of their relatives, grown kids, even wives are back home. They are also included in the Indian Census for this reason. The only people missing would be a few thousand living as citizens in USA or UK. That would never triple the population to 1 million!! 340,000 is actually no longer true, in the new census we may get lesser numbers which correspond to the report of Marthoma Church about the exodus to extreme protestant sects. Until then it is better to go with the last census figure available.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of claims there. Do you have sources for any of them? The only source we have which claims to represent world-wide membership says one million. If there is a better source for worldwide membership we should use it, of course, but you've given none. Tb (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly! These are just claims without any citations. I am aware of significant number of Mar Thomites in Malaysia alone where there is a significant number of Malaysians of Malayalee descent. - Bob K | Talk 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you just have an online source, and that too from a church website. If we add all the population figures given in all kerala syrian churches together, we'd have to believe there are no Hindus or Muslims in Kerala. If the census were left to bishops, pastors, swamis and mullahs im sure the world population would go beyond a trillion.


 * Yeah im aware that many keralites immigrated to Malaysia during the British Raj, especially due to the plantation industry providing many jobs. Almost every Kerala Church has a diocese in Malaysia, not just the Marthoma Church. Their numbers dont go beyond a few thousand as i said before. I wish some keralites were around to see all the comedy written in these pages.


 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Formatting please. And the source cited is generally more reliable than hearsay and speculation. Again, it must be reiterated that the figure cited isn't for Kerala only but for the total worldwide figure. The Mar Thoma Church claims a membership of 30,000 in the United States alone, according to WCC figures. Unless a reliable source can be cited to limit the number to 340,000 or less, we will have to stick to the 13 year old WCC number. - Bob K | Talk 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See the new additions under the head population on the article. This is looking more and more like a proselytisation leaflet distributed in busstops by jesus freaks.


 * about the population figure, i agree with user mathen kozhencherry. Its atleast three times the actual.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The new additions have been removed as per WP:SOAP and the article amended accordingly. The various attempts to change the number of adherents have not been supported with adequate references to indicate that the number cited is an accurate representation of the worldwide total. At best, it is the number of adherents within the jurisdiction of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India. On a more realistic level, the reference used to support the 340,000 claim; ie. the Malayala Manorama Yearbook; can at best claim to represent the total number among Malayalees in India, and not the India-wide number. Considering that the Church has dioceses organised outside Kerala (ie. Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore etc.), one has to assume that the Church's membership encompasses other ethnic communities apart from Malayalees. Nevertheless, the reference cited cannot be used to accurately represent the total number of adherents worldwide.


 * The original number quoted is from a news article by the National Council of Churches, an ecumenical organisation in the United States that is part of the World Council of Churches. The World Council of Churches' members from India include the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar, the Chaldean Syrian Church of the East, the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, and the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church - all of which are churches from the St. Thomas tradition. The World Council of Churches state that the membership of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church currently stands at 1,061,940 . I would suspect that if this number is inaccurate or disputed, the other St. Thomas churches would have used WCC channels to correct the error.


 * Either way, it is not the place of Wikipedia to determine such issues nor is Wikipedia the soapbox for any sectarian agenda (see WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV). The criteria used in Wikipedia is clearly indicated in WP:CITE and this is the standard used by the editors. To accuse the editors of bias and immorality is clearly crossing the line of propriety and acceptable behaviour (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). - Bob K | Talk 03:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "WCC figures"? The WCC is just an ecumenical roundtable. It runs no census. The figures given as "WCC figures" are only the info the Marthoma church provides it with.


 * The census figures account for all indian states and all non-residentindians with immediate relatives in India. Any keralite knows what percentage of their people live abroad. The census figures are more reliable and nearer to the original than

"wcc figures" which show 3-4 times the census figure. Definitely 90% of its members reside in india.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Any Keralite" is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a source citation in Wikipedia. You have an issue with the numbers, bring it up with your own diocese so that your Church can ask WCC to amend the figures. Otherwise, the only figures that indicate a worldwide figure is the one that is published by the WCC that qualifies as a source for Wikipedia. Any further edits can only be viewed as deliberate vandalism and disruption and will be referred to the Wikipedia administrators for further action. - Bob K | Talk 08:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The official church websites always hype figures. If we add up the official claims of all these kerala churches the total kerala christian population becomes more than 12 million. However total kerala christian population is only 6.1 million according to all census reports. Obviously all church websites provide an inflated figure. The Indian Census Report is the most authoritative source and it includes all immigrants who have parents, spouses or children back in India. All immigrants barring a few early ones who have no immediate relatives are counted for this reason.


 * Disagreements are not "vandalism" and please DO NOT make controversial edits before consensus. Im trying to make each denominations figures do justice to the total tally of 6.1 million with adequate provision for rare case immigrants with no roots in India. Just copy pasting inflated figures from church websites make the Official Census Report of the Republic of India look like a joke and kerala christians  foolish.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If any edits were made, it was by you. The editors have merely reverted back to the original sourced figures pending a final resolution. Apart from anecdotal assertions, you have provided no evidence to suggest that the original figure provided is inaccurate. Nonetheless, you have found it fit to arbitrarily amend the figure as and when you fancy citing a census report that is limited in scope as well as political geography while, as far as I can tell, not taking the trouble to figure out the basics of Wikipedia formatting and policies. And you have done so sufficiently to warrant four boilerplate warnings within the same day. If it is your intention to turn this into an edit war, please know that Wikipedia does have sufficient policiy and action templates to engage such disruptive behaviour. - Bob K | Talk 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Indian Census Report is not an "anecdotal reference" and it is more authentic than some "claim" on a church website.


 * According to the claim there should be more than 660,000 members outside India with no immediate relatives in India. However the same websites contradict themselves on this and show much much lesser figures. That means their claimed figure of members within India clashes with the census figures.


 * So its a choice between an inflated and contradictory religious report and official Indian Census Report.


 * I dont mind being blocked for honesty. But just cant bow to ultimatums from fanatic protestant folks like tb or bob with bias against oriental religions.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is questioning the figure in the Indian census report. It should be accurate as far as providing the total adherents in India. We're just reiterating that it cannot be used as a reliable source for the worldwide numbers. My references to anecdotal assertions are specifically meant to address things like:


 * "Any keralite knows what percentage of their people live abroad."


 * and


 * "All immigrants barring a few early ones who have no immediate relatives are counted for this reason."


 * rather than casting aspersions on the figures given by the Indian census.


 * The personal attacks have really gone overboard despite all of us trying very hard to keep this discussion civil. A report has been filed with the Wikipedia administrators about your activities. I'll leave it to the other Wikipedians to decide if it is worth taking action upon. - Bob K | Talk 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If u agree with the census figure of 340,000 for india, are u saying there are twice the number outside? do you take the readers for morons?


 * entire article is protestant propaganda copied from websites, and making outrageous insults to the Jacobite(Oriental Orthodox) Marthoman bishops( marthoma 1 to marthoma 12).


 * a few wiki editors think they can use wikipedia for some protestant freak show as long as they conform to wiki guidelines(while ignoring neutrality to the worst extent possible)
 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "morons", "freak show", "fanatic" .. who exactly is making the insults here? - Bob K | Talk 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I apologise for the outburst above. I will be seeking third party arbitration for this issue and suggest that no edits be done on the disputed matter until the WP:DRR has had an opportunity to run its course. - Bob K | Talk 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The worst insult here is to the Oriental Orthodox bishops(marthoman 1-marthoma 12), who are grossly misrepresented and tarnished. Please dont abuse their memories with such lies against them.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your "outburst" and "apology" seem to me like mere drama to play before someone, when you overlook the misrepresentation of the marthoman bishops.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * These are two separate issues and a proposed resolution has been posted on the latter issue. It appears that there is a lot of controversy between the various factions that claim succession from the St. Thomas Christians and you seem to be intent to ensuring that only one faction's opinions gain the upper hand in Wikipedia. Please re-read WP:SOAP and note that the current issue regarding the total population has been forwarded for dispute resolution through Wikipedia channels as per WP:DRR. - Bob K | Talk 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The opinion of only one faction is getting upperhand and my intent is to correct.
 * To misrepresent an Oriental Orthodox bishop as Protestant is not an "opinion".

Thomachan1986 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are discussing this issue in the wrong section and I believe User:Tb has addressed the matter. - Bob K | Talk 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Impasse on question of succession - A proposed solution
Since there is considerable unease and disagreement being raised about the Mar Thoma Church's claim to succession from the Orthodox Marthoman bishops, I would like to suggest that a paragraph be added to indicate that the claim to succession is not recognised by Indian law (with the proper citations referencing the 1899 Trivandrum Royal Court of Appeals judgement on the "Seminary Suit") and is disputed by other claimants. The list of Metropolitans should still be retained since it is part of the Mar Thoma Church's self identification. I hope this will resolve a lot of the cyber-screaming and shouting that's going on here. - Bob K | Talk 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good suggestion. Yes, since Marthoma Church's cultural and social affinity has always been to the Malankara Syriac Orthodox community in India, and since they identify much with it(though their faith is reformed/protestant), i agree it would not be too bad to let the list of metropolitans be retained. But please do add a paragraph above it indicating that the claim of Marthoma Church to succession is invalid by Indian law and goes to the Malankara Metropolitan of Indian Orthodox Church according to the various Royal Court and Supreme Court(post Independence) verdicts.


 * I do not have a copy of the verdict of 1899 made in the Royal Court. But here is a copy of the Supreme Court(highest court of law in India) Verdict made in 1995: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8342467/The-Supreme-Court-Judgement


 * See page number 9. It clearly mentions about the litigation that happened between the Malankara Church and the Reformist party(later Marthoma Church) in late 19th century. And it also describes the outcome. According to the final judgement of the suit on 20th July 1899, Mar Joseph Dionysius of the Malankara Syrian Church was upheld as the Malankara Metropolitan and he was entitled to recover the properties of the Malankara Church which were disputed with the Marthoma.


 * The verdict clearly mentions that the Malankara Metropolitan was Joseph Dionysius of Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church and not the bishop of the Marthoma Church. So thats it about the succession. The legal successor of Marthomans is the Malankara Metropolitan(Catholicose) of the Indian Orthodox Church as judged by the verdicts of the Royal Court Judgement of 1899 and the Supreme Court Judgement of 1995.


 * Glad that somebody finally heard the "screams".
 * 78.89.35.143 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But on the otherhand should we really entertain illegal claims of religious groups on wikipedia? They have official church websites for things like that. Maybe people can arrive at a consensus on having the Marthoma I to Marthoma XIII mentioned on this page, if it was clearly stated that the succession of these bishops goes to the Malankara Metropolitan(Catholicose) of the Indian Orthodox Church according to the various decrees of the Indian Judiciary over the last 2 centuries. Othervise it only helps to mislead people into arriving at conclusions that are historically and legally incorrect. We shant turn wikipedia into a religious propaganda machine of any church or group, protestant or othervise.
 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More to the point, Wikipedia does not recognize the authority of the Indian government to decide what the true history is. Theirs is simply one more opinion.  Here we are concerned to represent the claim of the Mar Thoma church and leave it at that.  Tb (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tb. It is not the place of Wikipedia to represent a judicial opinion as the only valid interpretation. The article is meant to be an encyclopaedic entry on the Mar Thoma Church. On an unrelated note, do practice posting comments on the Sandbox first so that the formatting doesn't break. This is advice I ought to heed too. :) - Bob K | Talk 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In case bob and tb havent noticed, in the off-line world we have a certain thing called reality and court verdicts do have an effect on it. Othervise it'd be okay to mention Al Gore as the last President of the United States, on wikipedia.
 * 217.69.181.44 (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's purpose is to present facts and not to air fictional claims of religious establishments. 60% of this article seems fictional and like propaganda to me.
 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I too disagree with tb, like the rest. Lets look at facts here and not at claims. Think:


 * All Marthomans from Marthoma I to Marthoma XII are buried in Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox Churches of Kerala.
 * All Marthomans celebrated the Syriac Orthodox Eucharist and Sacraments and they accepted the Syriac Orthodox ordination.
 * They were all also part of a church which was in communion with Orthodox Churches.
 * The various judgements of the Indian judiciary in the pre-independence and the post-independence eras accept the Indian Orthodox Catholicose Malankara Metropolitan and the legitimate successor of the Marthomans.
 * Marthoma Syrian Church is a Reformed/Protestant Church which is not part of any Orthodox Communion, and its claim to succession of the Orthodox Syrian Marthomans(I-XIII) is unlawful.


 * Examining these facts, i feel the reference to the Marthomans should be deleted from this article. Or it should be allowed to remain, provided that it is mentioned that these bishops were Oriental Orthodox, and their lawful succession is with the Oriental Orthodox.
 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All religious communities have claims that may be mutually exclusive to other claims, ie. Islam claims Jesus was merely a prophet and did not die at the cross, whereas that would be anathema to Christianity. I believe the matter should be resolved now with the addition of the following paragraph:


 * "The claim to succession from Mar Thoma I by the reform party and it successor, the Mar Thoma Church, has since been disputed by the Malankara Church and is not recognized by Indian law as a result of the 1899 judgment made by the Royal Court of Appeals in Trivandrum on the case mentioned above."


 * This should represent the disputed nature of the succession sufficiently. - Bob K | Talk 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To return to the "Al Gore" analogy, Al Gore does claim to be of the "Party of Jackson-Jefferson" (early 19th century), though his deviations from their beliefs are substantial. His opponents often claim to derive from them as well. Gore is of the successor parties and has the better claim IMO, but his opponents believe more closely in what Jackson & Jefferson believed in.


 * Okay, no court decision, but that pertains to capital property not saints. Christians and Muslims claim spiritual succession from Moses. Jews strongly disagree! I suspect they could get a "court order" but it would likely do them no good as far as "claims" go! Both sides need to be stated including the court order IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the Marthomans mentioned were alive just 150 years ago(and they werent ancient figures known only in mystery scripture books like Moses or Jesus were) and its not difficult to see they were Oriental Orthodox. A section of believers who split off to form another church which believes in an entirely different Protestant Doctrine, claiming succession from these Marthomans is silly and not worth to be mentioned on an online encyclopaedia. Its outrageous as well to the Orthodox Christians of Kerala. It doesnt need a " court order" to see that.


 * Anyway the Indian Orthodox do have court orders as well to substantiate it. Personally i feel the entire reference to these Orthodox bishops must be removed, as their names are not mentioned on the Indian Orthodox page and readers maybe misled. But in favour of a quick resolution i agree with the suggestion put forward by Bob.
 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the mention of Orthodox bishops on a Protestant church page maybe outrageous for orthodox christians. These articles seem to be posted by hard-core protestant fanatics of some sort.


 * Im more concerned with the detailed summary of indian christian history provided here. It belongs on Indian Christianity page or Saint Thomas christians of kerala page.


 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Id like to assume good faith, but IMHO people like Tb, seem to be extremely biased towards certain sects. I think the entire Indian Christianity project is in jeopardy of being filled with propaganda because of such editors with strong religious bias.
 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I do not agree with the assertion that Tb is particularly biased, there would be nothing wrong if he were. Most editors have some sort of bias - we are people after all. It would be more productive and objective to indicate incorrect material or improperly referenced text. Student7 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another analogy - The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) claims spiritual descent from Jesus, that is, they perceive themselves as Christians. Many, if not most Christians, do not. Look at their article. It will indicate succession. Yes, no court decision, but that is beside the point. They claims spiritual ancestry. They get it. It can be questioned.


 * Another point - we can critique references for RELYability, or place requests for references where none exist. But simply saying "I don't like this article" is not objective or claiming that it is "60% fiction" is unhelpful. Start labeling references for checking or indicate their need. This would be impressive and thoughtful. But complaining here is clearly not going to do much good,. If we are trying to make Mar Thoma Church "look bad", this is not the place. The church has a "right" to put their best foot forward in the article and then, be shot down by equally referenced critics later, if WP:RELY. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The real problem here is much more serious than that. Misrepresenting a 19th century Orthodox bishop as a Protestant one, after his death is very immoral.


 * And it cannot be compared with churches claiming spiritual continuity from Jesus or Moses who are ancient deities or prophets or legends appearing in 2000 year old scriptures.


 * The "claims" should be mentioned only if the facts pertaining to the bishops original religious affiliation and lawful succession are mentioned as well. Othervise the article will be criminal misreprerentations of deceased people with living relatives and lawful successors to their title today.
 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim is not that the 16th century bishop was a Protestant, the claim is that the current Mar Thoma church honors him as a spiritual ancestor, which is correct, and the page does not say that he is a spiritual ancestor. Finally, it is mandatory on wikipedia that you assume good faith, especially in situations like these.  I resent the implication that I am somehow biased simply because I do not agree with you, and the accusation of immorality is entirely out of place here.  You must cease such things immediately, and this is not a negotiable question.  Tb (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article definitely make these Orthodox bishops seem like they were Protestants to the reader. This type of intentional misrepresentation is a cruel crime against the deceased persons(some of whom lived hardly 150 years ago) and their living relatives.


 * Such cruel jokes are criminal in nature. What sort of humans can do such things to the saints and their sacred memory? We need secular and unbiased wiki ediors.
 * Thomachan1986 (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Student7 The section does need to be re-written to make the positions clearer and less POV. It is my understanding that the schism goes beyond the Mar Thoma Syrian Church and the Indian Orthodox Church. Almost all the churches that claim succession from St. Thomas would have understandable disputes regarding their common history and heritage. Schisms do not occur in a vacuum after all.

Such disputes would even be more acute when one considers that the Mar Thoma Syrian Church originates from the Malankara Church which has since had multiple schisms; ie. Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (which claims that the Catholicate of the East relocated to India hence having her own supreme head), the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church (which still recognises the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch [the title of the Patriarch of Antioch is itself claimed by 5 different Churches] as her supreme head) and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church (which recognises the Pope as her Supreme Head). This doesn't yet include the variants from the West Syriac and East Syriac rite as well as the other Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that claim the same heritage or the later schism from the Mar Thoma Church itself which is decidedly more Evangelical in outlook.

The situation is definitely confusing to those who lack context of the historical situation and this article should attempt to provide some of that context without making a assertion as to which position is more authoritative or correct. Since it is still a long holiday here, I'll have a re-look at the section and attempt a more contextual re-write for clarity. - Bob K | Talk 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I agree. It is okay to report someone honoring a saint. It turns out that there are Protestant as well as Catholic Franciscans. No one "owns" St. Francis of Assisi (I thought. Catholic apparently claim him though! Oh,well!). If some church had sued the other and won, we would have to report that, but that does not invalidate a spirtual claim or honor. And yes, Wikipedia agrees with both/neither claim. They are "equally valid" spiritually if not legally. Student7 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite Of Section
While retaining the list of Metropolitans, the entire first paragraph will be deleted and replaced with the following text:

"''Background

Following the Coonan Cross Oath, parish elders (known as Idavaka Mooppen) who resisted the authority of the Synod of Diamper met in Kuravilangad and elected Parampil Thomas Kathanar as the leader of the Church with the title Malankara Mooppen or Malankara Elder. Following ancient tradition, 12 Idavaka Mooppens laid hands on Thomas as a mark of appointment.

The appointment of the Malankara Mooppen was not recognised by the Portuguese influenced churches as he was not ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop. Fearing annexation of their Church, the Marthoma Nasranis sent letters to various other eastern Churches asking to send a bishop. Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel, Patriarch of Jerusalem, was the first to respond and arrived in India to regularise the ordination.

The claim to succession by the Mar Thoma Church from Mar Thoma I has been disputed since the 1899 Seminary Suit judgement by the Royal Court of Appeals in Trivandrum and there are currently multiple claimants to the Throne of St. Thomas.

From 1917 onwards bishops from other Churches were invited as guests and witnesses to the consecration of the Metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Church. Nonetheless the consecration was done only by the Metropolitan assisted by the other Metropolitans of Mar Thoma Church and of Malabar Independent Syrian Church.

List of Mar Thoma Metropolitans

.. original list of Mar Thomas continues from here''"

Any suggestions, additions, et al? - Bob K | Talk 14:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections, I'll proceed with the edit. - Bob K | Talk 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please mention that the Marthoman Metropolitans were Oriental Orthodox, othervise the idea given to the readers is that they too were protestants like the post 1899 Marthoma syrian church bishops. This particularly since the post 1899 bishops of Marthoma Church were also called "Marthoma" and there is no distinction made between the reformed marthoma bishops post 1899 and the Oriental Orthodox Marthomans of the united Malankara Church before that.


 * Also mention the fact that Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel who regularised the ordination of Marthoma I was the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. There were other Patriarchs for other churches/denominations in Jerusalem that he maybe confused with.


 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. How's this?


 * "''Background

Following the Coonan Cross Oath, parish elders (known as Idavaka Mooppen) who resisted the authority of the Synod of Diamper met in Kuravilangad and elected Parampil Thomas Kathanar as the leader of the Syrian Malabar Church with the title Malankara Mooppen or Malankara Elder. Following ancient tradition, 12 Idavaka Mooppens laid hands on Thomas as a mark of appointment.

The appointment of the Malankara Mooppen was not recognised by the Portuguese churches as he was not ordained by a Catholic bishop. Fearing annexation of their Church, the Marthoma Nasranis sent letters to various other eastern Churches asking to send a bishop. Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel, the Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan of Jerusalem, was the first to respond and arrived in India to regularise the ordination.

The claim to succession by the Mar Thoma Church from the Mar Thoma I has been disputed since the 1899 Seminary Suit judgement by the Royal Court of Appeals in Trivandrum and there are currently multiple claimants to the Throne of St. Thomas.

From 1917 onwards bishops from other Churches were invited as guests and witnesses to the consecration of the Metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Church. Nonetheless the consecration was done only by the Metropolitan assisted by the other Metropolitans of Mar Thoma Church and of Malabar Independent Syrian Church.

List of Mar Thoma Metropolitans

.. original list of Mar Thomas continues from here''"


 * I have re-titled Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel as the Metropolitan of Jerusalem rather than the Patriarch of Jerusalem since the external links in the article all refer to him as the Metropolitan. Only the Wikipedia article refers to him as the Patriarch of Jerusalem which would violate WP:CIRCULAR guidelines. I hope that is okay with all.


 * Since the main article on the Coonan Cross Oath is specifically about the schism of the Malankara Church between those that wanted to remain loyal to Antioch and those that transferred their loyalty to Rome, it ought to be adequate to just refer to Mar Thoma I as the Syrian Malabar Church Elder. The reference to the dispute post 1899 should also be adequate to infer that the current Mar Thoma Church claims the title but when read in context with the rest of the article, it ought to be clear that the earlier Mar Thomas were Syrian Orthodox and not Reformed.


 * Perhaps a note to state that Matthews Mar Athanasius was the last Malankara Metropolitan to be granted recognition by royal proclamation and that the de-facto schism between the pro-Antioch and pro-Reform party came into being as a result of the 1899 judgment might help.


 * I understand and appreciate that the actual circumstances of the various schisms among the St. Thomas Christians would make a whole study in itself. The impact of these developments over the last 400 years or so on the Malabar Syrian Nasrani community has had a similar impact as the schism of the Eastern and Western Churches, and the Reformation to Europe. The article on the Saint Thomas Christians would probably be the best article to engage this complicated issue rather than the individual articles of the various Churches that have resulted from the various schisms. - Bob K | Talk 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on reliable source for population
There is currently a dispute on the total population of the Mar Thoma Church worldwide with an editor insisting that the figure indicated by the Indian Government census be used as the definitive source while other editors arguing that the census isn't a reliable indicator of the number of adherents worldwide. &mdash;Bobk (via posting script) 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that somehow it would be nice to add the worldwide figures in. We cannot merely take the churches own estimate into account since it is under dispute. We need some other way of adding to the Indian government's figure. I think we can put a cap on it easily enough. There are not more outside the country than in it! Maybe we can count by dioceses? Student7 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some sources that have been gleaned online are listed below:


 * World Council of Churches
 * The WCC states that


 * "Statistics of church membership, number of churches, congregations, pastors, etc. are those given by the churches and organizations, unless otherwise indicated. WCC member churches have various ways of defining their membership: state churches in which virtually every citizen is baptized and thus counted as a member, churches which include in their membership persons who are baptized but not actively participating, churches in which only adult baptized or communicant members are counted, etc. No attempt has been made to classify the membership figures in such categories, because agreed upon indicators to so do not exist."


 * The membership figure shown in the WCC website is 1,061,940 and is distributed thus:

Asia (outside India): 25,000 Europe: 1,300 Middle East: 38,800 North America: 33,370"
 * "India: 963,470


 * Operation World
 * The website indicates that the number of adherents of the Mar Thoma Church in India is 850,000. Adherents according to OW's criteria would include full communicant adults, their children and others (see Information Guide at )


 * Census of India 2001 (registration required) and
 * The census indicates that the Christian population of the state of Kerala is 6,057,427 without any breakdown by denomination. The Christian population India-wide is stated at 24,080,016, again without any breakdown by denomination.


 * Adherents.com
 * Two figures are provided - a 1999 number sourced from the Syro-Malabar Catholic Mission's website which shows a number of 500,000 in the state of Kerala alone and a 1998 number sourced from the World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000 which shows a number of 30,000 in the United States.


 * Malankara Syriac Christian Resources
 * The figure provided for the Mar Thoma Church is 600,000 in the state of Kerala alone.


 * Amartya Learning Project
 * The figure provided for the Mar Thoma Church is 500,000 in the state of Kerala alone. This number is itself sourced from the 1995 book, "The Syro-Malabar Church: An Overview" by Dr. A.Mathias Mundadan. The same author wrote "History of Christianity in India" which was published in Bangalore in 1981.


 * National Council of Churches, US
 * The 2005 number provided is for the United States and is currently put at 40,000.


 * As indicated by the footnotes at the WCC site, it is inherently difficult to define the criteria used by an individual church to determine what she considers as members and it utilises the information provided by the Church body itself. The argument that any Church body would inflate its own membership count is equally applicable to rival Church bodies which may seek to understate the membership count of their rivals. I am not sure that it would be wise to discount the numbers provided by intra-Church and ecumenical bodies on the basis of individual disputes since it would mean that every Church population number currently indicated in Wikipedia that is sourced from similar bodies would be open for similar disputes. - Bob K | Talk 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your pov. But I am not sure, and in fact doubt, that the WCC, just a loose amalgam of churches, did any verification or count. I suspect it is merely hearsay. We may be stuck with saying "the church claims x adherents world wide." Can we also say that this figure is disputed with a footnoted source? Student7 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We can say that if it's actually disputed by a source. There is no source proposed which disputes it.  Tb (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty certain that the WCC is unable to verify the numbers but the dispute is based on even less solid foundations. It merely represents anecdotal assertions  of a few individual editors that uses the Census of India as a vague source of reference. Perhaps a footnote can be added to the numbers along the lines of the disclaimer put up by WCC itself. As User:Tb questioned, where exactly is the source that disputes the current figure? - Bob K | Talk 19:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The breakdown above is 963,470 for India. This is at odds, if I understand it, with the Indian Census which placed it at 340,000. If it comes down to believing the guesstimate furnished the WCC by the church itself, or the actual unbiased headcount by the Indian census, why not go with the latter? Student7 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Indian Census figure quoted doesn't break down the adherents by denomination. The source for the 340,000 is the Malayala Manorama Yearbook as mentioned by User:Mathenkozhencherry and is meant to be indicative for the State of Kerala only. The Catholic Church historian, Dr. A.Mathias Mundadan, puts the number at 500,000 in Kerala alone (quoted from the Christian denominations table in his 1995 book, "The Syro-Malabar Church: An Overview"). Kerala accounts for 7 out of the 10 dioceses in India proper with the dioceses of Chennai - Bangalore (106 parishes), Delhi (87 parishes), and Mumbai (72 parishes) unaccounted for (the parish figures are from . So it would seem that we are still at a bit of an impasse. - Bob K | Talk 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The primary contention of the total figure is based solely on the number published by the Malayala Manorama Yearbook, which I concede may be an accurate reflection of the actual Mar Thoma population in Kerala. The assertion by User:Thomachan1986 that there cannot be any more significant Mar Thoma communities outside of Kerala and the implication that the Mar Thoma Church solely composes of Keralites and its diaspora is not borne out by the total number of parishes that exist outside the dioceses within the State of Kerala (approximately 32% of the parishes reported are located outside the State of Kerala; 23% of the parishes reported are located in the other states of India) and reports published by the Diocese of North America-Europe via the National Council of Churches . I don't mean to be a hard-ass about this but in view of the very aggressive nature of this edit attempt and the personal attacks thrown in, I'd rather not take a position that would further encourage such disregard of common courtesy and established policies. - Bob K | Talk 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can be persuaded. Who else was holding out for a lower number? (previous section). Can we hear from him once more on these claims? Dioceses do tend to hold a bunch of adherents, not that this is assured here.


 * Don't quite grasp why Yearbook, which is supposed to be for all of India, is limited to Kerala for this statistic. Student7 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Beats me. I'm just basing this off the comment given by User:Mathenkozhencherry above where he gives a breakdown of the total Christian population of the State of Kerala which according to the same editor is sourced from the yearbook. - Bob K | Talk 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The year book is published by a Kerala based group called 'Manorama'. So they have better data about Kerala and not the rest of India.Fyodor7 (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. Im pretty sure there is community/denomination-vise population data available from governmental sources in India. The CDS(Council for Development Studies) in kerala had published some population reports in 2004, based on the nationwide census of 2001. The data mentioned as from the yearbook maybe from this source.


 * Worldwide statistics on population of the Marthoma Syrian Church is not available with the government. We may have to go with the church figures. But im pretty sure they are inflated to a great extent. If the total population of Marthoma Syrians in kerala is only around 340,000; then there cannot be 1 million marthomites world wide by any count. Because the church is mainly confined to kerala and most outside kerala members are immigrant keralites. Their number is certainly lesser than the number in kerala. Even if the figure was doubled it would come to only 6,80,000. But the church figure is stating a very high figure of 1 million worldwide.


 * The figures for kerala claimed by the marthoma church and shown in the various websites quoted by user bob contradict the Census figures which are more accurate. While we do have good sources for the population in kerala, we dont have a similar worldwide source, other than these dubious church figures. I dont know how to deal with this situation. Anyone have any suggestions?


 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, till today, Mar Thoma Church has not taken any effort to find the number of Marthomites. Then which sources are we going to consider as reliable? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From my own enquiries with the Council of Churches of Malaysia, WCC bases its figures on statistical returns submitted by the HQs of their member churches via the national ecumenical bodies (ie. in India's case, it would be the National Council of Churches in India). The definition of church membership, of course, would differ with each different denomination and Church, and criteria used for Census may also significantly differ from the the criteria used by Churches (ie. Government census tend to take household figures and may overlook individuals within a household who that fall under a different social-cultural demographic, eg. children who do not hold similar religious beliefs as their parents, et al). The WCC figures do show a higher figure compared to the figures provided by User:Mathenkozhencherry above (ie. Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church - 2,000,000 members worldwide & the Mar Thoma Church - 1,061,940 members worldwide). For lack of a better source for a worldwide figure, I'm still partial towards using the WCC statistics as the best source for a ballpark figure for worldwide membership. - Bob K | Talk 08:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bobk quotes a Catholic website as saying 500,000 in Kerala alone. If so, then, a few hundred thousand more in India seems possible, with a few hundred thousand worldwide possible. The WCC is just a mirror and not really a reference. I guess I can accept 1 million if Mathenkozhencherry can. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * student, the problem with all these church websites is that they inflate figures. For example, the catholic website mentioned quotes the total christian population in Kerala as over 8.6 million, which definitely is not the case and we know from the official census that it is 6.1 million. It also mentions the total catholic population in kerala as 5.1 million, while according to the census it is 3.7 million(3 rites combined).
 * I propose another approach. We do have dependable figures for Kerala (340,000). For dioceses outside kerala and india, there doesnt seem to by any figure. So why dont we add the census figure in Kerala(340,000) with the figures for dioceses outside kerala provided in the marthoma church websites? eg: 340,000(kerala) + 40,000(USA) + xx (malaysia) + xx(Australia, newzealand)+.......etc
 * I think the figure so given may still be inflated, because we are using church website numbers for dioceses outside kerala. But the difference wouldnt as great from the original this time, than the difference that would be caused by quoting 1 million. I do hope the marthoma church websites have diocese vise info for churches outside kerala, and i think they do have it, as we saw bob quoting some figures for USA and Malaysia.
 * Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is still incorrect, because we would be comparing and adding apples and oranges. It's easy to say that the church numbers are inflated, but do you have a source for that, or just your guess?  How do we know that the Indian census does not have an incentive, or an accidental methodology, or some other something, which understates the number?  Tb (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with adding the figures? I realize that two editors think this understates the number, but so what? Why does it have to be "up to the minute" when "up to the minute" figures are not really available? Nor do we really have any particular indication that any religion has suddenly leaped ahead in population? I don't think that a ten year old figure is particularly out of date, except that it may be too high. Churches tend to be shrinking rather than growing. An old figure most likely overstates membership.


 * Another possibility, which I don't like, is to give both figures and how they were arrived at. With footnotes. If us "expert editors" can't agree, how can we expect anyone, presumably less knowledgeable, to accept a figure as the "right" one?


 * I generally only see one problem with that approach - a breach of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, ie. No original research:


 * "'Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.'"


 * Personally, I'd be ok with the approach proposed by User:Mathenkozhencherry but it would just open this article to a new set of disputes on the same subject in the future. This is especially so when there's no obvious external citable sources that actually dispute the current quoted figures. - Bob K | Talk 22:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

After going through all the arguments, I suggest a research paper by K. C. Zacharia available at http://www.cds.edu/download_files/wp322.pdf could be used as a source for information. As per this, the Marthoma Church membership within Kerala is estimated at 480,000 (page 29). The author estimates that the Syiran Christians outside Kerala at around 20-25% of that within Kerala. Since there is no reason to believe that the migration pattern of Marthomites is any different from that of Syrian Christians in general, I think 600,000 is a reasonable estimate for the total membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuapt (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a Marthomite. I don’t think any Marthomite is worried about their number in their village or worldwide. Jesus had only 12 disciples. Thanks for giving a number larger than that. Sorry, we have no time to boast. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection
I've now protected this page as there is a clear edit war. Hopefully this protection, along with the RFC will give editors a chance to reach consensus. I also note that both and  have broken 3RR, and could quite easily have both been blocked. Ged UK  08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Breach of 3RR noted with apologies. - Bob K | Talk 09:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To Cuchullain
Sorry for reverting your edit. The Bible translation in 1811 was from Aramic language and not from King James Version. A copy of this book is now with me.

I have copies of those books from which I took the references. The authors are from around Kottayam where these events happened. So many books, records research papers written by people who have had access to original records are available now, but I tried to avoid including that many in this article. Hope you will understand.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I corrected it to say "Bible" instead of "King James Bible". You should never worry about adding sources, so long as they meet the reliability criteria. If they do, please go ahead and add them as needed and make any other correction necessary.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cuchullain. In fact I did not get time to revert and happy to get an immediate reply. I prefer to select reliable sources (i.e original records and first hand information), but International copyright regulations and publication rules often make it difficult. Thanks once again.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, citing primary sources directly is actually not preferred in most cases, because it requires interpretation on the part of the editor adding them. In sourcing information for Wikipedia, it's better to cite secondary sources – that is, the interpretations by the experts in the field. But no matter what, simply citing a source can't possibly break any copyright rules.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Name and logo
I wonder why the name of this article is Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church since the official website (http://www.marthoma.in/) calls it Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar. They don't use the word "Malankara" such the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church does.

Secondly, the logo of the church on this article is black, but again on their website, they say the official color of the logo is red. Can't someone please change this? Michaelovic (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. There seems to be some inconsistency though on the name. While the website has Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar as the title, the Overview page on the same website uses Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church as a self identifier. I'll do what I can to update the logo. - Bob K | Talk 06:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is indeed some inconsistency about the name. Maybe it should be noticed that the World Council of Churches (the Mar Thoma Church is a member of WCC) uses Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar. Michaelovic (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a Marthomite and I am a member of the "Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church.” This is the name given in our Constitution. We are free to use a shorter form or use Malankara at the beginning of the name or at the end. We may use the logo in one colour or another. What is your problem there?Neduvelilmathew (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Neduvelilmathew, I'm glad that there is a marthomite here who can give us all a decisive answer about the name. I certainly don't have a problem with whatever the official name of the church is, but all I want is to provide correct information to all the readers because untill now there is no explanation why sometimes Malankara Mar Thoma is used, and why sometimes Church of Malabar. If you say that according to the Marthomite Constitution the official name is Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, then that is some wonderful information. It would be even better if you could provide us a source (link a website link) so there is no more discussion about the name any longer. All I can find about the constitution is this link. It is incomplete, and it still doesn't give a decisive answer about the name (check title and first line). Could you provide us a full version?
 * About the logo, we want to show all readers how the church shows itself to others. If the church says that the official color is red, then we want to show others that the official color is red. I don't mean anything negatively with it. I do hope you understand that. Greetings, Michaelovic (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since its not really a major issue, I'd suggest we just leave it as status quo. Changing the name of the article would require some major changes, and I'd really rather not go there yet. - Bob K | Talk 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Michaelovic and BobK for your prompt reply. Let me discuss your concerns with the proper authorities. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)