4.1. Faith
Fr. Placid J. Podipara: “ In fact the Thomas Christians were not an integral part, nor an output of the Seleucian Chruch.” Dependence whether hierarchical or liturgical, or even both, of a local church on another local church need not necessarily make both of these of the same faith and communion (E.g. Byzantine Church and Russian Church). After the Council of Ephesus of 431, the Chaldean Church condemned it with St. Cyril of Alexandria, and, venerated Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus. -Thus Nestorian. Its Christology and Ecclesiology deserve attention. “Christ is man Jesus united to the Word, the Eternal Son of God; Jesus had no human filiation, but only the Divine Filiation; hence Christ is One, One Divine Son, and this Son is born twice, eternally from God the Father, and in time from the Ever Virgin Mary. Mary therefore is the mother of God the Son. The expression Mother of God is avoided, since the word God used without qualification may signify the trinity, or any Person of the Trinity. Jesus moreover, never existed without being united to the Eternal Son, and Jesus is creator born without beginning. The Chaldean Church unhesitatingly believed in and professed openly and also officially, the Supreme Petrine Roman Divine authority, although it had no contact with Rome until the time of the crusades. (Khayyath F. Syri Orientales seu Chaldaei Nestoriani et Romanorum Pontificium Primatus, Romae 1870.)
Estrangement from the rest of the Christendom, + life in the midst of non-Christians> certain superstitious practices and errors among the Thomas Christians. There were books contained “Nestorian” or Theodorian formulas and expressions. These expressions were of a very subtle nature and were often seen side by side with passages some of which were orthodox and others apparently orthodox unless twisted in the sense of Nestorianism or Theodorianism. [In the works of St. Augustine: the “Word assumed a man”, and “assuming a man he appeared in Man”etc. A real Nestorian can interpret it for his favour.] Thomas Christians entirely out of the sphere of Christological controversy. The implications of objectionable passages were not understood in their objective controversial aspect, and hence not professed as such in their objective sense even in ‘bona fide’. This would mean that the objective meaning or bearing of objectionable passages found even in the liturgical books might not have determined the faith of those who used them. Books were in Syriac & Thomas Christians, were not very proficient in it.
John Marignoli, stayed more than a year in Kollam. The Thomas Christians gave him as the Pope’s legate, (pro meo officio tamquam legatus papae habebam) a hundred gold fanams every month and a thousand when he left India. Marignoli does not make mention of any heresy or schism among the St. Thomas Christians. -They honoured and respected the Pope’s Legate in an extraordinary way.
XVI century: Thomas Christians always treated the Portuguese as brothers in faith entering into communicatio in sacris, not considering themselves as a Church separate and independent from Rome. The Portuguese also communicated with the Thomas Christians in sacris. The Portuguese were not favourable to the difference in rite; they could not bear the objectively unsound passages found in the books, much less the presence in Malabar of Seleucian bishops whom they suspected of, or charged with, Nestorianism. Everything that was not Latin was heretical or schismatic for many of the Portuguese. Still they had no difficulty in communicating in sacris with them. St. Thomas Christians had no suspicion about the faith of the Portuguese. They would admit Portuguese priests to say Mass in their churches but their own sons whom the Portuguese ordained in the Latin rite they would not allow to say Mass in Latin in their churches, nor would they suffer any change in their rite. When the Portuguese forced them to eat fish and drink wine during Lent, when the Portuguese hindered their married priests from saying Mass, and insisted upon the use of unleavened bread in Mass and also upon beginning the Lent only on Ash-Wednesday, many Thomas Christians ran away from the Portuguese settlements. When the Portuguese imprisoned their bishops they wrote to the Pope and to the Seleucian Patriarch to get bishops from Seleucia. It is Roz SJ who is in all respects qualified to give an authoritative verdict on this matter. He knew Malayalam and Syriac. In 1585/86 he examined and extracted from several liturgical and other East Syrian books Nestorian passages and put them together as a thesis. (De Erroribus Nestorianorum qui in hac India Orientali versantur). In it he says that although they professed the Catholic, Roman faith, their books contained the errors of Diodore, Theodore and Nestorius. In spite of the books containing heresies, in spite of being under a Prelate who was suspected of Nestorianism, in spite of the epithet Nestorian applied to them, the Thomas Christians, Roz sj affirms, professed the Catholic Roman faith. Roz sj =first Latin bishop of St. Th. Christians (1599-1624.) On Dec. 7, 1601 he wrote: “These Christians are certainly the oldest in the Orient … having been converted from idolatry … to our most holy faith by the Apostle Thomas; and although they have lived among heathens, Jews and Maumethans, they have still this time always stood very firm in the faith… Chalden Prelates infected with Nestorian heresy were set over them, having been for this office deputed and sent hither from Babylon … “. Roz sj seems to put in the true perspective the whole question regarding the faith of the Thomas Christians during the XVI and the pre XVI centuries. The Thomas Christians had no reluctance to use the term “Mother of God”. Roz sj says that in spite of the presence of books that denied this they publicly preached that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. An inscription on a metal bell cast in 1584 for the church of Kuravilangad calls the BV Mary “Mother of God” (ameh dalaha). This does not mean that they had a clear knowledge about the articles of faith they believed in. We do not mean that there were not among them errors that are the consequences of ignorance and want of instruction.
4.2. Communion
Communication between Thomas Christians and Rome was impossible due to geographical, political and other circumstances. Absence of communications or relations does not mean that they had no communion. Books brought down from Seleucia contained explicit statements about the divinely instituted Primacy of Rome over the whole Christendom. [communion of the Chaldean Church- after the Council of Ephesus of 431, the Chaldean Church condemned the Council with St. Cyril of Alexandria, and venerated as saints Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus =Nestorians. 1552 -succession of its Patriarchs, election of Sulaqa -ordained in Rome -installed as Patriarch by the Roman Pontiff. After the 16th century, the line of Sulaqa formed the Nestorian Church. The prelates of the other line formed the Catholic Chaldean Church (Patriarch of Babylon.] Bishop Roz seems to have found in Malabar fifty of the so called Nicean or Arabic Canons. ( Nicean or Arabic canons inculcate that the Roman Patriarch has jurisdiction over all the other Patriarchs -apocryphal.) When by the arrival of the Portuguese, the Thomas Christians were enabled to enter into relations with Rome, they at once availed themselves of the possibility and spontaneously put themselves in touch with the Pope as his children and subjects. We can never charge any one with schism till he has broken (in mala or bona fide) and knows he has broken communion with Rome. About the attitude of the Thomas Christians Dionisio sj writes the following: “About the Pope, they consider him as the Vicar of Christ, our Redeemer, on earth; (they consider) the Patriarch as subject to the Pope from whom he receives his power.” In fact it was by threatening them with excommunicatio latae sententiae that Dom Menezes, the Portuguese Latin prelate of Goa made the St. Thomas Christians sign the synod of Diamper. Would any one think of threatening with excommunication those who are outside the Catholic Church in order to have them give up something which they passionately love and desire to retain?
No comments:
Post a Comment