Syriac Liturgy in India: Syro-Malabar, Malankara Orthodox and Marthoma Liturgies 3447119640, 9783447119641

Citation preview

Baby Varghese

Syriac Liturgy in India Syro-Malabar, Malankara Orthodox and Marthoma Liturgies

GÖTTINGER ORIENTFORSCHUNGEN

SYRIACA Band 66

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

G Ö T T I N G E R   O R I E N T F O R S C H U N G E N I.  R E I H E:  S Y R I A C A Herausgegeben von Martin Tamcke Band 66

2023

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Baby Varghese

Syriac Liturgy in India Syro-Malabar, Malankara Orthodox and Marthoma Liturgies

2023

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at https://dnb.de.

Informationen zum Verlagsprogramm finden Sie unter https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2023 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und für die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck und Verarbeitung: docupoint GmbH Printed in Germany ISSN 0340-6326 eISSN 2749-3288 ISBN 978-3-447-11964-1 eISBN 978-3-447-39366-9

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Table of Contents Vorwort (M. Tamcke) ........................................................................................................ VII Preface................................................................................................................................ IX I. Introduction.....................................................................................................................

1

II. East Syriac Liturgy in Malabar ...................................................................................... 5 1. Revival of the contacts: Arrival of Five East Syriac Bishops ................................... 5 2. Arrival of Joseph Sulaqa (1557–1562; 1564–1578) ................................................. 6 3. Mar Abraham and Mar Joseph in Malabar ............................................................... 7 4. Mar Abraham’s Second visit .................................................................................... 9 5. Indigenous customs among the St Thomas Christians in the Sixteenth Century ..... 10 6. Syriac Liturgy followed in Malabar in the Sixteenth Century .................................. 11 III. Synod of Diamper and the East Syriac Liturgy ............................................................ 13 1. Liturgical reforms introduced by the Synod of Diamper .......................................... 14 2. Revision of the Anaphora of the Apostles ................................................................ 16 IV. Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church............................................................................ 21 1. First printed Syriac text of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy .............................................. 22 2. The Process of Restoration ....................................................................................... 24 V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church .................................................................. 1. Arrival of the Syrian Orthodox Prelates ................................................................... 2. First Phase of Antiochianization: Works of Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem ................ 3. Second Phase: The works of Mar Baselius Yaldo and Mar Ivanios ......................... 4. Third Phase: Arrival of Mar Baselius Sakrallah ....................................................... 5. Final phase of Antiochianisation .............................................................................. 6. Completion of Antiochianization ............................................................................. 7. Mar Julius Press and the first printed books .............................................................

29 29 30 31 34 35 37 38

VI. Marthoma Liturgy ........................................................................................................ 1. First Reformed Liturgy ............................................................................................. 2. First Reformed liturgy and the Missionaries ............................................................ 3. Marthoma Liturgy under Mathews Mar Athanasius ................................................. 4. Liturgical Revision Committee of 1863 ................................................................... 5. Reformed liturgy of 1872 ......................................................................................... 6. Arrival of the Patriarch Ignatius Peter IV ................................................................. 7. Mar Thoma Church and the Revival Groups ............................................................ 7.1 Tamil Revival Groups.......................................................................................... 7.2 Revival of 1872.................................................................................................... 8. Thomas Mar Athanasius and the Reformed Liturgy.................................................

43 45 48 51 53 53 59 59 59 60 61

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

VI

Contents

9. Revival of 1894 ........................................................................................................ 9.1. Works of J.G. Gregson ....................................................................................... 10. ‘Anglicans’ and the Syrians .................................................................................... 11. Reformed Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Church......................................................... 12. Liturgical Revision Committees of 1923–1926 ...................................................... 13. Reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan ................................................................. 14. Taksa of Titus II (1942) .......................................................................................... 15. Taksa of the Synod (1954)...................................................................................... 16. The Taksas now used in the Mar Thoma Church ...................................................

61 62 63 64 66 69 72 73 75

VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 77 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 79 Bibliography....................................................................................................................... I. General & Pre-Portuguese Period ............................................................................. II. Syro-Malabar Liturgy .............................................................................................. III. Malankara Orthodox Liturgy .................................................................................. IV. Mar Thoma Liturgy ................................................................................................

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

79 79 80 82 82

Vorwort In der Liturgie wird deutlich, was eine kirchliche Tradition im Ringen um die Schönheit sich im Lauf der Geschichte errungen hat und wie im liturgischen Verhalten und im anschauenden und teilnehmenden der Gläubigen diese Schätze wirken. Gelingt es, ihn oder sie mit einem Sinn für Schönheit zu füllen und ihn oder sie emporzuheben aus dem Alltag, so ist ein wichtiger Teilaspekt liturgischen Handelns im Angesicht Gottes und der Gläubigen wirksam geworden. Was da in der Gründungslegende der russischen Orthodoxie in der Nestorchronik erzählt wird, gilt für alle Kirchen, deren Gläubige sich nicht einfach gehen lassen, sondern sich gestalten lassen in ihrem Dasein und gestalten aus ihrem Sein in Christus. „Wir wissen nicht,“ heißt es da, „waren wir im Himmel oder auf der Erde, denn auf der Erde gibt es solche Schau und solche Schönheit sonst nicht. Wir sind nicht imstande davon zu berichten. Nur das wissen wir, dass Gott dort mit den Menschen ist, und ihr Gottesdienst ist besser als bei allen anderen Völkern.“ Was hier zur Geburtsstunde der einen Kirche wurde, gilt für alle. Über die Liturgie wird im Abbild Gott erfahrbar aus seiner Ferne in seiner Nähe in Christus. „Völlig unaussprechlich sind die Strahlen der göttlichen Schönheit. Kein Wort legt sie dar, kein Ohr nimmt sie auf. Selbst wenn du von den Strahlen des Morgensterns sprichst, von der Helligkeit des Mondes, ja auch vom Licht der Sonne, alle sind sie wertlos zur Darstellung jener Herrlichkeit. Diese Dinge sind unzureichender im Vergleich mit dem wahren Licht als eine tiefe Nacht oder eine düstere Mondfinsternis hinsichtlich eines strahlenden Mittags. Diese Schönheit ist fleischlichen Augen unsichtbar, hingegen allein für die Seele und das Denken fassbar.“ Diese Worte Basilius des Großen gehen in ihrer Schau und Aussage wiederum über die je spezifischen liturgischen Besonderheiten je einer Kirche hinaus und vereinen alle Kirchen, die ernsthaft etwas vom unverzehrbaren Licht im Heute und in der Welt verkünden wollen. Über solch grundsätzlichen theologischen Einsichten gerät zuweilen aus dem Blick, dass sich selbst innerhalb einer Tradition Besonderheiten ausbilden, die mit ihrem spezifischen Kontext verbunden sind. Baby Varghese, der lange am orthodoxen Seminar der Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in Kottayam lehrte und heute am Saint Ephraem Ecumenical Research Institute tätig ist, gehört zu den wenigen Gelehrten der Kirchen der Thomastradition Indiens, der den Blick auf das Ganze lenkt und damit ein Stück ökumenischen Grundlagenwissens schafft für die so zersplitterte Thomaschristenheit Indiens. Zugleich schafft er mit der Darstellung zu den geschichtlichen Gestaltungen der Liturgien jenes Gespür für die historische Bedingtheit auch im liturgischen Bereich, das kurzatmigere Formen des Verständnisses von Liturgie allzuleicht außeracht lassen. Möchte dieses Büchlein einen Beitrag leisten zum Verstehen der Verschiedenheit und zum Verständnis füreinander und den Lesern außerhalb Indiens einen Blick gewähren in die liturgischen Schätze syrischsprachiger Tradition in Indien. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Martin Tamcke Göttingen, am Tag der heiligen Lucia, dem 13.11.2022

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Preface India has the largest Syriac Christian communities belonging to six Churches. Two of them follow East Syriac liturgy: (i). Syro-Malabar Church and (ii). the Church of the East (‘Chaldean Syrian Church’ as they are known in India). West Syriac liturgy is followed by four Churches: (i). Malankara Orthodox Syrian/Malankara Syrian Orthodox (‘Jacobite’), (ii). Syro-Malankara, (iii). Independent Syrian Church of Malabar (also known as Thozhiyoor/Anjoor Church) and (iv). the Marthoma Syrian Church. The Syro-Malabar Church follows a highly Latinized East Syriac liturgy, whereas the Marthoma Church uses a ‘reformed version’ of West Syriac rites. For those who are not familiar with the complex situation in the South Indian State of Kerala, where all these communities had their origin, a word needs to be added on the titles used by them. Malankara/Malabar is the name of the South Western costal region of the Indian Peninsula. Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church is an autocephalous Church headed by a Catholicos with a Synod. Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church (‘or Jacobite’ as it prefers to be known) is under the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch with its own hierarchy consisting of a Catholicos (referred to as Maphrian in the Syrian Orthodox sources). The Independent Syrian Church of Malabar is a small community, which had its origin in 1772 following the consecration of an Indian bishop by a visiting Syrian Orthodox prelate. Until the middle of the 19th century, this community was regarded as a diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Church. Following the name of the village, where its bishops stay, it is also known as the Thozhiyoor or Anjoor Church. Since the second half of the 19th century their bishop is consecrated by the head of the Marthoma Syrian Church. However, they follow the same West Syriac liturgy as the Malankara Orthodox Church. The Chaldean Church of the East had its origin since 1908 when the East Syrian Patriarch consecrated a bishop for a group originated following a division in the Syro-Malabar Church. They follow the East Syrian liturgy as celebrated in West Asia. The Syriac liturgies, both East and West, followed in India have a separate history. They reached India and were widely used, long after the fixation of the liturgical rites in the mother Churches. The non-Catholics introduced practically no change in the original Syriac rites, though the liturgical texts were translated into Malayalam, language of Kerala (around 1900 AD). In the second half of the 20th century, the liturgical texts were translated into English and Indian languages like Hindi or Tamil for the use of the diaspora. The liturgies of the Independent Syrian Church of Malabar and the Chaldean Syrian Church of Trichur are not discussed here as they have not introduced any change. Likewise, the Syro-Malankara Church uses the West Syriac liturgy without much change, except in the case of the preparation rites. But the Syro-Malabar and Marthoma Churches introduced significant changes in the original Syriac rites, which should be understood in the light of their history. In the SyroMalabar liturgy reforms had taken place almost always under the strict control of Rome. But the reforms in the Marthoma liturgy were first initiated by the Anglican Missionaries and

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

X

Preface

later took over by ‘radical Evangelicals’. We have several monographs on the history of the Syro-Malabar liturgy. In the case of the Marthoma liturgy, the present study may be the first that covers its entire history. In his ‘Foreword’ to my monograph The Early History of the Syriac Liturgy: Growth, Adaptation and Inculturation (Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2021), Dr Sebastian Brock suggested to write a volume covering the history of the Syriac liturgy in India. As Dr Brock rightly observed, Syriac liturgy in India has its own history. It provides examples of conservatism among the non-catholics and the introduction of radical changes among the Syro-Malabars or the Marthomites. I am honoured to dedicate this study to Dr Sebastian Brock as a humble souvenir of our friendship since 1980 and an expression of my gratitude for his support and guidance in my researches on Syriac liturgy. Christmas 2022

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

I. Introduction History of Christianity on the Malabar Coast, in the South Western part of the Indian Peninsula, in the Pre-Portuguese period is rather unclear, because of the want of documentary evidences. Strong local tradition claims the origins of the Christianity in this part of the world to the mission of St Thomas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. Our knowledge of the early liturgical practices in Malabar is largely based on scholarly assumptions. It has been generally believed that the St. Thomas Christians, as they were called by the European visitors, were in relation with the ‘Persian Church’ at least since the sixth century or even perhaps since the fourth century. However, according to available evidences, the relationship was rather intermittent. The earliest reliable historical reference to the ‘Persian connection’ is found in the Christian Topography (c. 535) by Cosmas Indicopleustes (or Indian Voyager) a merchant from Alexandria, having Nestorian affinities. Apparently, he visited the Islands of Socotra and Sri Lanka. Probably he had never been to India and must have gathered information on India from others. However, he speaks of ‘Persian’ bishops and communities along the coasts of India and Sri Lanka. He proudly speaks of the spread of Christianity ‘all over the world’. Then he writes on Christians in Taprobane, Male and Kalliana: “The Church, as far as from being destroyed, is multiplying, the whole world filled with the doctrine of Christ, and the Gospel is being proclaimed in the whole world. This I have seen with my own eyes in many places, and have heard narrated by others….. Even in the Island of Taprobane [Sri Lanka] in Inner India, where also the Indian sea is, there is a church of Christians, clergy, and believers…. The same is true in the place called Male [Malabar?], where pepper grows, and in the place called Kalliana, and there is a bishop appointed from Persia”1. In another place, Cosmas speaks about the Christians of Sri Lanka: “There is a great Island in the ocean situated in the Indian sea. By the Indians it is called Silendipa, among the Greeks Taprobane. There the jacinth stone is found. It is beyond the country where the pepper grows… The same island has a church of the Persian Christians who were resident in that country, and priests sent from Persia, and a deacon, and all that is required for conducting worship of the Church. The natives and their kings are heathens”2. The accounts of Cosmas suggest that the bishop in Male (Malabar?) was ‘appointed from Persia” and the clergy were natives. But the church in Sri Lanka was a community of Persian settlers and had priests and a deacon sent from Persia. Probably there were churches of the natives. Cosmas is silent on the number of Christians and their churches. His reference to 1 Book III, 64; SC 141, pp. 502–504. 2 Book XI, pp. 13–14, SC 197, pp. 342–344.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

2

I. Introduction

Persia is not specific. He does not say whether it was the Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon or the Metropolitan of Persia (‘Fars/Rewardashir’) who sent the bishop and the priests to Kalliana or Sri Lanka. We do not know whether their liturgical language was Pahlavi or Syriac (as it has often been taken for granted). The Metropolitan See of Fars (Persia) was in Rewardashir3. There were at least two churches in that city, one of the Romans, that is, the prisoners that Sapor I (241–272) settled there and another of the Karmanians, that is the Persians who were converted to Christianity and were deported from the inner regions and settled there4. According to J.M. Fiey, the Romans used Greek and the Karmanians Syriac as their liturgical language5. However, these indigenous Christians seem to have used Persian (Pahlavi) also as their liturgical language. It is not unlikely that these native Christians had followed indigenous liturgical tradition. We have evidence that they have used Pahlavi as their liturgical language. Since the Fifth century, there was a movement to produce literature in Middle Persian6. According to the ninth-century Nestorian Chronicle of Se’ert, Ma’na, bishop of Fars, composed in Persian hymns, metrical homilies and poems for liturgical use and translated from Greek into Syriac the works of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Chronicle adds that he sent these works to the ‘countries of the sea and India’, that is, the communities under his jurisdiction7. We do not know whether the reference to India really means the Malabar Coast. Even though Syriac was used in Fars as liturgical language, even the higher clergy could not understand it. Thus in 680 (?), Patriarch Giwargis sent a letter explaining the Christology of the Church of the East to Mina, the presbyter and Chorepiskopos in the land of the Persians, which was composed in the “Persian tongue”8. We have evidence that the Malabar Christian communities were in contact, probably intermittent, with the Pahlavi speaking Communities in Persia. A Syriac document written in India, probably by an Orthodox in the beginning of the 18th century speaks of a Syrian emigration in 823 AD under the leadership of Mar Sapor, Mar Prot and Sabriso9. The famous Copper plate grants (dated 880 AD), believed to have been given to these prelates, may throw light into this relationship. The document consists of five sheets of copper, fastened together, by a ring through the holes pierced at the end. Of the ten pages of the Copper plates, seven pages are written in Tamil, the language spoken in Kerala at that time, and two pages in Pahlavi and Arabic with Kuffic characters. Four of the signatures are in Hebrew10. No Syriac signature is found on them. According to Winkworth, the Pahlavi signatures are so ill written

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fiey (1970), p. 179. Ibid. pp. 181–182. Ibid. See Panaino (2007), p. 74, note 15. Chronicle of Se’ert II, PO VII, p. 25. See Synodicon Orientale (ed. Chabot), pp. 490–514; cf. Birnie, pp. 182–195; here 195. Syriac text in J.P.N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca Vol. II (1868), p. 24–30; Eng. tr. by Mingana (1926), pp. 42–48. 10 Winkworth & Burkitt. See the photo facing p. 322. On the Copper Plates, see T.K. Joseph, The Malabar Christian Copper Plates, Trivandrum, 1925 (in Malayalam).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

I. Introduction

3

that he suspected “the existence of gross blunders made by a copyist ignorant of Pahlavi”11. Likewise, the Kuffic Arabic and Hebrew hands are hardly legible12. The so-called Persian Crosses (or St Thomas Crosses, as they are called by the SyroMalabar Church in recent years), bear a Pahlavi inscription, probably the name of the sculptor or the one who commissioned it13. [Philippe Gignoux has suggested the following interpretation: “My Lord, Christ, have mercy upon Sabriso, son of Char-boxt the mighty one who carved this”]14. All the Syriac inscriptions discovered so far in Kerala, belong to the Portuguese period or later. Only two belong to the pre-Diamper period (1599 AD): Mulanthuruthy (1575) and Kuravilangadu (1584)15. These evidences suggest that the relationship between the East Syrian Church in Persia and the Christians on the Malabar Coast was intermittent during the pre-Portuguese period.

11 Winkworth & Burkitt p. 322. 12 See the letter by F.C. Burkitt to T.K. Joseph, op. cit. 13 See Varghese (2015). Five such crosses are known. The oldest among them is the Cross now kept at St Thomas Mount, near Madras. Probably it was made in the beginning of the Portuguese settlement there. The four crosses in Kerala are its copies. 14 Gignoux (1995), p. 416. 15 Briquel-Chatonnet (2008), p. 24; Mulanthuruthy inscription, I, pp. 141–145; Kuravilangadu, I, pp. 105– 107.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

II. East Syriac Liturgy in Malabar Documentary evidences are scanty to argue for a continuous relationship between the East Syriac Patriarchate of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (later of Baghdad) and the Church on the Malabar Coast. Available evidences suggest the use of East Syriac liturgy for several centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese. As in the case of the East Syriac communities in China and Central Asia, the Christian communities on the Malabar Coast were also not under strict control of the Patriarchate or of a Metropolitan. But since the last decade of the fifteenth century, there was a notable change in the relationship between the Christians of Malabar and West Asia, thanks to the Portuguese presence in the region and the decline of the Arab domination of the Arabian Sea.

1. Revival of the contacts: Arrival of Five East Syriac Bishops We have an anonymous account, probably written in 1533, which has been preserved in Vatican Syriac 204 fol. 154v–160r. The importance of the document is that it clearly states that there was no relationship between the Christian communities in Persia and India for a long time and it does not claim any jurisdiction of the East Syrian Patriarchate over the Malabar Christians1. In 1490 AD, three Christians from Malabar went to meet the East Syrian Patriarch Mar Shem’on IV (d. 1502) to get bishops for their Church. One of them died on the way and two called on the Patriarch, who consecrated two monks from the Monastery of Mar Augen as bishops for India, under the names Mar Thomas and Mar John. The two bishops and the two Indians returned, and on their arrival, they were warmly welcomed by the Christians in Malabar. They consecrated altars and ordained several priests, because the Indians were for a long time without bishops. After some time, Mar Thomas returned to West Asia. By this time the Patriarch Mar Shem’on IV died (in 1502) and he was succeeded by Mar Eliya V (1502–1503). Mar Eliya consecrated three monks from the monastery of Mar Augen under the names Mar Yahb Alaha (Metropolitan), Mar Jacob and Mar Dinha. In 1503, they were sent to “the country of India”. In Malabar, they met Mar John who was still living. On their arrival, they stayed for two and a half months with the Portuguese in Cannanore (North Kerala). In 1504, they sent a long report to the Patriarch Mar Eliya VI (1504–38). In their letter, they refer to the Christians of Malabar as “our co-religionists” (§6) and say that there were about 30,000 families. Thus, for the first time in its history, the Malabar Christianity had the presence of five bishops. During his stay in Cannanore, in 1504, Mar Jacob copied a Psalter (Paris Syr. 25) and its colophon has been published by F. Nau2. 1 Syriac Text with a Latin Trans. Assemani, BO III/1, pp. 590–599; Eng. tr. Mingana (1926), pp. 36–41; For a detailed study, Varghese (2013), pp. 317–324. 2 Nau (1912), pp. 74–82. Eng. tr. See Varghese (2013), p. 323.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

6

II. East Syriac Liturgy in Malabar

We do not have much information about the activities of the five bishops, except Mar Jacob, who lived in Malabar up to 1550/52, collaborating with the Portuguese3. About the year 1521 a Dominican priest named Master Joao Caro became Jacob’s “counselor and advisor”. Under his influence, Mar Jacob had no difficulty to follow Latin rituals of baptism and marriage4. In fact, Mar Jacob was responsible for helping the Portuguese missionaries to establish their points of influence among the St Thomas Christians. In 1541, he helped the Franciscans to open a seminary in Cranganore (‘College of Santiago’) for the training of the native Christian boys in Latin rites. The priests trained there were not accepted by the native Christians. Portuguese sources speak of the presence of a “younger bishop” in Malabar, who was not willing to collaborate with the missionaries. The identity of this bishop is not clear. Klimkeit identifies him as Mar Dinha, one of the five bishops5. According to Mundadan, he might be a bishop who reached Malabar in 15186. In 1534, the ‘younger bishop’ was arrested by the Portuguese and was held in the Franciscan Monastery in Goa for about one year, where he was converted and gave ‘a helping hand to Jacob and the Franciscans’ in their work among the Malabar Christians7. According to a Portuguese source, the two bishops divided Malabar among them, the older one residing in Kodungalloor and the younger one in Quilon, the former was inclined towards the ceremonies of the Roman rite8.

2. Arrival of Joseph Sulaqa (1557–1562; 1564–1578) In 1553, John Sulaqa, the first Chaldean (Catholic) bishop was consecrated in Rome. On his return to Mesopotamia, John Sulaqa was murdered (on January 5, 1555). His successor Mar Abdisho sent two prelates to Malabar: Metropolitan Mar Elias as visitor and Mar Joseph Sulaqa, brother of the late Patriarch. Mar Elias was instructed to install Mar Joseph as “Metropolitan of the Indies”. Accompanied by two Dominicans from Malta (Ambrose Buttigeg and Antonius Sahara), the two bishops left for India9. On their way, in Mozambique, they had to await favourable wind to sail to India. During their stay there, Mar Joseph copied Syriac books. Vatican Syriac 45 (a Pontifical containing various kinds of texts to be used by a bishop such as ordination of different orders) was completed by him on 18th July 1556, as the colophon says10.

3 See Varghese (2013), pp. 124–125. 4 Mundadan (1984), 310. 5 Gilman-Klimkeit (1999), 195ff. On this bishop, see Varghese (2013), pp. 324–25. In his Report on the Serra, Francis Ros says: “Mar Denon (=Denha) was ordained bishop here by Mar Jabala (= Yahb Alaha) as it is clear from a Book of Gospels which is in the church of P[…]”, §11, p. 317. 6 Mundadan (1967), pp. 312–13. 7 Mundadan (1967), p. 313. 8 Mundadan (1967), p. 321. 9 See Varghese (2013), pp. 326–27. 10 See van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 190–191.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Mar Abraham and Mar Joseph in Malabar

7

On their arrival in Goa, they were first sent back to Mozambique and then brought back (in November 1556) and confined in a Franciscan Monastery in Bassein (north of Bombay)11. There they were taught Latin and Latin ceremonies of Mass. On Easter Sunday 1557, the bishops celebrated mass according to the Latin rite. The guardian of the Franciscan Friary persuaded them to return to Mesopotamia, since Malabar comes under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Goa, who is “the Bishop of all the Indies and the whole East under Portuguese control”12. Mar Joseph spent his time praying, copying books, and learning Latin. On December 17, 1556, he completed a copy of the Nomocanon of Abdisho of Suba13. For unknown reasons, the two bishops were transferred to a monastery at Salsette (north of Bombay), as we learn from the colophon of Vatican Syriac 88, copied in this town, and completed on January 28, 1557 [Vat. Syr. 88 contains mainly canonical hours]14. Mar Joseph Sulaqa had certainly with him East Syriac liturgical texts. However, he had translated Latin liturgical rites into Syriac and must have used them in Malabar. This is suggested by Vatican Syriac 89, another important manuscript of this period15. This Manuscript has no colophon, nor any explicit indication of the date and author. Apparently, it was copied by two scribes, of which one might be Joseph as Assemani had identified from the handwriting. It was probably written in 1559. It contains the hymns of the Martyrs sung at the end of Ramsa (evening prayer) and Sapra (morning prayer) as well as the liturgy of marriage, nine hymns of Kamis bar Qardahe (13/14th century) and hutame (final blessings). In addition to the above East Syriac texts, it contains the Syriac text of the administration of the seven Holy Orders, translated from the Latin rite. The hymn of Sapra of Thursday we find the names of the East Syriac doctors, Diodore, Theodore and Nestorius. In other hymns, the name of Nestorius is either erased or covered with ink. As Van der Ploeg suggests, this was probably done by Mar Joseph himself in order to please the Latin missionaries. Another important manuscript is Vatican Syriac 66, which contains sections written probably by Mar Joseph, of which the most important part is the Anaphora of the Apostles (see below).

3. Mar Abraham and Mar Joseph in Malabar Though the Portuguese clergy in Goa were unwilling to allow Mar Joseph to go to Malabar, they changed their mind, certainly because of the arrival of an East Syriac bishop named Mar Abraham (1556–1558). After the death of Mar Jacob in 1552, the St Thomas Christians were without a bishop for a few years. Fr. George, a leading priest (uncle of the future Archdeacon George of Christ) sent a message to the East Syriac Patriarch Mar Simeon, who sent Mar Abraham (in 1556). Abraham succeeded in escaping the Portuguese guards and reached Malabar. With Angamaly as his headquarters, he worked among the St Thomas Christians and ordained several priests. As the efforts of the Jesuits to capture and to deport him were 11 12 13 14 15

For the details, Varghese (2013), pp. 326–27. Tisserant (1957), p. 37. Vatican Syriac 128; van der Ploeg (1983), p. 200. van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 197–98. Ibid. pp. 198–200.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

8

II. East Syriac Liturgy in Malabar

not successful, the Portuguese decided to bring to Malabar the two Chaldean bishops, Mar Joseph and Mar Elias, detained in Bassein16. According to E. Tisserant, this idea was put forward by Frey Antonio, guardian of the Franciscan Friary in Bassein: “Frey Antonio suggested that Mar Joseph could be used to oppose the intruder, but on caution that a Portuguese Franciscan would accompany him, and that he would perform all pontifical services according to the Latin rite”17. Thus, towards the end of 1557, Mar Joseph and Mar Elias, accompanied by two Maltese Dominicans, were brought to Cochin. The Chaldeans visited parishes under the supervision of Antonius Zahara (one of the two Dominicans) and worked for about two and a half years. Meanwhile in August 1558, Mar Abraham visited Cochin and soon he was arrested and sent to Goa, where he was detained in the Dominican Monastery for about two years18. After having finished his “mission” Mar Elias returned home. Mar Joseph, under the supervision of Fr. Zahara, introduced certain Latin practices in Malabar, such as Latin liturgical vestments, Latin hosts, and wine. Formerly, the native priests used to celebrate the Eucharist by covering themselves with a sheet (‘lensol’) and wearing a stole over it19. Meanwhile Fr. Zahara was recalled by Rome to work in Egypt (where he was in 1555). As the East Syrian bishops were always an embarrassment to the Portuguese, the Inquisition in Goa used this occasion to get rid of Mar Joseph. In 1562, he was deported to Portugal on a charge of “Nestorian heresy”, with the intention of sending him to Rome20. During his detention in Lisbon, which lasted for two years, he could convince his orthodoxy before Cardinal Henry, the Grand Inquisitor and the regent of Portugal, as his nephew King Sebastian was a minor21. Mar Joseph promised “to do all that was in his power towards the reducing of his Diocese to the Roman obedience”22. His request to go to Rome was turned down. Meanwhile in his profession of faith sent to the Council of Trent, Patriarch Abdisho claimed that Goa, Cochin Metropolis, Calicut, and the bishopric of Kodungalloor belong to him23. But the Portuguese delegate protested saying that these sees were subject to the Bishop of Goa who was totius Indiae Primas (Sixth Session, September 17, 1562). As E. Tisserant has pointed out, the prohibition against Mar Joseph visiting Rome must be connected with this incident.

16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

See Varghese (2013), pp. 327–28. Tisserant (1957), p. 37. Thekkedath (1988), p. 42. Jornado, Book One, ch. III, p. 33: “He (Mar Joseph) introduced in the Serra that the priests should celebrate with our vestments, in the Roman style, because previously they used to celebrate wrapped up in a bed sheet, and on it a stole…”. Gouvea continues saying that Joseph ordered “to use our wine and hosts, and thus removing many other customs and ignorance which before him were in force”. Similar information on liturgical garments is found in Francis Ros, A Report on the Serra, §21c, p. 331. Cf. ch. XVIII, pp. 237–248. Bertrami (1933), p. 86ff. Thekkedath (1988), pp. 45–46. It is quite possible that F. Zahara helped him to establish contacts at the royal court. Geddes (1694) in Menachery (2000), pp. 31–112; here p. 38. This is first known East Syrian claim of authority over Malabar. Early references to India are often vague.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Mar Abraham’s Second visit

9

After two years, Mar Joseph made a second visit to Malabar (1564–1568). The Portuguese authorities were unhappy about his presence. Soon he had problems with them. The bishop of Cochin reported to the Archbishop of Goa that Mar Joseph was continuing to profess “the doctrine which he had abjured in Portugal”. He was arrested and deported to Lisbon and from there to Rome, where he died in 1569. When he left, Mar Joseph took several manuscripts with him, which eventually reached the Vatican Library24.

4. Mar Abraham’s Second visit Meanwhile in 1568, Mar Abraham (who was deported in 1558/1560) returned to Malabar as a Chaldean Catholic prelate25. As in the case of almost every bishop from West Asia, he was detained in Goa. After several unsuccessful attempts, in a Holy Thursday night (1570?), he escaped and left for Malabar. Though the Portuguese tried their best to expel him, he was successful to get Papal permission to remain in Malabar (as Catholic sources claim). In January 1578, he wrote a letter from the Jesuit School of Cochin, assuring the Pope Gregory VIII (1572–85) that “there will be no more enmity between the Portuguese and himself and that he would grant full facilities to the Jesuits to exercise their ministry in Malabar”26. We can assume that he was permitted to stay, to counter the work of an East Syrian prelate named Mar Simeon (157–1583?). About 1576/77, East Syriac Patriarch Elias VII (1576–1591) sent Mar Simeon to Malabar and the people received him with greater affection than they had for Mar Abraham, for the new bishop “by reason of his never having had anything to do with the Latins”27. During his stay Mar Simon promoted East Syriac Breviary and liturgical practices in Malabar. Franciscans were successful to convince him to “go to Rome and get Pope’s Brief for the Bishopric, without which he could never expect to enjoy it peacefully”28. He was sent to Rome via Goa and from there to Lisbon, where he was confined to a Franciscan convent. Mar Simeon is said to have sent a series of letters to Jacob, whom he had appointed as his ‘Vicar General’ in Malabar. In his letters, he qualified himself as “Metropolitan of the Indies” and professed “the Chaldean doctrines”29. Mar Abraham, the last East Syriac (Chaldean) bishop in Malabar collaborated with the Portuguese, though they were suspicious of his faith30. At the Council of Goa (1585), Mar Abraham once again “renounced his errors”31 and made a profession of Roman faith and promised to obey all the decrees of the Synod in relation to the Malabar Church. He had to promise to send all the “heretical books” in his diocese to be burned or corrected. The Latin bishops assembled in Goa held that the ordination of Malabar priests according to the

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Webb (1958), pp. 185–208. Cf. van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 184–203. Varghese (2013), pp. 327–328; 331–337. Beltrami (1933), p. 56; Tisserant (1957), p. 56. Geddes (1694), p. 42. Geddes (1694), p. 43. Ibid. Varghese (2013), p. 335. He had already renounced it in Rome in 1568.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

10

II. East Syriac Liturgy in Malabar

“Chaldean ritual” is invalid, for in their ordination empty chalice was given to them. Thus, Mar Abraham was directed to re-ordain them using the Latin form of ordination.

5. Indigenous customs among the St Thomas Christians in the Sixteenth Century According to the accounts given by Antonio de Gouvea (1603), Malabar Christians followed several indigenous practices32. Gouvea points out that unlike the Catholic Church, the Malabar Christians had no confirmation, confession or the ‘Extreme Unction’33. “…. they used to anoint the children after baptism with coconut oil or with the oil of sesame without blessing, considering this anointing to be holy...”34. He writes that though the Portuguese tried to introduce confession, the native Christians continued to follow a curious custom of absolution: “But throughout the Christian community they were fed up with Confession, nor did they discuss it in any way, and in its place they first used to put some embers in the middle of the church on Sundays and they threw in it a lot of incense, and all approached it, each one diverting with his hand its smoke to his chest, saying that with that smoke his sins were going outside his soul, although this custom has already weakened in many places”35. Eucharistic bread was made of oil and salt and was baked by a deacon or the minor orders in a special place in the church ‘always singing Psalms and Hymns’36. The loaves were placed on the altar “in a small basket of fresh palm fronds”, and “wine of dried grapes or of the palm”37. The bread was baked in a tower above the sanctuary, and it was placed in the basket and lowered to the altar using a rope38. Apparently, Eucharist was not celebrated every Sunday, but Joseph Sulaqa introduced Latin host and Portuguese wine: “… and they had the Mass very few times in a year, but now, after the time of Mar Joseph […] and to please the Portuguese, they were already consecrating with our hosts and our wine”39.

32 Jornada, Book One, ch. XVIII, pp. 237–248. Similar information is given by Francis Ros, A Report on the Sera, §21, p. 329–335. Gouvea must have used this report by Francis Ros. 33 Ibid. p. 238. 34 Ibid., cf. A Report on the Serra, §21 a, p. 329. 35 Ibid. p. 238. See also Francis Ros, A Report on the Serra, §21 d, pp. 331–333. 36 Ibid. p. 239. 37 Ibid. Palm wine must have been made from the juice of a special kind of palms found in Kerala. The honey made from the juice is a delicacy among the Syrian Christians of Kerala. I think there is no reason to doubt the account by Gouvea. [Tody is made from the fermented palm juice]. 38 Jornada, Book One, ch. III, p. 33. Also Francis Ros, A Report on the Serra, §4, p. 304. 39 Jornada, p. 239. Joseph Sulaqa was twice in Malabar: 1557–1562; 1564–1568.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Syriac Liturgy followed in Malabar in the Sixteenth Century

11

6. Syriac Liturgy followed in Malabar in the Sixteenth Century The oldest known document related to the liturgical tradition of Malabar is an East Syriac lectionary of the Pauline Epistles for the Sundays of the whole year, written in India in 1301 AD (Vatican Syriaco 22)40. The colophon says that it was copied in the Greek era 1612 (=1301 AD) in the “royal town of Sengala, in Malabar, in the country of India”. Sengala is identified as Cranganore, north of Cochin, the place where St Thomas is believed to have landed in 52 AD41. The scribe was ‘a fourteen-year-old deacon named’ Zachariah bar Joseph bar Zachariah. It is on the basis of this lectionary that the Syro-Malabar historians have concluded that the East Syriac liturgy was widely followed in Malabar. It is open to discussion whether a fourteen-year deacon was competent to undertake such a serious task. It is also possible that the manuscript was copied by a visiting East Syriac cleric for the use of the local community. However, the manuscript needs to be studied carefully giving attention to the handwriting and the material used. Though the lectionary could suggest the use of the East Syriac liturgy in Malabar in the early decades on the 14th century, we have no information regarding the anaphora and other liturgical texts. Probably it was copied for the use of a community in or near Kodungallor. It is not at all certain that it was used by all parishes of the St Thomas Christians. F.C. Burkitt had suggested the possibility that when Malabar liturgy was revised in 1599, it had only been used in India for about a century42. Other Syriac manuscripts related to India were copied in the 16th century by the visiting East Syriac prelates. The East Syriac liturgy used in Malabar at the time of the Synod of Diamper was introduced by the visiting East Syriac bishops since 1490. Mar Jacob, Mar Joseph and Mar Abraham collaborated with the Portuguese. As the Malabar Christians did not have the continuous presence of a bishop among them, Mar Jacob seems to have lived in various places as a guest and consequently he was found with the Portuguese, who used him to implement their plans of converting the Saint Thomas Christians. Under their pressure the visiting bishops had to revise the liturgical texts. The revision began under Mar Jacob and got momentum under Mar Joseph Sulaqa. We have practically no information regarding the anaphora used in Malabar before 1490. The decrees of the Third Provincial Council of Goa (1585), suggest that Mar Abraham also had used Syriac versions of the Latin services. The third session of the Council dealt with the ‘diocese of Angamaly’ and its bishop and adopted ten decrees on the Malabar Christians43. The decrees include: Mar Abraham shall ask the faithful to accept the Confession of faith that he had submitted to Rome (Decree 1). The Roman Missal, Breviary, Pontifical and the rubrics shall be translated into East Syriac and shall be implemented. All existing Syriac books shall be examined and be corrected (Decree 7). An adviser from the Catholic Church shall be appointed to implement the decrees (Decree 8). As we will see, soon after the Synod of Diamper, these decrees were implemented. 40 See van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 187–189; cf. pp. 3–4. Cf. Assemani, Bibl. Vat. Cod. Mss. Cat. p. 174; Webb (1958), p. 187. 41 See van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 187–189. 42 Burkitt, JTS 29 (1927–28), p. 156. 43 Bullarum Patronatus Portugalliae Regum, Appendix, Lisbon, 1872 (= BPPA), pp. 59–89; Malayalam tr. by Chediath (1990), pp. 12–14.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

III. Synod of Diamper and the East Syriac Liturgy As we have already seen, in the last decades of the 16th century, the Church of the Saint Thomas Christians was reduced by the Portuguese to the status of a diocese under Goa. Whether the Christians of Malabar accepted it or were even aware of it, is open to discussion. This was an act of European Chauvinism and typical colonial mentality. Because of the absence of a strict administrative system in Malabar, the foreign visitors could always find some supporters. However, the Third Provincial Synod of Goa (1585) refers to it as ‘diocese of Angamaly’. The Goan Synod decided to introduce Syriac translation of the Latin liturgy in Malabar. When Mar Abraham, the last East Syrian bishop in Malabar died (on 3 January 1597), Aleixo de Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, appointed Francisco Ros (also written Roz), a Jesuit, as Governor and Vicar Apostolic of Malabar and later he was made bishop1. Ros was a Catalan (Spanish) Jesuit who had arrived in India in 1584. He knew Syriac very well and taught that language in the Jesuit seminary at Vaipincotta (founded in 1587). Jonas Thaliath writes that during his stay in Malabar, Ros began to expunge the Syriac manuscripts of the doctrinal errors2. Consequently, the relations between the missionaries and Mar Abraham and the Archdeacon (head of the community) deteriorated. During his stay, Ros wrote a small treatise on the errors of Nestorianism that he found in the Syriac Manuscripts in Malabar3. The appointment of Ros was the first step in bringing the ancient Church under Rome. Menezes convened the Synod of Diamper which began on 20 June 1599 (third Sunday after Pentecost) with the participation of 153 priests (more than 100 among them were ordained by Menezes himself in the two to three months before the Synod) and 660 lay people. The Synod lasted for seven days (June 20 to 26), and nine sessions were held. Liturgy and sacraments were discussed in the following sessions4: Session IV: Of the Seven Sacraments5: The Doctrine of the holy Sacrament of Baptism: 20 decrees. The Doctrine of the sacrament of Confirmation: 5 decrees.

1 Jonas Thaliath writes that on January 21, 1597, Pope Clement VIII issued a brief, directing the Archbishop of Goa to appoint an administrator for the archbishopric of Angamali in the event of the death of Mar Abraham, Thaliath (1999), p. 17. 2 Thaliath (1999), p. 16. 3 I. Hausherr, De erroribus Nestorianorum qui in hac India Orientali versantur, auctore P. Francisco Roz S.J. Inédit latin-syriaque de la fin de 1586 ou début de 1587. Retrouvé par le P. Castets S.J., missionaire à Trichinopoly, annoté par P. Irenée Hausherr S.J., in Orientalia Christiana, t. XI (1), Rome, 1928, n.1, n.40. 4 I am following the order given by Zacharia, Synod of Diamper. Cf. Gouvea, Jornada, Book I, ch. XXI. 5 Zacharia (1994), pp. 109–124.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

14

III. Synod of Diamper and the East Syriac Liturgy

Session V: Of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and the of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass6. The Doctrine of the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist: 9 decrees. The Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass: 15 decrees. Session VI: Of the Sacrament of Penance and Extreme Unction7. 15 decrees (on Penance). The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction: 3 decrees. Session VII: Of the Sacraments of Orders and Matrimony8. The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Orders: 23 decrees. The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Matrimony: 16 Decrees. Sessions five and six were held on the fourth day (that is 23rd June).

1. Liturgical reforms introduced by the Synod of Diamper The Acts of the Synod of Diamper attest that East Syriac ‘Anaphoras of Nestorius, Theodore and Diodore’ were used in Malabar9. The Synod ordered their suppression: “the Synod doth command all such masses, entire as they are, to be taken out, and burnt, and in virtue of obedience, and upon pain of excommunication Latae Sententiae, doth prohibit all priests from henceforward to presume to use them, ordering them to be forthwith cut out of their books, and at the next visitation to be delivered by them to the Most illustrious Metropolitan, or to such as he shall appoint to correct their books, that so these messes may be burnt”10. [For the Anaphora of the Apostles, see below]. In the case of baptism, the Synod observed that “the holy oils having hitherto been used in this bishopric in any of the sacraments, and if any have been used, it having been without any distinction, and not without being blessed by the bishop …”11. We can assume that as the bishops were not always present in Malabar, such practices must have existed. The Synod directed to use the oil in baptism. The Roman liturgy shall be translated into Syriac and be used: “The Synod doth also command under the same precept, that all curates and vicars do celebrate this sacrament (of baptism), with the rites and ceremonies, exorcisms and 6 7 8 9

Ibid. pp. 124–143. Ibid. pp. 143–156. Ibid. pp. 156–179. Session V, Decree II, Zacharia (1994), p. 137. This is only known reference to an anaphora attributed to Diodore. 10 Ibid. 11 Session IV, Decree XIV (on Baptism), Zacharia (1994), p. 118.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Liturgical reforms introduced by the Synod of Diamper

15

prayers, that are contained in the Roman ceremonial; which the most illustrious Metropolitan has ordered to be translated into Syriac for the administration of all sacraments, and is to be kept in all churches”12. Elsewhere it is directed that active formula, “I baptize thee …” shall be used13. Also, it has been decreed that the children shall be baptized on the eighth day after birth14. Confirmation, which was newly introduced in Malabar, shall be given with the anointing of ‘the holy oil of chrism, made of olive oil and of balsam. It shall be blessed by the bishop and in its administration, he shall dip his thumb in the chrism and make the sign of the cross on the forehead of the candidate saying, “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and do confirm thee with the chrism of health, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”15. Though the bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation, the Synod “by a dispensation from the Holy See”, permitted that “simple priests may confirm with chrism, that has been consecrated by a bishop”16. The Malabar Christians were using the Peshitta version of the Bible. In the Old Testament, Books of Esther, Tobit, and Wisdom were wanting and the Synod directed to translate these books from the Latin Vulgate into Syriac. Likewise in the New Testament, it was instructed to add or correct the following passages: John 7:53–8:11 (on the woman caught in adultery to be added); Luke 10:17 (seventy in Syr.; seventy-two in Latin); Mathew 6:13 (the missing doxology to be added); 1 John 4:3; 5:8 (wanting in Syriac). Likewise, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and the Revelation are to be translated into Syriac from Latin17. East Syriac Festal Breviary (Hudra) was also followed in Malabar and the Synod ordered to make several doctrinal corrections. The Synod observed that “the whole office of Advent is heretical” and “the whole offices of the Advent and Nativity are little else than pure blasphemy”18. Therefore, it was decreed that “the offices of Advent and the Nativity to be entirely torn out of their breviaries and burnt”. However, the Synod permitted to use the office for the departed priests and some offices from the breviary with necessary corrections until new texts are available: “.. all (the) books and breviaries, though they do well deserve to [be] burnt, for (the..) errors that they contain, yet there being no other at present in this diocese, for the keeping up of the divine service, and the celebration of religious offices, until such time as they shall be furnished with new breviaries, which the Synod desires they may speedily, and that some may be printed for them at Peter’s in Rome; the Synod doth order them to be corrected and purged from all their errors, and commemorations of

12 13 14 15 16 17

Ibid. p. 118. Session IV, Decree VII (on Baptism), Zacharia (1994), pp. 114–115. Session IV, Decree V (on Baptism), p. 113. Session IV, The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Confirmation, pp. 121– 122. ibid. p. 122. ibid., Session III, Decree II, Zacharia (1994), p. 89. Peshitta NT canon consisted of 22 books and these five were missing. I leave the question of the characteristics of the Malabar Syriac Bible to the experts. On the Syriac Bible: See Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, Gorgias Press, 2006. 18 Session III, Decree XV, Zacharia (1994), pp. 103–105.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

16

III. Synod of Diamper and the East Syriac Liturgy

heretics, and the entire offices for all such; and the offices of advent and nativity to be entirely torn out of their breviaries and burnt…”19. All books in Syriac shall be delivered to Menezes or Francis Ros to be “perused, corrected or destroyed”, except the breviary, which shall be corrected20. No Syriac book except the “books of Holy Scripture and Psalms” shall be copied without “express license from the prelate”21. Apparently, Menezes’ intention was to translate Roman liturgical texts such as Breviary, Sacramental celebrations, funeral etc. As we will see below, this was implemented under Francis Ros.

2. Revision of the Anaphora of the Apostles As we have noted, the Synod decreed to suppress the East Syriac anaphoras of Theodore, Nestorius and Diodore. Only the anaphora of the Apostles [Addai and Mari] was permitted to be used, but with several changes22. The text used as the basis for the revision has not come down to us. Two important sources give us information regarding the changes: (i). The Acts of the Synod (Session V, The Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, Decree I)23; (ii). A Latin Version of the Malabar Liturgy (first published by Gouvea in 1606, and afterwards reedited by Raulin in 1745), in which the corrections prescribed by the Synod were incorporated. R.H. Connolly has made a detailed study of the text printed by Raulin, comparing it with the Syriac text published in Urmia for the use of the Church of the East24. Connolly has demonstrated that the major changes decreed by the Synod mainly consisted of doctrinal corrections. A detailed discussion of the revision is beyond the scope of the present work25. Connolly’s observations are often quoted by the Syro-Malabar scholars in their studies on the Anaphora of the Apostles26. We shall give his main conclusions27: (i). The Malabar liturgy is essentially the same as the East Syriac anaphora of Addai and Mari. The differences between the two are: (a). the order of the pre-anaphora; (b). the presence of the formula of Institution. (ii). In its revision, the Synod did not alter the order of the elements.

19 ibid. p. 104. 20 Session III, Decree XVI, Zacharia (1994), p. 105. 21 Ibid. Decree XIV (of Session III) gives a long list of books that are to be destroyed, Zacharia (1994), pp. 98–103. Cf. J.B. Chabot, “L’autodafé des livres syriaques du Malabar”, in Florilegium ou recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à M. le Marquis Melchior de Vogüé à l’occasion du 80e anniversaire de sa naissance, 18 Oct. 1909, Paris, 1909. 22 See the studies by Connolly (1914), Vellian (1989) & Pallath (2008). 23 Zacharia (1994), pp. 131–137. 24 Connolly, JTS 15 (1914), pp. 396–425; 569–589; With notes by E. Bishop, “Addition”, in JTS 15 (1914), pp. 589–593; also F.C. Burkitt, The Old Malabar Liturgy”, JTS 29 (1928), pp. 155–157; E.C. Ratcliff, “The Original Form of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari: A Suggestion”, JTS 30 (1928–29), pp. 23–32. 25 Pallath (2008) gives the original text of the Anaphora and the Diamper text in parallel columns, pp. 86– 90. 26 E.g., Vellian (1989); Vellian (2001); Mannoramparampil (1986). 27 Connolly 15 (1914), pp. 587–588. Connolly lists eight conclusions.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Revision of the Anaphora of the Apostles

17

(iii). All verbal changes are specified in the Acts, except in the case of the Creed and the formula of Consecration. In these two cases, the changes were made to make the text conform to the Roman Missal. (iv). The Epiclesis was not altered. (v). Already before the revision, the formula of consecration (or Institution Narrative) was placed just before the Fraction (as it is found in the texts published by Gouvea and Raulin). No text of the Malabar anaphora prior to the Synod of Diamper has so far been found. Vatican Syriac 66 is an important document for the study of the form of the Anaphora used in Malabar prior to the Synod of Diamper28. Parts of it are regarded to have been written by Joseph Sulaqa. The manuscript was certainly brought by him to India, to which a few more liturgical texts were added. Fr. A. Raes was probably the first to draw attention to the importance of this manuscript29. The manuscript consists of three parts: (i). a Syriac translation of the Latin liturgy of ordination [fol. 1–10]; (ii). East Syriac Pontifical [fol. 11–100]; a note says that this part was written in Gozarta in 1529; (iii). Anaphoras of ‘the Apostles’ and of Theodore; a few readings from the Gospels; prayers of absolution [fol. 101–128]. Fol. 1–10 and fol. 101–128 (total 38 folios) are ascribed to Mar Joseph. On fol. 101r, we find the Syriac version of the words of Institution from the Roman Missal, which was missing in the anaphora of the Apostles. It is found on the page (fol. 101r) immediately preceding the beginning of the anaphora, with the indication to recite it after the fraction and consignation30. Who did translate the Institution into Syriac? The preface to the edition of Gouvea’s text contains an allusion to it. In his English translation of the Acts of Diamper, Michael Geddes gives the English version of the preface, but not the Latin text of Gouvea’s version of the liturgy itself31. I shall quote the relevant passage: “A Preface to a Missal. The Mass that is henceforth to be used by the ancient Christians of St. Thomas of the Bishopric of Angamale in the Serra of Malabar, in the East-Indies, purged of the Nestorian Errors and blasphemies it abounded with, by the most illustrious and Reverend Dom Frey Aleixo De Menezes, Archbishop of Goa and Primate of the Indies, at the time when he reduced them to the obedience of the Holy Roman Church. Translated word for word out of Syriac or Syrian into Latin”.

28 Fol. 101–115 give the Anaphora of the Apostles. See van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 193–196; Webb (1958), pp. 185–208. 29 Raes, OCP 10 (1944), pp. 216–226. 30 Pallath (2008), p. 125. 31 Michael Geddes, The History of the Church of Malabar, London, 1694. The translation of the Preface is given in appendix. The four pages printed after p. 443 have no page numbers. See also Pallath (2008), pp. 11–13.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

18

III. Synod of Diamper and the East Syriac Liturgy

The preface says that there was ‘no certain form of Consecration among the St. Thomas Christians’ and that a ‘certain Archbishop’ added it32. Then the ‘preface’ quotes the formula added by the bishop: “The Form established by the fore-mentioned Archbishop was: ‘This is in truth my Body; This is in truth the Cup of my Blood, which was shed for you, and for many, for the propitiation and remission of your sins; and this shall be a pledge to You forever and ever’. – in this Form, they have now consecrated for several years. But the most Reverend Archbishop Primate, having removed the words that are not necessary, established the proper form used in the Catholic Church, as it is in the Roman Missal…”33. It is intriguing that Gouvea, who most probably used the Report on the Serra by Francis Ros, did not identify the ‘Archbishop’ who made the addition. According to J.S. Assemani, the 38 folios added to Vatican 66 could be the work of Joseph Sulaqa: “Is codex, si quiedem priora docem, ac posteriora viginti octo folia excipias, quae a Josepho Indiarum Episcopo, superiorum Codicum XLVI, LXII, et LXV caligrapho, adjecta videntur, descriptus est ano Christi 1529”34. Raes and Webb are cautious in identifying the archbishop in question with Joseph Sulaqua, who was in Malabar between 1556 and 1568 35. If the attribution to Joseph is correct, as A. Raes has suggested, that it was composed by Mar Joseph during his confinement in Bassein (near Bombay) between 1556 and 1558. Most probably he must have translated and added it at the instigation of the two Dominicans (Ambrose Buttigeg and Antonius Zahara) who accompanied him to India or of the Franciscans of Bassein. He must have used it in his celebration of the liturgy in Bassein and later in Malabar. But in his Report on the Serra, Francis Ros explicitly says that it was Joseph Sulaqa who added the Institution Narrative: “Mar Joseph who governed this Christianity before Mar Abraham… translated from Latin into Chaldean the words of the consecration, although badly, there not being translators who knew both Latin and the Chaldean. He also added some other words as seemed better to him”36.

32 See the text quoted in full by Pallath (2008), p. 124. 33 The fourth page (no number in Geddes) say: “many of the emendations are noted in the Synod, Decree 10, Act 5th of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”. See the Latin text quoted by Connolly, JTS 15 (1914), pp. 578–579 (from Raulin, pp. 291–292). Connolly compares Gouvea’s formula with the text of the Diamper. pp. 579–580. 34 S.E. et J.S. Assemanus, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae Codicum Manuscriptorum Catalogus, II, Roma, 1758, p. 370. 35 According to Raes, fol. 101 “could be the work of Joseph”. Raes, Récit de l’institution, OCP 10 (1944), p. 218. Webb says: “the likeliest candidate is Mar Joseph Sulaqa”, Webb (1980), Christian Orient I-2 (1980), p. 24. 36 Francis Ros, A Report on the Serra, p. 331. Probably on the basis of this Report by Ros, the introduction to the 1955 edition of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy, also speaks of Mar Joseph Sulaqa who added the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Revision of the Anaphora of the Apostles

19

However, the text of the Anaphora of the Apostles known to the Synod of Diamper contained the Institution Narrative. This is evident from the fact that the Synod did not refer to the absence of the Institution. In Vatican 66 (fol. 101), Institution is indicated to be said after the fraction and the consignation and the liturgy continued with the Pauline salutation. But in the Diamper text, Institution is placed before the fraction. In both cases the Institution is found after the anaphora. Pallath puts forward the hypothesis that the Institution was placed before the Fraction by the Synod of Ankamaly of 1583 under Mar Abraham, which is likely37. Studies on the Institution Narrative by Syro-Malabar scholars have made the following observations. The Words of Institution given by Gouvea correspond to those of Vatican 66 (fol. 101). Using Roman Missal as the criterion, Menezes seems to have corrected only the Words of Consecration (Christ’s words during the Last Supper) which he believed to be the essential formula for a valid Eucharist38. However, he seems to have left aside other parts of the Institution Narrative describing the actions of Christ. Later Francis Ros might have modified the whole Institution Narrative in accordance with the Roman Missal39. The work of Menezes or of Ros on the Institution narrative or other parts of the anaphora is still subject to speculations and hypotheses. Several aspects of the early history of the Malabar anaphora are still not very clear. We have practically no information regarding the text on which corrections were made at Diamper. Did the Synod use a text (or texts) similar to Vatican 66? Did Menezes work on a Latin a translation of the Anaphora? Was it the same text published by Gouvea? Or did one of Menezes’ collaborators like Francis Ros compose a revised Syriac text in the light of the decrees of Diamper? In 1603, Ros held an Assembly in Angamaly of which the decisions are available40. Immediately after it, Ros composed a Syriac text with a few more alterations and introduced it in Malabar. The original Syriac text is not available to us. We do not know whether the available manuscript copy of the Rosian version represents a revised text41. As Webb has observed: “It remains true…. that certain aspects of the history of Malabar Rite are still shrouded in mystery, and a certain solution of some of the problems is perhaps impossible”42. Though the Synod of Diamper permitted to use the altered text of the Anaphora of the Apostles, the original intention of Menezes was obviously complete suppression of the East

37 38 39 40 41

42

Institution Narrative and placed it after the Fraction. See Sacra Congregazione per la Chiesa Orientale, Liturgia Siro-Malabaresi: revisione e Risttampa del Messale Siro-Malabarese, Roma, 1953, p. 3. English translation is given by Pallath (2008), pp. 133–134. Pallath (2008), pp. 216–217; He quotes Fr. Placid Podipara, “The Present Syro-Malabar Liturgy: Menezian or Rosian”, OCP 23 (1957), p. 319. See also the conclusion by Connolly (1914), pp. 587–588. See Vellian (1989), gives the Institution Narrative of Mar Joseph, Diamper and Roman Missal in parallel columns (pp. 33–36); see also Pallath (2008) pp. 127–128. Pallath (2008), p. 133; He quotes Fr. Placid Podipara, op. cit., pp. 320–321. The Malayalam version of the statutes of the Synod in Scaria Zacharia, Randu Pracheena Gadyakrithikal (Two old writings in prose), Changanachery, 1976, pp. 181–198. A 19th century (?) manuscript of the Carmelite House in Mannanam, Kottayam, is believed to be a copy of the Rosian version. Cf. van der Ploeg (1983), p. 118. The title of the text is: “The Rites of Raza in the Church of India arranged by Francis Ros in the fourth year, fourth month of his episcopacy in the Synod of Angamaly”. Webb (1980), p. 21.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

20

III. Synod of Diamper and the East Syriac Liturgy

Syrian Liturgy in the future. Thus, the Synod suggested the use of the Roman Mass in Syriac translation for ordinary daily mass: “For as much as the Syrian Mass is too long for priests that have a mind to celebrate daily, the Synod doth grant license for the translating of the Roman Mass into Syriac, desiring the Reverend Father Francisco Ros of the Society of Jesus to undertake the work...”43. It is not unlikely that the Syriac version of the Roman Mass was used in Malabar by Francis Ros and his collaborators or even in some places (that is, by the young priests ordained by Menezes). In fact, soon after his consecration, Ros translated most of the Latin sacramental and liturgical services into Syriac. But in the case of the anaphora, the Latin missionaries tolerated the use of the altered text of the Anaphora of the Apostles, certainly because the people were unhappy about the reforms imposed on them. As we will see below, both the Syrians (non-Catholics) and the Syro-Catholics used this altered text at least until the middle of the 18th century.

43 Session V, Decree II (Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass), p. 138.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

IV. Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church History of the Syro-Malabar liturgy is characterized by continuous Latinization1. Any attempt for restoration faced strong opposition from the part of the bishops, clergy and the lay people, which unfortunately continues even today. Soon after the Synod, Francis Ros prepared a new Ordo of the Anaphora, apparently having some differences from the Latin text published by Antonio Gouvea as an appendix to his edition of the Acts of the Synod (1606, Coimbra, Portugal). (Like Menezes, Gouvea was a member of the Augustinian order, and had accompanied Menezes during his visit in Malabar). In 1745, the Acts of the Synod were translated into Latin by another Augustinian J.F. Raulin in his Historia Ecclesia Malabarica cum Diamperitana Synodo (Rome)2. Raulin’s translation of the Acts is followed by Gouvea’s original Latin text of the revised Malabar Liturgy. This is the only source of information on the Diamper (‘Menezian’) text of the anaphora, as the Syriac original has not come down to us. Fr. Van der Ploeg has pointed out that the text edited by Gouvea contains all the changes prescribed as corrections by the Diamper Synod. Some prayers, especially among those to be said by the deacon, are not in the ‘Rosian’ text printed later (textus receptus). This may suggest that Ros has shortened the text as approved and corrected by the Synod3. It is likely, as Fr. Van der Ploeg has observed, that Menezes worked on a Latin translation of the anaphora. We do not know whether it was the text published by Gouvea. It is not unlikely that Ros himself composed the Syriac text which served as the basis of the Latin text published by Gouvea. Then Ros must have shortened the text dropping a few prayers. Moreover, apart from the names of Menezes and Ros, no other name is associated with the corrections in the Malabar liturgy. Fr. Vellian has made comparative study of the ‘Rosian’ text (from the 19th century Mannanam manuscript) and Gouvea’s text (ed. Raulin) and pointed out the difference between the two4. But it is not clear whether the Mannanam manuscript represents the true copy of the Rosian text (of 1606) or a revised one. 1 Until the end of the 19th century, even in the 20th century, official documents used different titles, such as Chaldean, Syro-Chaldean, Chaldeo-Malabar. The first official mention of the title ‘Syro-Malabar’ is found in the Roman Document Quod jampridem, establishing the Vicariates of Kottayam and Trichur (in 1887). Dutch and the English used the title ‘Romo-Syrians’. See Thadikkat, pp. 15–24. In 1964, the Synod unanimously passed a resolution to retain the designation “Syro-Malabar” (Ibid., p. 18). In a Memorandum submitted to Cardinal Tisserant, Fr. Placid suggested the title “Thomas Chrstian Rite”. Fr. Placid’s Memorandum in Christian Orient (1986, March–June), pp. 63–73; Summary in Mannooramparampil (2013), pp. 86–87. 2 Raulin’s Latin text was reproduced in J.D. Mansi et al., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima collectio, vol. 35, Paris, 1902, pp. 1161–1368. Official Catholic Church documents, including the Code of the Eastern Churches, quote from Mansi. 3 van der Ploeg (1983), pp. 24–25. 4 Vellian (1989), pp. 41–42. See also Vellian (2001), pp. 186–187.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

22

IV. Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church

Before his Episcopal consecration, Francis Ros (1601–24) had translated the texts of the Latin sacramental celebrations into Syriac and later they were introduced among the SyroCatholics. The East Syrian liturgical calendar was replaced with Latin calendar. Thus began the Latinisation of the Syro-Malabar Church which lasted until 1962.

1. First printed Syriac text of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy The Syriac text of the liturgy was printed in Rome for the first time in 1774 (Ordo Chaldaicus Missae iuxta Morem Ecclesiae Malabaricae Superiorum Permissu Editus). It was generally believed that it was the text composed by Menezes. But Fr. Placid Podippara had pointed out that the text printed in 1774 is different in many ways from the Gouvea’s version5. Between 1606 and 1774, the text of the Anaphora seems to have undergone some changes. On 3 September 1757, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of Faith asked the Latin Vicar General of Malabar to send the text of the liturgy corrected by Menezes with a Latin Translation, so that the Syriac text could be printed. MS Borgio Latino 280 fol. 241v– 282v contains a report on the selection of the text, of which Vellian gives a summary6. A certain Fr. Charles of Conrad, a Carmelite, brought two copies of the Malabar Liturgy to Rome, and another Carmelite brought a third exemplar of the same. As there were differences between them, the printing was delayed. J.S. Assemani, the well-known Maronite Syriac scholar was consulted. He suggested either to print the ‘Menezian’ liturgy, which was partially Roman or to get another copy subscribed to by all the priests in Malabar. Thus, he discouraged the use of the manuscript brought by the Carmelites. These suggestions were sent to the Congregatio super Correctionem Librorum Ecclesiae Orientalis. Cardinal Antonelli, one of the consultants of this Congregation, suggested to provide the Chaldean Missal which was already in press (1767). Apparently, his intention was to make sure that Rome may not be accused by anyone that Malabar was deprived of an eastern liturgy. But other consultants and members of the Congregation objected to this suggestion. It was decided not to introduce Chaldean liturgy without knowing the will of the members of the Malabar Church. Thus, the two copies of the Chaldean printed Missal were sent to the Vicar Apostolic of Malabar, asking him to convoke an assembly of the Malabar clergy to know whether they would accept the Chaldean Missal. The meeting of the priests rejected the Chaldean Missal and asked Rome to print the Missal brought to Rome by Charles. Thus, one of the manuscripts was printed. It is not known which one was chosen7. Fr. Placid Podipara has argued that the printed liturgy was “more Rosian than Menesian”8. Fr. Placid’s work is mainly based on the Mannanam (19th cent.?) copy of the liturgy ascribed to Ros. Vatican Syriac Borgiano Syriaco 35 contains an anaphora which is identical with the Mannanam text. Vellian suggests that probably it was this manuscript which was brought to Rome by Charles9. In a book published in Malayalam, Fr. Placid wrote that he heard that the 5 6 7 8 9

Podippara (1957), OCP 23, pp. 313–331. Vellian (1989), pp. 46–48. Ibid. pp. 48–49. Podippara (1957), pp. 313–333. Vellian (1989), p. 49, n. 101.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

First printed Syriac text of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy

23

manuscript of the text printed in 1774 was composed by Fr. Thachil Abraham Malpan and Fr. Planthottathil10. However, following additions were made to the text printed in 1774: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

“The Father of Truth” (A hymn) A final blessing in honour of the Virgin Mary The prayer bidding farewell to the altar (Dwell in Peace!) Four other hutame Agnus Dei before the minor elevation Two prayers before the celebrant receives the chalice Three Post-Communion prayers11

The first three were introduced probably as suggested by J.S. Assemani, who was member of the committee which prepared the text. First one (‘The Father of Truth’) is a passage from a memra known under the name of Jacob of Serugh (+521)12. This prayer was inserted after the Fraction and signatio; but disappeared in the liturgy revised later13. In 1775, the sacramentary of the Malabar Church was printed, which was a translation of the Rituale Romanum with some characteristics proper to the diocese of Braga in Portugal. This was because the Latin translation made before the Synod of Diamper must have been used for preparing this text. However, it has been in use until 196814. The second edition of the anaphora was printed in 1844 (Missale Malabaricum). Some of the subsequent editions appeared with minor changes (Ernakulam, 1904; Puthenpally, 1912 and Trichinopoly, 1917)15. A second edition of the sacramentary was printed in 1845 with translations of other ceremonies from the Rituale Romanum, such as the blessing of holy water, a place, candles, food, statues, and holy pictures. In the second half of the 19th century several Latin liturgical practices were introduced. Under Archbishop Bernadine Baccinelli, Vicar Apostolic of Verapoly (1853–68), the novenas and the monthly devotions to the saints were introduced and Latin prayers were translated into Syriac. Fr. Kuriakose Chavara (+1871), the Vicar General of Bernadine collaborated with the missionaries and promoted the latinization. He made an adapted version of the Roman Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae (of 1570) and published with the title Tukasa or the rubrics in Malayalam. It is interesting to note that, at this time, the Malankara Orthodox Church had reached the final stage of the antiochianisation. 10 Fr. Placid, Nammude Rite, Mannanam, 1944, p. 103, quoted by Fr. Thomas Mannooramparapil, (1986), p. 72 [Italics added]. There is no way to verify the source of this information. 11 Vellian, “Synod of Diamper and Malabar Liturgy”, p. 189. 12 See Vellian (1970), p. 13. In the Syrian Orthodox liturgy, this hymn is sung during the Fraction. Likewise, no. 3 (Dwell in Peace!) is part of the Syrian Orthodox post-communion. In fact, Syrian Orthodox and the Maronites share several liturgical elements in common. See Jacob of Serugh, Homily 95, in Bedjan Vol. III, pp. 646–662; here pp. 661–62. 13 I owe this information to J. van der Ploeg, “Une homélie de Jacques de Saroug sur la réception de la sainte Communion”, in Mélanges Eugene Tisserant, Vol. III, Orient Chrétien, Deuxième partie, Studi e Testi 233, Vatican, 1964, pp. 395–418, here p. 415, n.73. 14 Vellian (1970), p. 10; id., History of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy, Kottayam, 1967, pp. 26–28. 15 Thadikkatt (2004), p. 107.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

24

IV. Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church

2. The Process of Restoration Since the end of the 19th century, there were dissatisfactions among the Syro-Malabar clergy with the latinization of their Church16. In 1908, a group of priests from the three Syro-Malabar Vicariates sent a memorandum to Rome for the restoration of the Chaldean rite in Malabar, with the exception of clerical celibacy and the use of unleavened host. In the beginning of the 20th century, the ordination was performed using Latin prayers, in a Mass celebrated in Syriac. Thus in 1908, the Syro-Malabar bishops asked Rome for permission to translate the Latin Ritual of Ordination into Syriac and the request was repeated in 1934. Following this request, the Pope Pius XI (1857–1939) appointed a commission for the restoration of the Chaldean Pontifical. The Commission, headed by Fr. J.M. Vosté, a renowned Syriac Scholar, prepared the text in 1939. It was printed in Rome in 1957 and promulgated in Malabar in 1958. The Pontifical contained the ordination of metropolitan, bishop, archdeacon, priest, deacon, sub-deacon, and reader. Cardinal Eugene Tisserant was keenly interested in the restoration of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy. In fact, in 1938, he informed the Syro-Malabar hierarchy about Rome’s intention to restore the Syro-Malabar Liturgy. However, most of the bishops were opposed to a reform and asked for the continuation of the Roman liturgy without change. Thus, the process of restoration lost its momentum from the very beginning. In 1953, the Bishop’s Conference appointed – for the first time – a five-member commission. The commission was rather interested in abridging the liturgy, to reduce the deacon’s prayers and the use of the incense to the minimum and to follow the structure of the Roman Mass. Having noted these developments, Fr. Alphonse Raes, eminent Syriac Scholar and Liturgist, wrote to Cardinal Tisserant: “Regarding the promulgation of the (liturgical) reforms, it is not necessary to wait until the (Syro-Malabar) bishops ask for it. Their theological and liturgical training had so much separated them from their (own) rite, that they are not conscious of it”. In March 1953, Pope Pius XII appointed a commission to edit the texts of the anaphoras, sacraments and the daily office. The goal of the commission was precisely to remove the “scandal of romanisation”. Cardinal Tisserant wrote to the Syro-Malabar bishops asking their opinion and they were almost unanimous to express their disagreement with imposing “Chaldean” liturgical texts. They were willing to introduce Malayalam as the liturgical language but objected to the use of Chaldean liturgical vestments. Moreover, they asked permission to abridge the Mass and to give communion by host alone. They had notified that the veil of the sanctuary was no more necessary, as well as the use of the leavened bread. In 1955, the Liturgical Commission, after having considered the opinion of the bishops, presented the following liturgical texts: 1. The Latin text of the Mass with three anaphoras (Addai and Mari, Theodore and Nestorius) 2. Ordo Celebrationis containing the rubrics for the celebration of the anaphora 3. Kalendarium Festorum et Commemorationem totius Anni 16 For a useful survey of the developments since the second half of the 19th century. Thadikkatt (2014), pp. 105–111; ch. IV (= pp. 112–160). Also, Mannooramparampil (2013).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

The Process of Restoration

25

In 1955, the Roman Congregation for the Oriental Churches published these three texts in a single volume under the title: Liturgia Siro-Malabaresi: Revisione et Restampa del ‘Missale Siro-Malabarese’. Most of the Syro-Malabar Bishops accepted the text and in 1957 Rome approved the Missal (Qurbana Taksa) containing the three anaphoras and the Ordo Communis. Since 1958, the Syro-Malabar priests studying in Rome began to celebrate using the ‘restored Missal’. In May 1960, the Missal (Tukasa d-qurbana) containing the anaphora of Addai and Mari was published in Syriac at Alwaye with the Imprimatur of Mar Joseph Parekkattil. Rome promulgated the Missal by the decree De ritu sacrificii Eucharistici instaurati (20 January 1962) and in July 1962, the Syriac text with Malayalam translation was published with the imprimatur of seven bishops17. It may be noted that the restoration was partial and only one anaphora (of the Apostles) was introduced. Though Rome permitted the use of the anaphoras of Nestorius and Theodore, they were not introduced in Malabar until 2018/19. Some bishops were not happy with the restored text and asked Rome to introduce a certain number of abbreviations. After some hesitation, Rome permitted to make a few changes and abbreviations. After the Second Vatican Council, the Syro-Malabar Bishops’ Conference appointed a ‘Central Liturgical Committee’, which carefully prepared a Missal (Taksa). In May 1968, the Bishop’s Conference approved the Taksa with the suggestion to celebrate ad populam. On August 6, Mar George Alappatt, Bishop of Trichur submitted it to Rome for approval. Next day (August 7, 1968) Rome approved it and granted permission to use for two years ad experimentum, and telegraphic message was sent on the same day to the office of the Apostolic Nuncio in Delhi. On August 9, 1968, SMC received authorization from the Apostolic Nuncio. On August 15, 1968, liturgy ad populam began to be celebrated in SMC. In fact, the 1968 Taksa was, to a certain extent, different from that of 1962. (According to some critics it was rather ‘Chaldean’). A good number of Syro-Malabar priests serving the parishes outside Kerala were not favorable for the introduction of a ‘Chaldean’ Mass. The Syro-Malabar exarchates in North India attempted to make adaptations of the liturgy to their local situation (rather to Indianize it). After some disputes and intervention by Rome, in 1973, the Bishop’s Conference gave its approval to the adaptations in the mission fields and in the parishes of the emigrants from Kerala, living in other Indian States. Since 1968, the Syro-Malabar Liturgy was largely influenced by the liturgical reforms (or Liturgical experiments) in the Latin Church in India. In October 1966, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) met in New Delhi and resolved to make “a comprehensive and systematic promulgation” of liturgical renewal as envisaged by Vatican II. In 1969 Dharmaram College, Theological Faulty of the Carmelites (CMI) published An Order of the Mass for the Indian Church, which was an adaptation of the Syro-Malabar Qurbana. The National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical Centre (NBCLC) founded in Bangalore under the direction of Fr. D.S. Amalopavadass, largely influenced the liturgical reforms in India, especially in the Syro-Malabar Church. In 1971, NBCLC published The Text of an Order of the Mass for India, which was an adaptation of the Latin Mass, incorporating several Indian (or rather Hindu) features.

17 On this anaphora, see Mannooramparampil (2013).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

26

IV. Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church

In 1974, the Syro-Malabar Archdiocese of Ernakulam published Bhratiya Poojakramom (Indian Mass), an adaptation of the Syro-Malabar Qurbana18. In 1970s several versions (often without authorization) of the Mass, sacraments and sacramentals were published and the clergy used them. Some of the Syro-Malabar priests, serving the Latin religious congregations, were favorable for a single rite for India (“One rite movement”). Then followed intense discussions, consultations, studies, open protests, press conferences and “war of pamphlets”. Finally, Rome intervened, and the period of experimentation came to an end. [But in Ernakulam, Cardinal Parekkattil found excuses to continue to use it, which in fact was one of the reasons that led to his resignation on April 1, 1984]. Following the direction from Rome, the Syro-Malabar Bishops’ Conference appointed a committee to prepare a Missal (Taksa), taking into account the missals of 1962 and 1968, as well as the directions from Rome. From 1980 onwards, the bishops’ conference started working for a final text with the help of the Central Liturgical Committee. The text submitted in 1981 was rejected by Rome. Another text of the Solemn Mass was sent to Rome with the note that the bishops have seen it (“visum”), implying that the Bishops’ conference had not approved it. On the basis of visum, Rome approved it in December 1985. On 8 February 1986, in the beatification of Bl. Kuriakose Chavara and Bl. Alphonsa held in Kottayam, Pope John Paul II celebrated the new restored liturgy (“Order of the Solemn Form of the Raza of the Syro-Malabar Church”). It was destined to be used in the entire Syro-Malabar Church. Some bishops found the 1985 Raza text “too Chaldean”19. According to them, it was literally translated from Syriac and was “long and incomprehensible”, and ‘very traditional’ and therefore ‘against the spirit of Vatican II’. Thus, the Raza of 1985 was introduced only in a few dioceses. Since a large number of priests and faithful wanted to have a missal closer to the 1968 text, two other texts (one Solemn Mass and other simple mass) were introduced in 1989. Now three forms are in use in the Syro-Malabar Church: Raza or the Most solemn form (for important feasts), Solemn form (for Sundays) and simple form (for daily, private celebrations). The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council had its impacts in the Syro-Malabar Church. The new directives on the Roman Mass (1969) endorsed “Mass facing the congregation”, which soon “crept into the Syro-Malabar Church”20. In some dioceses several priests, who had their training in Rome or in other European countries, adopted it as norm for celebration, and it led to a serious controversy21 (see below). Meanwhile on December 16, 1992, the Syro-Malabar Church attained Major Archiepiscopal status, with a restriction on liturgical reforms. In 1998, the restriction was withdrawn and the Church was given the freedom to introduce liturgical reforms. The Syro-Malabar Synod met in November 1999, agreed on the following suggestion (known as ‘the uniform mode of celebration):

18 The texts of these liturgies are given in appendix by Francis Kanichikattil (1991). 19 The Raza of 1985 contains only the Anaphora of the Apostles (Eng. tr.) which is almost same as the text (with French tr.) published by Francis Alichoran, Missel Chaldéen, Paris, 1982. 20 Vellian (SEERI, nd), p. 42. 21 For a discussion, see G. Thadikkatt (2004), pp. 150–153; 226–240.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

The Process of Restoration

27

“1) From the beginning till the anaphora – facing the people, 2) the whole of the anaphora, communion inclusive – facing the altar and 3) the post-communion – again facing the people”22. This suggestion was approved by the Oriental Congregation and accepted by the Synod of SMC. In a circular dated 28 August 2021, Major Archbishop Cardinal George Alenchery promulgated it: “The Synod of the Syro-Malabar Church unanimously decided to begin the celebration of the Holy Qurbana using the revised text (editio principa) …. With effect from the First Sunday of the Season of Annunciation (28 November 2021)”23. The same circular promulgated the “uniform mode of Celebration” from 28th November 2021 onwards. As some dioceses asked for more time, they were instructed to implement the decision “not later than Easter 2022”. But as soon as the circular was issued, those who were opposed to it approached the court to suspend its implementation. On 28 November the new taksa was introduced in several dioceses. But priests of the archdioceses of ErnakulamAnkamaly and Trichur and the dioceses of Irinjalakuda, Palghat and Tamarassery urged the synod to reconsider its decision. They requested Rome to grant dispensation to follow the Eucharist ad populum. On 10th December 2021, Rome rejected the request and gave instruction to follow the liturgy as approved by the Synod. The Archdioceses, with the exception of Ernakulam-Ankamaly, followed Rome’s instruction. On 25 March 2022, in a three-page letter addressed to the members of the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Ankamaly, the Pope Francis expressed his wish to “offer a paternal exhortation to adhere promptly to the synodal decision concerning the form of celebration of the Holy Qurbana prior to Easter 2022 as determined by the Synod”. [A summary of Pope’s letter was published on April 1 in the online news Portal of Vatican]24. On April 5, 2022, the bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church met to discuss it and more bishops and priests accepted to follow the Synod’s decision. However, several priests from the Archeparchy of ErnakulamAnkamaly were opposed to it under the leadership of its Apostolic administrator Mar Antony Kariyil. On July 26th, 2022, following instructions from Rome Mar Kariyil resigned. On 31st of July 2022, Rome appointed Mar Andrews Thazhath, Archbishop of Trichur as the Apostolic Administrator of Ernakulam-Ankamaly. Now among the 35 dioceses of SMC, all with the exception of Ernakulam-Ankamaly have accepted the ‘Uniform mode of celebration’. A major phase in the process of ‘restoration’ of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy is the introduction (rather restoration) of the Anaphoras of Theodore and Nestorius (known as second and third Qudasha). The Anaphora of Theodore, after a period of experimentation (2013–2018), was promulgated on 6 January 2019 and the anaphora of Nestorius on 8 September 2018. 22 Agreement n. 7, Synodal News VII, 1 & II (December 1999), pp. 60–61; quoted by Thadikkatt, p. 153. 23 That is, the beginning of the liturgical year in the Church. 24 In fact, it was the second time that the Pope Francis intervened in directly in the liturgical debates in the Syro-Malabar Church. On 21 July 2021, the Pope wrote a letter exhorting all the clergy and faithful to “proceed to a prompt implementation of the uniform mode of celebrating the Holy Qurbana for the greater good and unity of your Church”.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

.

28

IV. Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church

Both have been printed in Malayalam in the most solemn form (Raza). However certain prayers are marked with the general directive that they can be omitted when used in solemn and simple forms (that is, on ordinary Sundays and private masses).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church The earliest reference to the use of West Syriac liturgy among the Christians of the Malabar coast belongs to the second half of the 17th century. In 1662, Jean Morin, a French Catholic priest published a book on ordination, which included the West Syriac liturgy: J. Morinus, Commentarius de sacris Ecclesiae ordinationibus secundum antiques et recentiores latinos, graecos, syros et babylonios….1 In his introduction to the West Syriac liturgy of ordination, J. Morin claimed that he had consulted also a manuscript brought from Goa. If it is true, the manuscript in question was brought to India by Ahatallah who landed at Surat in 1652. He was captured by the Portuguese and was murdered. This may be first West Syriac liturgical text that can be associated with India. Another ancient Syriac document related to Malabar is the so-called “Buchanan Bible”, a 12th century manuscript of the Bible in Estrangela Syriac, now kept in the University Library of Cambridge2. It was brought to India probably by one of the visiting Syrian Orthodox prelates after 1665.

1. Arrival of the Syrian Orthodox Prelates In 1663, the Dutch captured Cochin and all European missionaries were expelled. This marked a turning point in the history of the St Thomas Christians. It was the end of the Portuguese rule in Malabar that made possible the arrival of Mar Gregorios, the Syrian Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem in 1665, and Mar Baselius Yaldo in 1685. Following the Coonen Cross Oath (1653), more than 90% of the St Thomas Christians rejected the union with Rome imposed on them at the Synod of Diamper (1599)3. Soon after the Coonen Cross Oath, Archdeacon Thomas, the leader of the Syrian Christians was made bishop by twelve priests under the name Mar Thoma [I]. Alarmed by the situation, Rome changed the method and sent Italian Carmelite missionaries to address the new situation in the place of Portuguese Jesuits. Their propaganda that ‘Mar Thoma’s consecration was invalid’ was effective and a good number of faithful 1 Reedited three times after his death (+ 1659): Paris (1686); Antwerp (1695 & 1709). Reproduced by H. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium…, Wurzburg, pp. 1863–64, 2 Vols.; Reprint, Graz (1961). 2 See W. Wright, A catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 2 Vols.; 1901; Vol. II, pp. 1037–1044. Library No. Oo.1.1.2. On this Syriac manuscript of Cambridge, see Van der Ploeg, pp. 203–224. Also F.C. Burkitt, “The Buchanan MS at Cambridge”, Kerala Society Papers Vol. 1, ser. 1 (1928), pp. 40–44. B. Varghese, “Syriac Bible in India”, The Harp XIV (2004), pp. 63–80; here pp. 70–72. In the Report on the Serra, Francis Ros speaks of “Jacobites” who were present in Malabar. “The Armeninas and the prelats who came here were all Nestorians, but a few were Jacobites”, §11, p. 317. 3 According to G.T. Mackenzie (in Nagam Aiya [ed.] Travancore State Manuel, Vol. II, pp. 186–189), among the 200,000 Syrians only 400 remained under Archbishop Garcia, the Romo-Syrian bishop.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

30

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church

including three out of the four advisers of Mar Thoma joined the Catholic Church. One of the advisers was Mar Thoma’s first cousin Parampil Chandy Kathanar (Alexander de Campo) who later became the bishop of the Syro-Catholic faction. Even though Mar Thoma [I] was consecrated by the Antiochene Prelate Mar Gregorios (in 1665), Antiochene liturgical rites were widely accepted very slowly, after a process that lasted for nearly two centuries. It is significant that Mar Thoma [I] and his five successors assumed East Syriac names (Mar Thoma I to VI). Mar Thoma VI was consecrated in 1765. And in July 1770, two Antiochene bishops (Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios) reconsecrated him under the name Mar Dionysius. He was the first Malankara metropolitan to assume an Antiochene name. However, he continued to be known as Mar Thoma VI and three of his successors also assumed the East Syriac name (Mar Thoma VII to IX). The East Syriac influence begun in the pre-Portuguese period, declined only by the early decades of the 19th century. The Antiochene Syriac tradition was widely followed by the non-Catholic St Thomas Christians only by the end of the 19th century as we will see below.

2. First Phase of Antiochianization: Works of Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem During his six-year stay in Malabar (1665–71), Mar Gregorios was not very successful to introduce Antiochene liturgical rites. There might be two reasons behind it. First, the East Syriac rite was widely followed at least since 1490s and both the Catholics and the nonCatholics seem to have continued to follow the same East Syriac liturgy even after the division in 1653. Since the East Syriac rite was popular, introduction of a new rite (antiochene) would lead people to join the Catholic group. Moreover, both groups were sharing several churches until the beginning of the 19th century. This might have made a ‘change of liturgical rites difficult and problematic’. Secondly, the parishes were independent (at least among the non-Catholics) and the visiting antiochene bishops had practically no control over the churches and the clergy. Moreover, Mar Gregorios could not communicate with most of the clergy, who knew only Malayalam. Some could speak Syriac though not perfectly. The system of running the parishes without direct Episcopal control continued until the beginning of the 20th century. E.M. Philip (Syrian Knanaya Jacobite) quotes a letter by Gregorios (dated 5th February 1668) addressed to the parish priests of Paravoor, Mulanthuruthy and Kandanadu. Mar Gregorios points out the differences between the Syriac and the Roman Catholic practices: “…. Till now, priests were allowed to marry according to the canons. The Romanists forbade the marriage of priests and deacons [……]. These unholy people now curse holy matrimony and love adultery […..]. Know that Marriage is holy and the marriage bed is undefiled and that God judged all adulterers and fornicators. Again, the Romanists have not the fast of Nineveh, which we have. They do not observe the Assumption fast of fifteen days in August which we observe. They do not keep the Advent fast of twenty-five days in December, which we keep. In Lent, they eat fish and drink liquors, which the Syrians do not do. So there are many differences in practices between them and us. I have told you on a former occasion about their heretical teaching on the incarnation of the Word of God, and on the union of His

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Second Phase: The works of Mar Baselius Yaldo and Mar Ivanios

31

divinity and humanity, and on His Person, natures and will, and so I need not repeat them here”4. Thus, Mar Gregorios had made attempts to instruct at least some priests the differences in doctrines as well as in liturgical practices. But he could not introduce any remarkable changes because of the reasons pointed out above. According to Paulinus, Mar Gregorios introduced the use of leavened bread instead of the Latin host as well as changes in liturgical dress and calendar5.

3. Second Phase: The works of Mar Baselius Yaldo and Mar Ivanios In 1685, the Maphrian Baselius Yaldo and Mar Ivanios landed at the port of Tellicherry. They thought that Malabar was still under the Portuguese domination. So, disguising themselves as travelers, they took the land route and reached Kothamangalam about 80 km east of Cochin. Having been exhausted by walking through the mountain paths, in the tropical climate, Mar Baselius Yaldo died 13 days after his arrival in Kothamanaglam and was buried there. Mar Ivanios stayed and worked in Malabar for eight years (died in 1693 at Mulanthuruthy). Paulinus writes on the mission of Mar Ivanios: “….In Lent till the Easter, they were not celebrating Mass nor they were allowing others to celebrate, except on Sundays on which there was no fasting; they denied beatific vision immediately after death; they taught that one should pray standing and not kneeling; priests were encouraged to marry, hence many of the Malabar priests got married. They were celibate. […..]. Mar Ivanios took away all the statues and crucifixes from the churches; but allowed pictures to be venerated…”6. Mar Ivanios consecrated Mar Thoma III (d. 1685) and Mar Thoma IV (d. 1728). However, both continued to assume East Syriac title ‘Mar Thoma’, apparently not to offend the ‘proCatholic’ (Chaldean) faction. Like Mar Gregorios, Mar Ivanios also could not visit many churches and propagate the antiochene rites. Mar Thoma IV was very particular to see that the foreign prelate does not interfere in the affairs of the Church. However, it was during his episcopate that the Malankara Church took the relationship with the Antiochene Church more seriously. François Nau suggested that the adoption of the Antiochene rite was the result of the works of Baselius Yaldo and Mar Ivanios7. This is not completely true. However, Mar Ivanios could create an awareness of the difference between ‘Jacobite’ and ‘Nestorian’ doctrines. Thus, at the beginning of the 18th century, Mar Thoma IV clearly adhere to the Syrian Orthodox doctrines against Mar Gabriel a Nestorian (or Chaldean) bishop. In 1750 an East Syriac (or Chaldean) bishop named Mar Gabriel reached Malabar and about 40 parishes rallied behind him. This shows that a group was still willing to follow East 4 E.M. Philip, pp. 146–47. 5 Paulinus A.S. Bartholmeo O.C.D., India Orientalis Christiana, Rome, 1794, pp. 99–100, quoted by Cyril Malancharuvil (1973), p. 77, n. 12. 6 Ibid. p. 106. Quoted by Cyril Malancharuvil, op. cit., p. 77, n. 14. 7 François Nau, “Deux notices relatives au Malabar”, in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 17 (1912), pp. 77–81.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

32

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church

Syriac rite and to receive a non-Catholic East Syriac bishop. It was probably the success of Mar Gabriel’s mission that persuaded Mar Thoma IV to turn towards the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch8. Thus, in 1709, he wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch: “…..Then came one who said, that he was Metropolitan of Nineveh and that Mar Elias the Catholicos had sent him. His name was Gabriel and his faith in Christ was this: there are two natures and two persons: scandal. He speaks much against Mary, the Mother of God, wherefore we believe him not…”9 In 1720 Mar Thoma wrote to the Patriarch repeating the content of his previous letter:10 “To my Lord Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch, I, poor Mar Thomas, fifth bishop of the Syrians in India, writes, and says: […..]. Lord, I am not worthy to write to thy greatness. But we write and we send letters because of the necessity of the Orthodox Syrians of India, and we pray that thou mayest send to us one Patriarch and one Metropolitan and twin priests, who may be philosophers and may understand the interpretations of the holy and divine scriptures. Previously there came to our country Mar Gregory, fifth Patriarch of Jerusalem, and after him Mar Andreas Alvaeus and after him came a certain Maphrian, Mar Basil Catholicos, and with him Mar John (=Ivanios) the Metropolitan and Ramban Matthaeus. [….] In the year of our Lord 1709, there came a Metropolitan by name Gabriel the Ninivite, whom Mar Elias Catholicos sent to me. But he held such a faith as that Christ had two natures and persons: and therefore we did not believe him, except a certain priest called Mathew Beticutel and a few Portuguese Roman Catholics. We, however, have not wisdom that we may answer him. Therefore we report it to thee”. Before his death, Mar Thoma IV (d.1728) consecrated his successor Mar Thoma V (1728– 1765). As the Catholics continued their propaganda that his consecration was invalid, Mar Thoma V made attempts to get it regularized either by the Patriarch himself or by a bishop sent by him. Meanwhile the Dutch also seems to have started proselytism in Cochin. Thus, in 1730, in his reply to the letter sent by the Dutch authorities, Mar Thoma V replied that he cannot give an answer ‘without the permission of the Patriarch of Antioch’ as the Malankara Church accepts him as the head (Letter dated 1730 Feb.11). However, it should be noted that in spite of the overture towards Antioch, no significant change seems to have taken place in liturgical practices. The changes introduced by the Antiochene prelates were often qualified by Mar Thoma Metrans (IV and V) as ‘the restoration of the Syriac rite’, followed in Malabar in the pre-

8 Mar Gabriel died in 1729 and he was buried inside the Kottayam Cheriapally church. Later his mortal remains were placed in a tomb in the courtyard of Kottayam Cheriapally. His tomb was in the southwestern corner of the courtyard until the end of 1970s. 9 The letter of Mar Thoma IV to the Antiochene Patriarch in 1709 was published in 1709 by Charles Schaaf in 1714. Cf. Relatio historica, Leiden, 1714; Eng. tr. in Thomas Yeats, Indian Church History, London, 1818, pp. 152–54. Also, Germann (1877), pp. 534–536. 10 J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, Vol. IV (Rome, 1728), pp. 466–367; Eng. tr. in Mackenzie (1901), pp. 86–87. [Reproduced in V. Nagam Ayia, Travancore State Manual, Vol. II, Trivandrum, 1906, Reprint, 1989, pp. 204–205.]

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Second Phase: The works of Mar Baselius Yaldo and Mar Ivanios

33

Diamper period11. However, evidences suggest that several parishes followed the same Chaldean liturgy as that of the Catholic faction, which was the liturgy revised by Bishop Francis Ros S.J. (who became the Archbishop of Cranganore for the Syrians after the Synod of Diamper). About the year 1723, the Dutch Chaplain Jacob Canter Visscher reported that the Liturgy and other practices of the Malankara Church is a mixture of Latin, Chaldean and Antiochene rites: “…. These days nobody can give a correct report on the belief (of the Thomas Christians), for their liturgical service (Mass) is a confusion; partly it is from the pagans among whom they live and from whom they stem; partly it is from the ‘papists’ to whom many of them were gone and with whom they share many churches; and partly it is from the Syrian Christians, by whose bishops they are governed and whose opinions they adopt…”12. The confusion in liturgical practices can be explained as follows. Most of the priests did not get any proper clerical training, except spending a few years with a senior priest (Malpan), often their uncles or close relatives. Their knowledge of Syriac was limited to the ability to read the liturgical texts. Whether it was East Syriac or West Syriac, the priests were not much bothered. The bishops, usually better educated than the rest of the clergy, had practically no control over the parishes. However, Mar Thoma IV and V clearly distinguished the difference between the East Syriac and West Syriac doctrines. Thus on 8th June 1729, Mar Thoma V wrote a letter to the Dutch Governor, In which he explained the difference between the Malankara Church and the faction led by Mar Gabriel: “… we acknowledge the Church of Antioch for our head, that the Messiah has but one nature and one person and that the holy Ghost goes out only from the Father: and in the Holy Sacrament, we distribute fresh bread which is baked that same day. Also in fasting there is difference between us and them. ‘Mar Gabriel with the Christians in the south, kept the fasts and holy days according to the rule of Antioch’, but the mass and the Lord’s Supper with wafers he causes to be administered after the Romish way…’13. Cyril Malancharuvil quotes from ‘the Relatio of the Cardinal Secretary in the Particular Congregation’ of 16 August 1750, according to which “the heretics of the Chaldean rite” (i.e., the non-Catholics) were following the same liturgy as the Romo-Syrians. “…. The heretics differ from the Catholics in the following points: (1) The heretics follow the old calendar, (2) they abstain from eating meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, (3) For the ecclesiastical fasting they count the (natural) day from the sunset to the evening of the following day; but for the fasting, in preparation for the celebration of the holy Mass and communion they begin from midnight onwards as do the Catholics; 11 Cf. Malancharuvil (1973), pp. 79–81. 12 Germann (1877), p. 551; Eng. tr. by Malancharuvil (1973), p. 81, n.26. 13 Quoted by Malancharuvil (1973), p. 79; cf. J. Hough, History of Christianity in India, London, 1839, Vol. 2, pp. 393–96; Leslie Brown, The Indian Christians of St Thomas, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1982 p. 118; Germann (1877), p. 558.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

34

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church

(4) the heretics retain the breviary, the Missal and the ritual reformed by Bishop Francis Ros, but mention the name of the heretic Patriarch and of the then ruling Archdeacon, in the diptychs; (5) the Catholics of the Chaldean rite celebrate Mass with the unleavened bread and the heretics after having fallen into schism and heresy have resumed the use of leavened bread. They, however, celebrate the Mass on the altar made of wood not on one of stone…”14. This letter gives the impression that all the non-Catholics were following the same liturgy as the Syro-Catholics. However, we should be mindful of the fact that most of the European missionaries of that time spoke of both East and West Syriac traditions as ‘Chaldean’. Syriac language itself was often referred to as ‘Chaldean language’. It is certain that the West Syriac liturgy was followed at least by a few parishes where Mar Ivanios stayed and worked during his eight-year stay in Malabar (1685–1693). The letters of Mar Thoma IV and V support this observation. However, the ‘Jacobites’ seemed to have followed several ‘Latin’ practices even after the introduction of the Antiochene rite. Thus, about the year 1723, the Dutch Chaplain Canter Visscher wrote that ‘the Jacobites were receiving communion kneeling’15. Similarly, as late as 1816, Middleton reported that the Syrians of the Malankara Church kneeling on certain occasions in the Eucharistic celebration16. Between 1665 and 1750, though the Malankara Church became increasingly aware of the theological difference between the East and West Syriac traditions, most of the parishes seemed to have followed the Reformed liturgy of Francis Ros. When the East Syriac bishop Mar Gabriel organized an independent East Syriac (Nestorian) community, Mar Thoma V turned towards Antioch, not to the Nestorian Patriarch. Here we can find the earliest instance of the emergence of a new ecclesiastical consciousness.

4. Third Phase: Arrival of Mar Baselius Sakrallah The arrival of Maphrian Baselius Sakralah, accompanied by a bishop named Mar Gregorios and Ramban Yohannan, a Cor-Episcopos, and a few deacons in 1751, marked a turning point in the history of the Malankara Church. It was this team that introduced the Antiochene (Serto) Syriac script and popularized the Syrian Orthodox Liturgy. In 1752, Baselius Sakrallah consecrated Ramban Yohannan bishop under the name Mar Ivanios. The Antiochene bishops stayed at Mulanthuruthy church and trained several priests and deacons. According to Fr. Paulinus, “the liturgy which (Mar Baselius) brought to Malabar was of St James, Bishop of Jerusalem, written at Mardin where the Antiochene Patriarch was

14 Malancharuvil (1973), p. 82: Report of the Cardinal Secretary Nicholaus Zucarius presented in the particular meeting of the S. Congregation of the Propaganda Fide on 16 Aug. 1750. This is a paper based on the letter of Fr. Boniface, cf. APF, SOCP, (1750), vol. 109, fol. 3–14; the original letter of Fr. Boniface to Bambibo Jesu OCD, is to be found, ibid. ff. 90–92. 15 Germann (1877), p. 551. 16 Ibid. p. 632; Malancharuvil (1973), p. 83.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Final phase of Antiochianisation

35

residing, who sent Basil and Friends to Malabar”17. From this time onwards, Syrian Orthodox liturgy began to be widely used, if not exclusively18. Thus in 1778, Fr. Thomas Paremakkal testified that the “Jacobites” of the Malankara Church used the same liturgy as that of the Catholic Syrians of Antioch19. Mar Thoma V was not at all happy with the presence of the foreign prelates and did not want to cooperate with them. Thus in 1761 he consecrated his nephew as his successor under the name Mar Thoma VI (1761–1805). The Antiochene bishops continued their efforts of reconciliation and finally, Mar Thoma VI consented to be re-consecrated. Thus in 1770 at Niranam, Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios re-consecrated Mar Thoma VI under the name Mar Dionysius. He was the first Metropolitan of Malankara to assume an Antiochene name. However, he continued to use his former title Mar Thoma VI until his death. The East Syriac language and liturgical rites were continued to be followed in most of the parishes as before. In fact, the Mar Thoma Metrans were generally lenient towards the East Syriac tradition. Thus, Mar Thoma VI even after his re-consecration continued his overture towards the SyroCatholics who followed the Latinized East Syriac Liturgy. According to catholic sources, one of the goals of Fr. Paremakkal’s journey to Rome was to negotiate favorable conditions for the union of Mar Thoma VI with the Catholic Church. Under the pressure by a leading catholic layman Thachil Mathu Tharakan, Mar Thoma celebrated the Eucharist with unleavened bread. However, he soon changed his mind. Thus, the catholic missionaries reported to Propaganda Fide on 25th April 1788 expressing their disappointment in Mar Thoma’s change in his attitude: “… not only does he not convert, but he has reformed his Jacobite rite and is still more obstinate in his schismatic attitude…”20. According to Niranam Grandhavari (‘Niranam Chroncicles’), in 1789 (ME 964) a General Assembly of the Church (Pally Yogam) was held in Mavelikara Puthiacavu Church and an agreement (padiyola) was signed to introduce west Syriac liturgy partially. Thus, it was agreed to introduce West Syriac vestments and to follow the West Syriac liturgy in the celebration of the Eucharist and ordination. But in baptism and marriage the ‘old rite’ (East Syriac) shall be followed21. It was certainly aimed at satisfying the pro-chaldean faction in the Church.

5. Final phase of Antiochianisation There are three events that led to the wider acceptance of the Antiochene rites in the Malankara Church: (i) Origin of the Thozhiyoor Church; (ii) foundation of the Old Seminary, Kottayam; (iii) consecration of Palakunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasius and the 17 Paulinus, A.S. Batholomeo India Orientalis Christiana, Roma, 1794, p. 112, quoted by Malancharuvil (1973), p. 85, n.42. 18 Malancharuvil (1973), p. 85. 19 Thoms Paremmakel, Varthamanapusthakam, Luke Mathai (ed.), Athiramuzha, 1936, p. 239. 20 Malancharuvil (1973), p. 88. 21 M. Kurian Thomas (ed.), Niranam Grandhavari, Kottayam, 2000, p. 97.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

36

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church

developments that followed it. In fact, they are mutually related and these developments created an impression that the Malankara Church was under the authority of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. By the last quarter of the 19th century, ‘the authority of the Patriarch’ was regarded as a ‘historical fact’. The present schism in the Malankara Orthodox Church is the result of this understanding, which has no historical foundation. In 1772, at the Mattanchery Church, the Antiochene bishop Mar Gregorios consecrated his trusted disciple Kattumangattu Kurian Ramban as bishop under the name Mar Koorilos (d. 1802). The antiochene prelate did not consult the Malankara Metran Mar Thoma VI (Mar Dionysius) nor seek his consent. As the new bishop Mar Koorilos was not received by his church, he left for Thozhiyoor in British Malabar (about 30 km west of Trichur) and organized the faithful there. This is the origin of the so called ‘Independent Syrian Church of Malabar’, popularly known as Thozhiyoor (or Anjoor) Church. As he was trained by Mar Gregorios, Mar Koorilos followed Antiochene liturgical rites. Several priests in the neighboring villages such as Pazhanji and Kunnamkulam were trained by Mar Koorilos and his successor Mar Philoxenos. Mar Thoma VI (Mar Dionysius) and his successors Mar Thoma VII to IX were rather East Syrians in their affinity. Naturally this led to the emergence of two factions: one favorable to Antiochene rites and another East Syrian or Chaldean. Thus, the Mar Thomas sometimes has demonstrated inclination towards Catholicism. This was true in the case of Mar Thoma VI. Thus, in 1796, when he consecrated his successor, the new bishop was given the East Syriac name Mar Thoma VII, not an antiochene name. In 1808, Mar Thoma VI died and Mar Thoma VII (1808–9) succeeded him. His rule lasted only for one year, and before his death, he consecrated Mar Thoma VIII (1809–1816). It was alleged that Mar Thoma VII laid his hand on his successor on his death bed. Consequently, there arose a controversy. Pulikkottil Ittoop Kathanar entered the scene at this moment. Majority of the people stood behind him and they refused to accept Mar Thoma VIII as a legitimate bishop. Ittoop Kathanar was from Kunnamkulam and was trained at Thozhiyoor. In a few weeks after the demise of Mar Thoma VII, both parties reconciled. Thus, on the fortieth day after the demise of Mar Thoma VII, representatives of various churches met at Kandanadu and made a series of important decisions (known as Kandanadu Padiola)22. One of the decisions was to start two Malpan schools (Padithaveedu), one in the north and another in the south for the ‘training of the priests and the children’. As part of the reconciliation, Ittoop Kathanar was professed monk (Ramban) by Mar Thoma VIII. Ittoop Ramban was entrusted with the responsibility to start the Malpan Schools. However, Mar Thoma VIII was not so enthusiastic to implement the decision. Thus, in one of his letters addressed to Mar Thoma VIII, Ittoop Ramban expressed his displeasure and asked the bishop to take necessary steps for it as well as to make arrangement to produce enough manuscript copies of the Andutaksa (Order of the Celebration of the feasts). Meanwhile in 1813, Ittoop Ramban founded the Old Seminary, thanks to the generous support from the British Resident Colonel John Munro. In March 1815, Ittoop Ramban was made bishop by Kidangan Geevarghese Mar Philoxenos (1811–1829), fourth bishop of Thozhiyoor. The new bishop took the title Joseph Mar Dionysius (Pulikottil). Mar Thoma VIII sent petitions to Col. Munro, which were ignored. Though Mar Thoma VIII (d. 1815) 22 Padiola = agreement or resolution.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Completion of Antiochianization

37

consecrated his successor Mar Thoma IX, he could not organize a group against Mar Joseph Dionysius (d. 1816). With his death, the pro-East Syrian faction in the Malankara Church almost completely disappeared. However, here and there some clergy continued to celebrate East Syriac liturgy (as reformed by Francis Ros after the synod of Diamper) or even transliterated the Antiochene liturgical texts in East Syriac! Meanwhile two Antiochene bishops Mar Dioscoros (1807) and Mar Athanasius (1825– 26) came to Malankara and visited parishes. However, they could not do any significant work in Kerala. The consecration of Palakunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasius (1843–1877) was another important factor for the widespread acceptance of the Syrian Orthodox Liturgy. In 1842, he was consecrated in Mardin by the Patriarch Elias II. Mar Athanasius was the first Indian bishop to be consecrated directly by the patriarch of Antioch. He was young, energetic and an able organizer, who could bring a large number of parishes under him. He was perhaps the first bishop in the history of the Malankara Church who tried to bring parishes under the authority of the bishop. Consequently, Antiochene liturgical rites became popular in Kerala. As we will see in the next chapter, unlike his uncle Abraham Malpan, Mar Athanasius was not very enthusiastic to reform the liturgical practices. The Malankara Metran of the time Cheppattu Mar Dionysius was unwilling to fight against Mar Athanasius. Thus in 1846, he stepped down in favor of the visiting Antiochene bishop Yoyakim Mar Coorilos (who arrived in Malabar in 1846). Until his death (in 1875 at Mulanthuruthy), Mar Coorilos visited churches and trained clergy and played the most vital role in propagating the Antiochene rites. As he interfered with the administration of the Church, Mar Athanasius complained to the British Resident who ordered Mar Coorilos to leave the territory of Travancore and Cochin (in 1848). He spent most part of his time in British Malabar. Meanwhile, another Antiochene bishop named Mar Stephen Athanasius reached Malankara in 1849 and worked for some time. Following the Resident’s order, he also had to leave the country. The consecration of Mathews Mar Athanasius and the presence of Yoyakim Mar Coorilos created a new thinking in Malankara that the Church was always under the Patriarch of Antioch. Then, in 1864, Pulikottil Joseph Mar Dionysius was consecrated by the Patriarch Yakub II at Diarbekir, which further strengthened the Antiochene connection. Then Patriarch Peter IV visited Malankara and stayed here for two years (1875–77) which marked the completion of Antiochianization.

6. Completion of Antiochianization The Malpans from the Konat family and their School and printing press played the most decisive role in the complete disappearance of the East Syriac Liturgy and the completion of the process of antiochianisation that started in 1665. The most prominent member of Konat family was Mathen Malpan (1860–1927). His contributions in the liturgical matters can be summarized as follows: 1. Printing of liturgical books in Syriac 2. His role in the redaction of the book of rubrics 3. Collecting liturgical texts and other sources from Mosul

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

38

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church

4. Translation of the Peshitta New Testament into Malayalam 5. Training the candidates for priesthood Until the early decades of the 19th century, the training of the clergy was limited to elementary studies in Syriac language and liturgical rubrics, which continued in some circles down to the 20th century. In a couple of articles published in Malankara Edavaka Patrika (=MEP), the semi-official organ of the Malankara Orthodox Church (published between 1892 and 1910), Konat Mathen Malpan described the level of the theological training of the Syriac clergy: “About 100 years ago, those who have read all the four Gospels were highly esteemed. Those who were familiar with four or six anaphoras served as malpans (Syriac doctors)23”. In another article, Mathen Malpan wrote: “Before the prayer book in Malayalam was printed, hardly anybody knew more than Our Father, Hail Mary, I am sinner, and the Creed. Perhaps the family members of some malpans or a Metran knew more than what is said above, namely the ten commandments, the (list of the) mortal sins as well as the prayer before going to bed. Most people knew merely the opening (words) In the Name of the Father, Our Father and Hail Mary. Now since the prayer book is available, many people use it…. The service of the Funeral was celebrated with incomplete or fragmentary services. As my uncle Metropolitan Mar Julius has printed it (the Funeral liturgy) here, it is followed in all places. When it was printed, hardly eight or ten priests knew to use it with correct tunes and order. Even the priest who had learnt one anaphora and two Gospel passages, now celebrate the liturgy correctly”24.

7. Mar Julius Press and the first printed books Konat Geevarghese Malpan (later Metropolitan Geevarghese Mar Julius) founded a printing press25. Under the initiative of Pulikottil Joseph Mar Dionysius, Syriac found was made and apparently it was not used much. During his visit to India, Patriarch Peter IV was pleased with the Syriac found and ordered to print a small book at St Thomas Press, Cochin (the title not known). When Mar Julius became bishop (in 1876), the work of the Press was discontinued for some time. In his old age, he returned to Pampakuda and ordered new Syriac found and a wooden press. The new press was named Keraladeepom. Later he purchased an iron press. However, the printing was not resumed. Under Mar Julius, three or four books were published of which the details are not available. The following are the first books printed in Kerala: 1. Funeral service (in Syriac) by Konat Geevarghese Mar Julius (Year not known) 23 Malankara Edavaka Patrika (MEP), II-2, Kumbom 30, 1893, p. 22. 24 Ibid. VI-1 (1897), p. 7. 25 Year not known. He was consecrated bishop on December 3, 1876, by the Patriarch Peter IV.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Mar Julius Press and the first printed books

39

2. Prayers of the Great lent (Syriac ?) by Joseph Mar Dionysius, Mar Thoma Press, Kottayam (Year not known) 3. Order of the Anaphoras (Syriac) by Joseph Mar Dionysius, Lithographic Reproduction, Kottayam (Year not known) 4. Daily Prayers (Malayalam) by Joseph Mar Dionysius, Mar Thoma Press, Kottayam (Year not known) The daily prayers printed by Mar Dionysius were translated from Syriac into Malayalam by Konat Yohannan Malpan (1809–1890). Malankara Edavaka Patrika says that Joseph Mar Dionysius corrected and modified several times the translation before it was published. However, the news letter adds that the names of Mar Dionysius and Yohannan Malpan fell into oblivion even during their life time26. Keraladeepom Press was revived and renamed as Mar Julius Press by Konat Mathen Malpan. In the last decades of the 19th century, he spent about 4,000 rupees, which was a huge amount in those days. Some parishes and his friends and disciples collected Rs. 450. The first Syriac book published by Mathen Malpan was the Promioun-Sedra of the Holy Week (Syriac text only, 1898, 300 copies, Price Rs. 3.00)27. Mathen Malpan seems to have published a ‘Book of the Anaphoras’ also28.This was followed by the publication of the second edition of the Funeral Liturgy (originally published by Mar Julius) and the Order of the feasts (Andutaksa)29. The printing cost for the Andutaksa was paid by Kadathi Kochukadavil Mathai Kathanar30. The Malankara Edavaka Patrika published the comments by the priests on the new publications. Some expressed their opinion that the liturgical books shall be printed in ‘Karshon letters’ (Syriac text in Malayalam scripts), all the priests are not equally competent to read Syriac. But Edavaka Patrika was not in favour of this suggestion31. In the following year, Mathen Malpan published ‘the Order of the Feast of Nativity (Yaldo, in 1900) and the ‘Anointing of the Sick (Kandeela) and the Order of the funeral of the priests (Kahnaitho in 1904). The publication of the Malayalam translation of the Ordo Communis by Mathen Malpan and Vattasseril Geevarghese Malpan (Geevarghese Mar Dionysius) in 1898 was a land mark in the history of the Malankara Orthodox liturgy. They translated the offices of the feast of Resurrection (Qyamto) and Ordo Communis from Syriac into Malayalam and Kandathil Varghese Mappila, a layman and a noted poet, versified the text in Syriac tunes. They sought the help of a Hindu poet Kottarathil Sankunni to improve the Malayalam language and to find appropriate words to follow the exact Syriac meter in Malayalam. The Qyamta service is still used in the Malankara Orthodox parishes. In a year the first edition was completely sold out and second edition was soon published. Thus, the faithful were able to participate in the Sunday morning offices as well as the Holy Eucharistic service. Though the lay people 26 MEP XIX-8 (1910), pp. 165–166. 27 See MEP VII-3 (1898); XI-6 (1902), pp. 117–18. English translation by B. Varghese, MOC Publications, Kottayam, 2011. 28 MEP VIII-9 (1899); XI-6 (1902), pp. 172–173. 29 MEP VIII-9 (1899). 30 Jeevanikshepom I-2 (1902), p. 4. 31 MEP V-2 (1896), p. 136.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

40

V. Liturgy of the Malankara Orthodox Church

warmly welcomed the Malayalam version of the prayers, the priests were not so enthusiastic to buy the Syriac books32.Thus, in 1902, Pulikottil Joseph Mar Dionysius and Parumala Mar Gregorios sent circulars to the churches to promote the sale. In his circular Mar Gregorios wrote: “We regret to learn that, even though perfect books are available, some (priests) continue to follow ‘old fragments of papers’ and are not buying printed books”33. Meanwhile, Kallacheril Punnose Ramban (Catholicos Geevarghese II) translated ‘the private prayers” from Syriac into Malayalam and arranged them in 49 units for the seven canonical hours of each day of the week (These prayers are usually said inaudibly by monks and priests after the usual canonical prayers)34. In a few years, Mathen Malpan published the Syriac lectionary index which was soon translated into Malayalam and published at Mar Thoma Press, Kottayam35. The publication of the Book of Rubrics, prepared after a series of consultations and meetings, marks the completion of the Antiochianisation in the Malankara Orthodox Church. Mathen Malpan played a key role in its redaction. In 1900 (Medom 20), on the Wednesday after the New Sunday, a General Meeting of the clergy and laymen representing the churches was held at M.D. Seminary, Kottayam. One of its main decisions was to prepare the ‘book of rubrics’. [It was this meeting which made preliminary discussions on the establishment of the Catholicate or Maphrianate in India]. In fact, during his two-year stay in Malankara, the Patriarch Peter IV sent a circular to the parishes giving a summary of the essential rubrics of various liturgical services. This served as the basis for the new redaction of the rubrics. In the Kottayam meeting, Mathen Malpan spoke of the need of publishing a liturgical calendar every year. Mr. E.M. Philip, editor of the Malankara Edavaka Patrika, was entrusted with the task of preparing the calendar. In the same meeting, Malithara Elias Kathanar suggested to publish the Book of the Rubrics. He himself had prepared a draft of the proposed book. The meeting appointed a committee consisting of the ‘Malpans’ to examine the draft and to submit it in the next meeting with necessary modification36. Both Konat Mathen Malpan and Vattasseril Geevarghese Malpan seem to have been members of the committee. However, in 1909, Mathen Malpan published the Book of Rubrics from Pampakuda. In its introduction, there is no reference to the Kottayam meeting nor to the role of Malithara Elias Kathanar in preparing the first draft. This means that the decision of the Kottayam meeting was not implemented. The introduction to the book by Mathen Malpan can be summarized as follows: ‘A meeting of the clergy was held at the Piravom Seminary, in which Joseph Mar Dionysius and Murimattathil Paulose Mar Ivanios (Baselius Paulose I, the first Catholicose in India) presided, and founded the Vaidika Sanghom (Clergy Association). The meeting authorized Mathen Malpan and Pallikkara Kurisinkal Mani Kathanar to prepare the draft of the rubrics and resolved to publish it after having read in the next meeting and made necessary corrections. Then both of them together prepared a draft using the circular of the Patriarch 32 33 34 35 36

See the article (in Malayalam) on “Syriac Printing” in ME 1902. MEP XI-6 (1902), p. 119. MEP XI-6 (1906), p. 116. MEP XIX (1910), pp. 128–129. MEP IX-4 (1900), p. 62.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Mar Julius Press and the first printed books

41

Peter IV and some other books. They first made a draft of the rubrics from Epiphany to Pentecost and presented it in the second meeting of the ‘Clergy Association’, held at the Piravom Seminary, in which Mar Ivanios presided. The meeting approved it and resolved to present the manuscript to other bishops and Vattasseril Geevarghese Malpan for their comments. The publication was delayed by the long process of examination by various ‘experts’ and the revisions. Then the text was read before Kochuparampil Paulose Ramban (Paulose Mar Coorilos), Mattackal Alexandreos Kathanar and Elavinamannil Skariah Kathanar. [In fact, most of those who ‘heard the reading’ were not respectable Syriac or liturgical scholars. It was as part of a courtesy that it was read before leading priests, precisely in order to avoid negative criticisms that can come up later]. The final draft was presented before the third Meeting of the Clergy Association, held at Kadamattom, presided over by Paulose Mar Ivanios. After having obtained the approval of the meeting, the Book of Rubrics was printed’. Mathen Malpan published two Bulletins, Simathaye (‘Treasury of Life’) in Syriac and Jeeva Nikshepam (‘Treasury of life’) in Malayalam, with the intention to promote Syriac language and to introduce Syriac Commentaries on Bible and liturgy. Simathaye (1906–1907) was a quarterly bulletin. During its three-year life, Simathaye published for the first time the Syriac text of Moses Bar Kepha’s Commentary on baptism37, and about half of Bar Kepha’s Commentary on the Eucharist (up to the lifting up of the anaphora). The European scholars were generally unaware of the existence of this ‘Syriac Journal’. As a young deacon, Mathen (Malpan) published a commentary on the Eucharist in Malayalam, which was based on Bar Salibi’s Commentary (Published at St Thomas Press, Cochin, 1877). Even in the beginning of the 20th century, the influence of East Syriac language did not completely disappear from among the Malankara Orthodox Clergy. Thus in 1906, when Mathen Malpan published a Malayalam translation of the Syriac Peshitta version of the Gospels, there was a discussion among the clergy whether the Syriac words shall be transliterated with East Syriac vocalization (ending with ‘a’) or with West Syriac system (ending with ‘o’). The majority was in favor of following the West Syriac vocalization38. However, even now the most commonly used liturgical vocabulary has retained the East Syriac vocalization39.

37 Syriac text reprinted with English translation and notes by: B. Varghese, “Moses bar Kepha: Commentary on Baptism”, The Harp 24 (2011), pp. 55–82. 38 Jeevanikshepom, I-11 (1906), pp. 2–4. 39 For the Eucharist: Qurbana, anaphora, taksa, kasa, pilasa, madbaha, darga, kabilana, marwahsa, sosappa, ammera, tablaita, haikla, mhaimnika, sleeba, sleeha, sedra, masnapsa, kappa, beth kudsha. Other services: Teshmeshtha, mamudisa, rasa, hasa, qyamta, mashiha, ruha, bava (ava), kudasha, qauma, anida, episcopa, kasheesha, mapriana. Katholica.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

VI. Marthoma Liturgy Marthoma liturgy is a reformed version of the West Syriac liturgy followed by the Marthoma Syrian Church (known as Reformed Syrians until the beginning of the 20th century)1. The Reformed group has its origin in the middle of the 19th century, following the works of the Anglican Mission of help among the Orthodox Syrian Christians. The definite separation of the ‘Reformed Party’ had taken place in 1889 after a series of litigations. Following a treaty of protection signed in 1795, the princely states of Travancore and Cochin came under the British control2. As the rulers (often a king or a queen) were rather inefficient, the British Resident was in full control of the administration. With the generous support of Colonel John Munro, the second British Resident in Travancore (1810–1819)3, Pulikottil Joseph Mar Dionysius4 (March 1815–November 1816) founded the Syrian College (‘Old Seminary’, the present Orthodox Theological Seminary) to promote theological and secular education. Soon after the demise of Mar Dionysius, Col. Munro invited Low Church Anglican Missionaries to stay and to teach at the Seminary. They visited Syrian parishes and preached, and as one could imagine, they were always critical of the liturgical and spiritual traditions of the Eastern Church. Some young priests were influenced by their ideas and with the support of the missionaries introduced unauthorized changes in the liturgy. This marks the beginning of the ‘Reform Movement’5. The next bishop Punnathra Mar Dionysius (1817– 1825)6 was sympathetic towards the works of the missionaries, which helped the advance of the reforms. Historians usually refer to the work of the missionaries as ‘Mission of help’. But Munro and the missionaries had another idea, probably inspired by the Latin uniatism, that is, to convert the Syrian Church to Anglicanism. In a letter dated 23 May 1818, Munro urged Benjamin Bailey to translate the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) into Malayalam. Thus, the morning and evening services, catechism, parts of the communion service and several of the 1

2 3

4 5 6

Marthoma or Mar Thoma = The Apostle St Thomas. For a summary of the history of the Mar Thoma Church (MTC): G. Chediath, Keralathile Kristhava Sabhakal, Kottayam, 1989, pp. 143–168 (in Malayalam). As most of the documents give the Malayalam Era [ME], we shall give both ME and the corresponding Christian Era (AD). ME began in mid-August 825 AD. In this chapter the following words will appear repeatedly, as they are used in Malayalam sources: Qurbana = Syriac word for Eucharist / Eucharistic Liturgy; Taksa = Order [of the celebration of the Eucharist]; from Taksa or Tekso in Syriac, (derived from the Greek word taxis: order). The part of Kerala between Trichur and Cape Comerin. North of Trichur, known as ‘Malabar’, was under the direct administration of the British until 1947. First British Resident in Travancore was Colin Campbell Macaulay (1800–1810). On John Munro, see Phillip Tovey, “Colonel John Munro, Evangelical Christian”, The Harp 28 (2013), pp. 143–156. John Munro (1778–1857), was a Scottish Presbyterian, and was married to an Anglican, the daughter of a priest, with a brother-in-law who was a priest. Dionysius II. See my study, Varghese (2006). Dionysius III.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

44

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

collects were translated into Malayalam. In the 20th Report to the Church Missionary Society, the missionaries said that their intention was not to impose the Anglican liturgy on the Syrians, but to provide a model for their attempts at reformations7. The missionaries urged Punnathara Mar Dionysius to convene an Assembly of the Church, which met in Mavelikara on 3 December 1818 to consider reforms in the Church. 40 priests and 700 laypeople are said to have attended the assembly. Rev. Joseph Fenn, a missionary, presented the following proposals: encourage the priests to get married8; introduce reforms in worship and conduct worship in a language understandable to the people. In his Journal, Fenn wrote about his plan of reform of the liturgy of the Malankara Church: “We wish that her members should be instrumental in bringing, before their own eyes, the various rites and ceremonies now prevalent among themselves in connection with the Word of God; and it has occurred to us that the best plan which can be desired, is that recommended in the address: the selection of half a dozen of their ablest and most respected Kattanars, who in conjunction with the Metropolitan and Malpan, shall define their present rites, ceremonies and worship, ‘with them we shall canvass every part and judge of it so far as our ability extends by the rule of Scripture. We wish to alter as little as possible that the character and individuality of the Church may be preserved.9” The Malpan in question was not certainly Abraham Malpan who was 22 years old when the assembly was held10. Probably Fenn refers to a senior Malpan at the seminary (Konat Malpan?). It was not sure whether the Committee was nominated at the assembly as the reformers claimed after 1836 when the mission of help came to an end (see below). Fenn’s recommendation did not have the expected response. Thus, Collins writes, ‘It does not appear, however, that very much was accomplished by this conference’11. In order to speed up reforms, Benjamin Bailey, another missionary, translated the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (BCP) into Malayalam and copies were distributed among the clergy, including Punnathara Mar Dionysius (who supported the works of the missionaries). The Malayalam version of the BCP was used on Sundays in the Seminary chapel (in 1827)12. In 1829, one thousand copies of the complete BCP were printed. In some parishes, on Sunday morning and evening, after the usual Syriac prayers, Malayalam version of the BCP was read13.

7 Cherian (1935), p. 194; id. (2015), p. 198. 8 After the Synod of Diamper, most of the Syrian clergy were unmarried, obviously under the influence of the Catholics. 9 Cherian (2015), pp. 142–143. Italics by P. Cherian. Extracts from the Journal of Fenn are published as an Appendix to the Nineteenth Report of the CMS and also in James Hough, History of Christianity in India, Vol. V, (1860). 10 Abraham Malpan (1796–1845). 11 Richard Collins, Missionary Enterprise in the East, London, 1873, p. 103; cf. W.S. Hunt, The Anglican Church in Travancore and Cochin; 1816-1916, 2 Vols., Kottayam, 1920 & 1933, I, p. 106. 12 Hough, Christianity in India, Vol. V, pp. 385–87; Cherian (1935), p. 394; id. (2015), p. 427. 13 Cherian (2015), p. 202.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

First Reformed Liturgy

45

The unexpected demise of Punnathra Mar Dionysius was a blow to the plans of the missionaries. His successor Cheppattu Dionysius (1825–1855) was not in favor of the reforms as intended by the missionaries and the group of priests groomed by them. Palakunnath Abraham Malpan (Maramon) and Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan (Puthuppally, Kottayam) were the leaders of the reform group. Both were instructors (‘Malpans’) in Syriac at the Old Seminary. Marthoma sources refer to them as ‘Professors’ at the Seminary. They were certainly appointed as instructors (in their late teens) under a senior Malpan, as was the custom in Kerala14. In fact, Abraham Malpan was ordained priest by Marthoma VIII at the age of 1615. Later in 1825, he received re-ordination from the visiting Syrian Orthodox prelate Mar Athanasius. At the seminary he was attracted by the teachings of the missionaries. He was one of the priests who got married under the persuasion of the missionaries16. In November 1835, Bishop Daniel Wilson of Calcutta visited Kottayam to persuade Cheppattu Mar Dionysius to follow the lines of reformation as proposed by the missionaries. Bishop Wilson suggested six points for the consideration of the Syrian Church17. On January 16th, 1836, the General Assembly of the Church held in Mavelikara (‘Mavelikara Synod’) discussed the suggestions made by Bishop Wilson. The Assembly found them unacceptable and were rejected. This marks the end of the cooperation between the Syrian Church and the missionaries (‘Mission of help’ as the Anglican sources refer to it).

1. First Reformed Liturgy The missionaries began to organize the sympathizers of reforms. The missionaries present in Kottayam were of opinion that the breakaway group of the Syrians should be made part of the Anglican Church and that the Anglican liturgy in Malayalam shall be introduced for their use18. But the Corresponding Committee in Madras did not approve this move. Their decision was to create a reformed Syriac liturgy for the use of the reformed group. In a letter dated March 14th, 1836, addressed to Bailey, Baker and Peet, J. Tucker, Secretary of the Corresponding Committee (in Madras), wrote that the Committee seriously took into account 14 Abraham Malpan passed away in 1845 at the age of 49. So, in 1825, he was 29 years old! On the Syriac teaching method, see Varghese (1997). 15 Chediath, op. cit., p. 152. 16 In fact, Col. Munro paid him Rs.400 for getting married, as well as other married Syriac clergy. See Chediath, p. 152. 17 See B. Varghese (2006), pp. 435–36 (discusses the reasons why the suggestions were not acceptable to Mar Dionysius). 18 G.B. Howard (a High Church Anglican) writes on this attempt. Cf. G.B. Howard, The Christians of St. Thomas and Their Liturgy (1864), p. 108. He quotes Hough’s Christianity in India, (Vol. V, p. 386) and Madras Church Missionary Records; Quoting the same sources, J.D. D’Orsey, a Low Church Anglican, (Portuguese Discoveries, Dependencies and Missions in Asia and Africa, 1893, p. 387), also speaks of this attempt. P. Cherian in his well-documented work denies this as “accusation” (2015, pp. 251–253). But he acknowledges that the missionaries prepared a reformed version of Syriac liturgy for the use of “certain Syrians who had left the Syrian Church whom they could not admit into their own Church without sanction from higher quarters”, Cherian (2015), p. 253.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

46

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

the question of composing and introducing a reformed liturgy, but it concluded by expressing the conviction that they should remain in their own liturgical tradition and not incorporate Anglican elements19. Evidences suggest that Abraham Malpan played comparatively a minor role in the composition of the first reformed liturgy. In fact, the biography of Abraham Malpan does not give the details of the liturgical reforms introduced by him, other than the translation of prayers said aloud in the Eucharist20. Attempts were made by the missionaries to forbid the celebration of the Syriac liturgy in the Seminary chapel. On 9th March 1836, the Corresponding Committee adopted the following resolution, asking missionaries not to take any hasty action: “That the Committee entirely agree with the Rev. Missionaries that it is not right to sanction the performance of the Syrian Service, as it is at present observed in the College Chapel […..]; but they beg them not to take any step for abolishing of the service, until all the efforts of the Committee to obtain relief have failed”21. The Committee further authorized the Missionaries to prepare a reformed liturgy for the use of the Syrians: “Resolved that the Missionaries be requested to prepare a suitable liturgy in Malayalam for the use of the Syrians, from the different liturgies and services now in use”22. This resolution was adopted following the request of the Missionaries (Benjamin Bailey, Henry Baker and Joseph Peet) to approve their efforts to introduce a reformed liturgy. Apparently, they had suggested replacing the Syriac liturgy with that of the Anglicans. In his covering letter with the copy of the above quoted resolutions, J. Tucker, Secretary of the Corresponding Committee (Madras) gave the following instruction: “The Committee took into serious consideration, the important question whether it is desirable to introduce our liturgy or to attempt to compose a reformed one from their own. You will see by Res. No. 5 to what conclusion they came and I may add that it is at present the decided conviction of the Committee that we ought to endeavour to preserve their identity and not to amalgamate them with the Church of England”23. The Committee held on March 9, 1836, made the following decisions (3&5): “[…] 3. That the Committee entirely agree with the Rev. Missionaries that it is not right to sanction the performance of the Syrian service, as it is at present observed, in 19 See note 23. 20 See M.C. George, Palakkunnathu Abraham Malpan, Kottayam, 1919, p. 29. M.C. George quotes Whitehouse (Lingerings of Light in a Dark Land, pp. 279–280), who wrote that Abraham Malpan prepared a revised Taksa and translated it into Malayalam. 21 Resolution 3, Appendix W, in Cherian (1935), p. 407; id. (2015), p. 447. See Varghese (1997), pp. 437– 38. 22 Resolution 5, Appendix W, Cherian (1935), p. 407; id. (2015), 447. 23 Letter of J. Tucker, dt. 14th March 1836, Appendix, W. Cherian (1935), p. 407; id. (2015), p. 447. On the liturgical reforms, Ibid. (1934), ch. XX, pp. 242–248; id. (2015), pp. 248–254.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

First Reformed Liturgy

47

the College chapel; and they assure them of their purpose of taking early measure to relive them from the difficulties in which they are involved as Trustees of the College and its property; but that they beg them not to take any step for the abolishing of the service, until all the efforts of the Committee to obtain relief have failed. [….] 5. That the Missionaries be requested to prepare a suitable Liturgy in Malayalam for the use of the Syrians, from the different Liturgies and services now in use”24. After quoting this letter, P. Cherian adds that “a few of the Kattanars had at the instance of the Missionaries been composing a liturgy of the kind contemplated by the Corresponding Committee, but the revised liturgy was completed only several months after the receipt of the Madras Secretary’s reply”25. A resolution of the Missionary Conference held on 22 March 1836 makes it clear that a revised liturgy was under preparation: “That with reference to the 5th of the above resolution, (resolutions enclosed in the letter dated 14th March 1836), the Syrian liturgy now preparing be proceeded with, with the least possible delay and that when finished, copy in English be submitted to the Committee for their approval”26. P. Cherian’s comments on the reformed liturgy need to be quoted in full, as it reveals the role of the missionaries in its preparation: “Now it should be remembered that this reformed liturgy, which was in Malayalam, was not intended for the use of the Syrians who acknowledged the Metran’s authority, or being introduced into the Syrian Church, or even into the Anglican Church. It was intended only for the use of those Syrians who felt it their duty not to attend what they considered to be the unscriptural worship of the Syrian Church, and wished to be instructed by the Missionaries, at least for the time being, but whom, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the period, the Missionaries thought it unwise to admit as members of their Church. The principal feature of this revision was the omission of a number of passages containing prayers for the dead, invocation of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and the acknowledgement of anything resembling the doctrine of transubstantiation. This revised liturgy was, therefore, described by those who did not like the changes as ‘half mass’”27. Joseph Peet invited Abraham Malpan to join the Anglican Church and he was unwilling to do so28. Obviously, he, as well as the missionaries knew that most of the Syrians were opposed to such a move and only a few of them would follow him. On 1st of September 1836 (ME 1012 Chingom 15, being the feast of assumption) Abraham Malpan celebrated the ‘reformed liturgy’ in his home parish in Maramon, which 24 Appendix, W. Cherian (1935), pp. 406–407; id. (2015), pp. 447–448. Enclosure to the letter dated 14th March 1836. 25 Cherian (2015), p. 249. 26 Cherian (1935), p. 243; id. (2015), p. 249. 27 Cherian (2015), pp. 249–250. 28 T.C. Chacko, Malankara Marthoma Sabha Charitra Samgrahom, Parts 1, 2 & 3, Thiruvalla, 1st ed. 1936; 5th impression, 2001, p. 80.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

48

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

was accepted by its members29. Malpan recited silent prayers in Syriac and ekphonesis in Malayalam. Thus, the Syriac prayers of the anaphora of St James were said in Malayalam for the first time. The Orthodox party called it “half mass”30. The Malayalam/Syriac text of the liturgy used by Abraham Malpan has not come down to us. Most probably Abraham Malpan used the text prepared by the missionaries and he had played very little role in its preparation. In fact, even in the translation of the Scriptures into Malayalam, the missionaries were very keen to have the full credit for themselves31. As we will see later, the liturgical Revision Committees of 1923–1926 make no reference to this important document. Between 1836 and 1839, in a few places like Mallappally, Pallom and Kolladu the morning service was held according to the Anglican liturgy and the Eucharistic service according to the revised liturgy32. Reformed liturgy seems to have been used in the Seminary chapel until 1838 and in the parishes in Pallom and Kolladu until 1840. Abraham Malpan, Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan and Eruthical Markose Kathanar were the priests who celebrated in the Seminary Chapel, Kolladu and Pallom respectively33. In places like Mallappally and Kolladu, a group influenced by the missionaries preferred to join the Anglican Church. Since 1840, English translation of the revised liturgy was discontinued to be used in those parishes and Anglican services were introduced. This marks the origin of the Central Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India (CSI) where a significant number of members are converts from the Syrian Church. The converts were properly rewarded by the missionaries in terms of opportunity for higher education, government jobs or lands.

2. First Reformed liturgy and the Missionaries We are fortunate to have the manuscript of the liturgy reformed by the missionaries in 1836, kept in the Archives of the Birmingham University34. Rev. Zacharia John has published it with the title: The Amended liturgy for the Syrian Church, a manuscript copy of the Revised Syrian Liturgy found in the CMS Hand Book, South India, M.14 Mission Book: documents received between the period 3 November 1836 – 12 February 1838, Birmingham University Archives35. As the missionaries did not know Syriac, it was probably translated from a Malayalam version prepared by Abraham Malpan or Geevarghese Malpan. In it, the Preparation rites have been abridged. However, several elements of the original Syriac liturgy have been retained: e.g., Ps. 51; Prayers when the priest enters the sanctuary; 29 T.C. Chacko (2001), p. 77. Until the middle of the 20th century, the feasts of the Church were celebrated according to Malayalam Era. 30 Cherian (1935), pp. 243–244. Ekphonesis or prayers said aloud. 31 See my study: Baby Varghese, “Syriac Bible in India”, The Harp 14 (2001), pp. 63–80 see pp. 74ff. 32 Cherian (2015), pp. 250–251; John, Zacharia (1994), p. 57. 33 Hunt, W.S., The Anglican Church in Travancore and Cochin: 1816-1916, 2 Vols., Kottayam, 1920 & 1933, Vol. II, p. 54; Cherian (1935), p. 286. 34 Manuscript: CI-2 M-14: Birmingham University Archives, CMS Hand Book, South India. 35 John, Zacharia (1994), pp. 98–113.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

First Reformed liturgy and the Missionaries

49

prayers when the bread and wine are offered; revised version of the Promiun and Sedra. However, censing, the prayers of commemoration that the priest says holding the Paten and Chalice were dropped. Likewise, no mention of covering the Paten and Chalice with the veil and censing (but censing is done after the reading of the Gospel). [Creed is recited?] A revised version of the ma’nitha of Severus has been given (name of Severus is missing). Trisagion has been rendered as: O God, thou art holy; O mighty one, thou art holy; O immortal One, thou art holy; O thou didst hang upon the cross for us, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us. After the reading of the Epistles and the Gospel, incense is placed and Promiun-Sedra are read. But there is no solemn blessing of the censer with the sanctification of the Trinity. Creed was apparently recited at the end of the preparation rites (before the Trisagion). The Christological addition to the Trisagion in Syriac is: He who was crucified for us. But hang upon the cross must be the English rendering of the Malayalam version still used in various churches in Kerala. Then the manuscript gives the translation of the Shorter version of St James, which was in use in Malankara at least since the middle of the 18th century. The central part was not changed much. However, the following changes were introduced: 1. The lifting up of the veil (anaphora), and the accompanying exhortation by the deacon and the silent prayer by the priest (Thou art the rock) have been dropped. 2. The silent prayers were apparently given to be said aloud. 3. The silent prayer of offering (when the people say: It is meet and right) has been conflated to the introduction to the Sanctus. 4. The rubrics direct kneeling down by the priest as he recites the Epiclesis. 5. The acclamation Answer me O Lord has been dropped. 6. The conclusion of the Epiclesis has been modified as follows: “That by his coming on this bread, he may sanctify it for the remission of sins and life eternal for those who duly partake of it” (the similar formula over the chalice is dropped). [Such a wording those who duly partake is absent is all known epiclesis. The nearest parallel can be seen in the words of Institution of the Anaphora of Dionysius Bar Salibi: unto those who receive it]. 7. In the intercessions (‘Diptychs’) all references to the Blessed Virgin and the saints and the prayers for the departed faithful were dropped. 8. The Christological benediction before the fraction was dropped (May the mercy of...). 9. The elaborate fraction rites and the accompanying prayers were omitted. 10. The Trinitarian benediction (May the grace and mercies...) and the greetings of peace before and after it as well as Sancta sanctis were dropped. After the embolism of the Lord’s Prayer, communion was administered. 11. Bread and wine were given separately. 12. Dismissal has been omitted and has been replaced with the Pauline version Trinitarian benediction: “The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all evermore. Amen” [Then we find: Here ends the liturgy of St James, the brother of our Lord].

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

50

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

13. Post communion was completely omitted. However, Abraham Malpan celebrated liturgy using the reformed text on 1st September 1836 in his home Parish at Maramon36. Later the Marthomites attributed the composition of the reformed liturgy to Abraham Malpan, which has no documentary evidence. It is based on hearsay37. No manuscript used by him has come down to us. A few copies of Syriac texts, written after 1870, are believed to be based on the manuscript used by Abraham Malpan. On 4th September 1836, – eight months after the Synod of Mavelikara – twelve priests submitted a memorandum to the British Resident Col. Fraser38. It contained 23 points concerning Church practices which, according to them, are corrupt and need to be reformed. The points included prayers for the departed, veneration of the relics, use of certain symbols and failure to teach the scriptures. The main demands in the memorial were the following: (i). An assembly of the parish representatives shall be held in the presence of the Resident to examine the accusations. (ii). Cheppattu Mar Dionysius shall be removed from the office. (iii). Mar Coorilos of Thozhiyoor shall be appointed as the bishop of the Syrians. Certainly, the Anglican missionaries were behind the preparation of the memorial. Their intention seems to have a bishop favorable towards reforms. The Resident ignored the memorial. Cheppattu Mar Dionysius suspended Abraham Malpan and his fellow priests for introducing unwarranted changes in the liturgical texts and celebrations. He refused to ordain 18 deacons trained under Abraham Malpan at Maramon. Deacon Palakunnath Mathews (later Mathews Mar Athanasius) and Deacon George, Puthencavil (Rev. George Mathen, one of the first native Anglican priests) were among them39. The reformers felt the need of having a bishop to lead the movement. Thus in 1841, with the help of the missionaries, Abraham Malpan sent his nephew Deacon Mathews to the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch in Mardin. Deacon Mathews studied at the old Seminary in Kottayam and later at Maramon under Abraham Malpan. According to some sources he was suspended for supporting the reformed ideas. However, the missionaries sent him to Madras where he joined Bishop Corrie’s Grammar School. It was during his studies there that he was sent to Mardin. Obviously, he was picked up by the missionaries to execute their plans concerning the Malankara Church. In 1842, Patriarch Mar Elias II consecrated him under the name Mathews Mar Athanasius40. He was the first Indian to be made bishop by the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch. The new bishop returned to Malabar in 1843 and made claims to lead the Malankara Church. 36 ME 1012 Chingom 15 on the feast of Assumption. See Chila Supradhana rekhakal (Some important documents), Thiruvalla, 1945. 37 Thazhathu Punnathara Chandapilla Cathanar, a leading figure of the (conservative) of the Marthoma Church writes that “several reforms are falsely attributed to Abraham Malpan and Mathews Mar Athanasius”, see Vilapangal, (1st ed. Kottayam, 1925; 2nd ed. 1989), p. 33. 38 Malayalam Text in M.C. George, Palakunathu Abraham Malpan, Kottayam, 1919. George gives 23 points. He says that the memorial is incomplete as the last part is lost. Originally it contained 27 points. English Translation by John, Mathai (1996), pp. 13–17. Most of the charges in the memorial deal with para-liturgical customs that were popular among the Catholics and the Syrians. 39 Chediath, p. 153. The names of the 18 deacons are given by M.C. George, op. cit., pp. 31–32. On the ordination of George Mathen and others, see Mackenzie (1901), p. 47. 40 Mathews Mar Athanasius (1818–1877) was 24 years old at the time of his consecration.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Marthoma Liturgy under Mathews Mar Athanasius

51

As he was sent to Mardin by a minority group favourable to the reforms, majority of the Syrians refused to accept him. Moreover, he was not elected by the community and went to Mardin without the knowledge of Cheppatu Mar Dionysius, the Metropolitan of Malankara. Cheppatt Mar Dionysius complained to the patriarch and Yoyakim Mar Coorilos was sent to Malabar (1846–1875). Unwilling to fight against the young and energetic bishop Mar Athanasius, Cheppattu Mar Dionysius abdicated (in 1846) in favor of the visiting Syrian Orthodox prelate Yoyakim Mar Coorlilos. Mar Dionysius abdicated probably because the supporters of Mathews Athanasius and a group led by Mar Coorilos held that he was not validly consecrated. In fact, he was consecrated by Geevarghese Mar Philoxenus of Thozhiyoor (1811–1829)41. The efforts of the Orthodox group were not very successful, as Mar Athanasius enjoyed the support of the Missionaries and the British Resident. Court cases began between Coorilos and Athanasius and in 1848 a four-member arbitration committee (‘Quilon Panchayath’) appointed by the Government of Travancore pronounced a verdict in favour of Mar Athanasius. In 1852, the Royal Proclamation confirmed him as the Metran of the Puthencoors (Syrians)42. Though he reached Malabar as bishop in 1843, Athanasius had to pursue litigations for 10 years to assume the direction of the Church.

3. Marthoma Liturgy under Mathews Mar Athanasius According to credible sources, Mar Athanasius always celebrated the unrevised Syriac Orthodox liturgy. He was rather interested to bring the whole community under him than to alienating the majority by introducing liturgical reforms. He must have anticipated that his claim over the community will be legally challenged if he followed the reformed liturgy. According to C.P. Philipose Kasheesa43, a leading priest of MTC, the reformed liturgy was used only by Abraham Malpan and Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan. Mr. T.C. Chacko quotes a letter written by Rev. Philipose, which gives important information on the early history of the Marthoma liturgy44. In a letter, a layman asked Rev. Philipose, soon after his return to Kerala (in 1842), whether Mathews Mar Athanasius gave the bread and wine together or separately. In his reply, Rev. Philipose wrote that Mar Athanasius and several priests of the reformed party gave the bread and wine separately. Then he adds: “In the beginning, the Reformed Taksa of Abraham Malpan was used only in the Maramon Church. It was not used even in the (nearby) Kozhenchery. I have heard that the Elder Metropolitan (Valia Metrachan, i.e., Mathews Mar Athanasius) 41 Mar Philoxenus was the Malankara Metropolitan (in 1817 & 1825–1829). 42 Puthencoors (Malayalam: followers of new Rite) was the title used by the Syro-Catholics to designate the non-Catholics who used West Syriac Liturgy. The Syro-Catholics called themselves Pazhayacoors (old Rite) as they continued to use the East Syriac liturgy. 43 C.P. Philipose Kasheesha (1868–1948), was the son of Ayroor Cherukara Philipose Malpan, who was the nephew (sister’s son) of Mathews Athanasius, and the first cousin of Metropolitan Titus I. 44 Chacko (1949), Ayroorachan, pp. 17–21. Letter dated 10 Kanni, 1116 ME (= September 26, 1941), addressed to a certain Kunjappi.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

52

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

celebrated qurbana in the Maramon church using the old Taksa. (i.e., the original Syrian Orthodox text). (…..). In ME [10]36 (= AD 1861), Fr. Kovoor [Ipe Thoma] began to conduct service at the Tiruvalla Church using the reformed Taksa of [Abraham] Malpan. Following this, others like Fr. Kottureth and Fr. Kulamannil began to use [reformed aksa] in ME 1048 (= AD 1873). But I have heard that it was used in the church of Fr. Kaithayil [Geevarghese Malpan] and in Edathua in the Church of Fr.Ulasseril Senior”45. Abraham Malpan was unhappy with the attitude of his nephew. Mr. T.C. Chacko, in his history of the Marthoma Church, narrates the last moments of Abraham Malpan. Learning that Malpan was seriously ill, Mar Athanasius rushed to Maramon and offered to administer communion to him. Abraham Malpan refused to receive communion from his nephew saying that he had received communion in less than forty days. However, Malpan said that he is willing to receive communion, if Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan (another leader of reform movement) celebrates the Qurbana. Though Mar Athanasius volunteered to celebrate the Qurbana according to the reformed version (“as Kaithayil Malpan celebrates”), Abraham Malpan rejected the offer46. In the above-mentioned letter, C.P. Philipose Kasheesha writes: “I have heard that at his death bed, Fr. [Abraham] Malpan received qurbana, not from Metrachan (= Mathews Mar Athanasius), but from Fr. Ulasseril or some others”47. The Maramon parish firmly stood for the reformed liturgy. After the demise of Abraham Malpan, Maramon church had no priest for some time. Apparently, they were not willing to receive a priest ordained by Mar Athanasius. However, Deacon Rakur Skariah, a student of Abraham Malpan was ordained priest by Athanasius for the Maramon church. In his first qurbana, the new priest used “some old practices” of the unreformed text, obviously under the instruction of Mar Athanasius. The people expressed their disagreement by leaving the church. When the priest turned towards the people for the second blessing (before fraction), he found the church empty. After the service, there were arguments between the priest and the people. Finally, the priest had to admit that he was wrong and pledged that in the future he shall follow the example of Abraham Malpan48. The presence of the foreign bishop turned things in favor of Mar Athanasius. The orthodox faction felt the need of having a native bishop. In 1865, Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysius was consecrated by the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Yakub II in Diarbekir for the Orthodox faction. In 1868, Mathews Mar Athanasius, assisted by Mar Koorilos of Thozhiyoor, consecrated Mar Thomas Athanasius (eldest son of Abraham Malpan) as the second bishop of the Reformed party49.

45 Chacko (1949), p. 19. 46 Chacko (1936), Sabha Charitra Samgraham, vol. 1, 2, 3, Thiruvalla, 1936, 5th re-impression, 2001, p. 104. Abraham Malpan passed away in 1845 and, according to the custom prevailed in Kerala, his body was laid to rest in the nave of the Maramon church, ibid. p. 104. 47 Chacko (1949), p. 19. 48 Chacko (1949), p. 104. 49 In 1856, Mar Coorilos of Thozhiyoor was consecrated by Mar Athanasius.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Reformed liturgy of 1872

53

4. Liturgical Revision Committee of 1863 In the 1954 version of the Marthoma Liturgy, Metropolitan Yuhanon Mar Thoma (1937– 1976) gives a long preface in which the history of the liturgical reforms has been narrated50. It is a general presentation of the history of Marthoma liturgy and can be regarded as the official version. According to it, in 1863 (ME 1038) a “Taksa Revision Committee” was appointed, thanks to the initiative of the C.M.S. Missionaries. Metropolitan points out that works of the Committee were not fruitful because of the opposition from various circles51. It was the first official Committee of the MTC for liturgical revision. It is quite possible that the works of this Committee led to the publication of the ‘Reformed Liturgy of 1872’ (see below).

5. Reformed liturgy of 1872 In 1872, the reformed liturgy in Malayalam was printed for the first time. In Malayalam it bears the following title: Nammude karthavum Rakshithavumaya Yeshumashihayude Sahodharanaya Shudhamana Yakobu Slihayude Qurbana Kramom (Order of Qurbana of the Apostle Saint James, brother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, printed at the Church Mission Press, Kottayam, 1872). The introduction in Malayalam claims that the text was amended by Abraham Malpan: After having referred to the additions made to the Anaphora of St James in the course of time, the introduction says: “Most of the additions are conform to the faith and some are not. Therefore late pious Abraham Malpan, who was the teacher of the Jacobites (sic) in Malankara and the head of the church in Maramon, on the basis of several ancient books and the effort of many days had examined this order, and arranged it and deleted the words and prayers that do not agree with the faith and the witness of the Scriptures and were added later to the original version. But this also (the Text of Abraham Malpan) is in the original language”52. Apparently, the introduction was drafted by a European as it briefly narrates the history of the liturgy of St James. The publication of the text has been later attributed to Kovoor Ipe Thoma Kathanar, Vicar general of the Reformed party, claiming that it had the sanction and the approval of Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasius. But the introduction does not mention their names nor of the translator. It makes a general reference to the revision of the text made by Abraham Malpan. It says that the text prepared by Abraham Malpan was still in Syriac. However, the introduction does not claim that it was a translation of the text used by him. According to Fr. Thazhath, 1872 Taksa was translated and published as prompted by the British Resident. Some native Malpan must have translated it and the English missionary 50 Taksa (1954), pp. i–xv. 51 Ibid. p. ii. 52 Taksa (1872), p. 3.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

54

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

Henry Baker introduced some changes and published it. Later it was attributed to Kovoor Ipe Thoma Kathanar. In his book Vilapangal (‘Lamentations’), Fr. Thazathu writes: “In my knowledge, as the reformists say, Respected Abraham Malpan or his nephew Mar Athanasius Metropolitan, the Elder […] – as far as I have seen and convinced from the (very) beginning of his ministry – have not introduced any changes contrary to the faith and practices followed by our Church since the ancient times. I have not seen the Taksa used by (Abraham) Malpan. It is claimed that the Taksa translated and printed in 1872 is a translation of this Ordo [i.e., the Taksa followed by Abraham Malpan]. In my knowledge, at the interest of the Hon. British Resident, (Rev.) Henry Baker got it translated and made some changes and got printed and sent it to all parishes. If we have a look at the introduction (lit. heading: Thalakettu) of the book, the truth can be understood. Our parish has received a big Bible and a copy of the Taksa. Some of the sentences are removed and the heading of some orders are not given. The book cannot be taken as the basis to eliminate some of the orders rejected by the reformists, and to reject the ancient rites. If one makes a close look at several prayers and rites (given) in this book, the book itself will support my argument”53. It is far from being certain that 1872 Taksa represents the text used by Abraham Malpan as the radical reformers claimed several decades later. As Fr. Thazhathu says, it was almost certainly the work of the missionaries. The content, language and style of the introduction is that of a missionary which may be reflected in the concluding paragraph of the introduction: “Therefore, at the request of several pious Syrians, this book on “the order of the celebration of the Holy Qurbana” […] has been translated and printed. May God sanctify the Syrian Church ever more and make it a precious stone on his crown in his manifestation to judge the living and the departed”54. It is interesting to note that an English translation of this liturgy appeared in the Madras Church Missionary Record for April and May 187355. However, the 1872 Taksa has some differences from that of 1836 and is closer to the Orthodox liturgy. [There are differences between the Malayalam text published from Kottayam and the English translation reproduced by Zacharia John]. In the post-communion rites, all prayers have been dropped. But the Psalms 23; 36:10ff; Ps. 26; 29 are retained. Preparation rites of 1872 Taksa had not undergone much changes. As in the Taksa of 1836, Trisagion ends with the expression ‘he who was hung’ (crucified in Syriac). Unlike the English text, in the Malayalam version of the 1872 Taksa, no mention has been made to the curtain of the sanctuary. The two-fold division of the preparation rites as well as most of the rites and prayers are retained. Holding the Paten and Chalice in the form of the cross, the priest says only the general prayers. In the preparation rites, the prayers of 53 Thazhath (1925), Vilapangal (1925), pp. 28–29. “Reformists”: Malayalam text uses Parishkarikal, which means rather ‘modernizers’. It is difficult to give a literal translation of the Malayalam text. We have given a literal translation as far as possible. 54 Taksa (1872), Introduction, p. 4. Italics added. The expression suggests that it was published by someone who was not a member of the Syrian Community. 55 See John, Zacharia (1994), pp. 124–153.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Reformed liturgy of 1872

55

intercession to the Virgin Mary, Saints and the prayers for the departed are dropped. Paten and chalice are placed on the altar and covered with the veil, followed by the Promioun and Sedra. Malayalam text does not speak of censing. Preparation rites end with the Creed. The Eqbo that precedes the ma’nitho of Severus has been modified as: “Bless us our Lord Jesus Christ, who took body from Mary and was baptized by John”56. In the pre-anaphora, the solemn blessing of the censor after the Promioun-Sedra has been dropped. The Trinitarian blessing is recited. But the prayer after the glorification has been amended and conflated to the glorification of the Holy Spirit: “Holy is the Holy Spirit, who blesses and sanctifies the sinners, having mercy upon the children of the Holy Church in both worlds forever”. Then creed is recited. The priest kneels down before the altar and says the prayer “Holy Trinity…”. But apparently the names are not commemorated. In the anaphora not many changes were introduced. However, in the intercessions, no names are commemorated. After the sancta sanctis, Paten and Chalice are placed on the altar and the assembly says: “Lord, have mercy…” and Lord’s Prayer57. We shall give extracts of the 1836 and 1872 Taksa (both were composed by the missionaries)58.

Taksa of 1836

Taksa of 1872

5. Priest: It is meet, right, decent and our bounden duty that we should praise and bless thee, glorify, worship and give thanks to thee, the maker of all visible and invisible creatures, whom the heaven of heavens and all the hosts of them praise thee, sun, moon, the whole choir of stars, the earth, seas, and all things that are therein, the heavenly Jerusalem, the assembly and church of the first born that are written in heaven, angels, archangels, principalities, authorities, thrones, dominions, the hosts of the world above and the heavenly armies, the many eyed Cherubim and the Seraphim with six wings, who with interrupted

5. Priest: Whom the powers of heaven, corporeal and incorporeal, glorify; the sun and the moon and all the saints; the earth and the seas; the first-born graven in the heavenly Jerusalem; Angels and Archangels; and primacies, principalities, thrones, dominions, powers; the many-eyed Cherubim; the six-winged Seraphim, which with veiled faces and feet, fly one to another and sing the Sanctus, and cry and say – Holy … is the Lord God of Hosts.

56 Henceforth this became the standard opening prayer that precedes the m’anitho of Severus in the Marthoma liturgy. In the 19th century, the expressions ethrahem alain or rahem alain were translated as bless us, (lit. have mercy upon us) which were continued in most of the Churches until recently. Likewise, rahme was translated as blessings, instead of mercies. 57 In the Post-Communion Psalms were retained, but prayers were dropped. 58 In the edition of Anaphorae Syriacae by A. Raes (1939–1981), for the sake of convenience for reference, the Syrian Orthodox Anaphoras have been arranged in 33 prayers. I have followed this division in my edition and translation of the anaphoras. Nos. 1–2. Prayer before/after the Peace; 3. Prayer over the veil. 4. Prayer of offering.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

56

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

shouts, the triumphant hymns to thy exalted glory, praising, shouting, crying aloud and saying. People: Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabbath59…

People: Holy … is the Lord God Almighty…

6. Priest: Thou art holy, O eternal king… [same as in the original]

6. Priest: [same as in the original]

7. Therefore when the time was come that he who had no sin was to suffer a voluntary death for us sinners, he took bread and gave thanks and blessed it and break it and gave it to the disciples, saying, ‘Take eat, this is my body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me’.

People: Amen.

7. [Raising his voice] – and when He was prepared to undergo voluntary death for us sinners, He took bread in His Holy hands. People: Bless, O Lord. Priest: And when He had given thanks, He blessed, and sanctified, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said ‘Take, eat of it, this is my body which for you and for many is broken, and given for the remission of sins and for eternal life’. People: Amen.

8. Priest: Likewise, after supper also he took the cup and gave thanks, blessed it and gave it to his disciples saying, drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. People: Amen.

8. Priest: In like manner also He took the cup, and when he had given thanks, He blessed and sanctified, and gave to His holy Apostles, and said, take, drink ye all of it: this is my blood which for you and for many is shed and given for the remission of sins and for eternal life. Amen.

9-10. [same as in the original] [Deacon’s exhortation before Epiclesis is missing]

9-10. [same as in the original] [Deacon’s exhortation: How solemn…]

11. Priest kneeling invokes the Holy Ghost: O God the Father Almighty, have mercy upon us; send down on us and on this offering (set before thee) thy Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who is consubstan-

11. Priest: Have mercy upon us. O God the Father, and send down upon these offerings Thy Holy Spirit, the Lord equal to Thee and to Thy Son in the throne and kingdom and essence eternal, who spake in

59 The word Lord Shabaoth (‘Lord of hosts’, Is. 6:3) was misunderstood as Sabbath. Hebrew and Septuagint have Shabaoth. In Peshitta it has been rendered as ‘Lord Almighty’ (moryo hailthono). Several ancient anaphoras have retained this expression in the Sanctus. E.g., Mystagogical Catechesis by Cyril of Jerusalem, Apostolic Constitutions and Greek St James. Several early manuscripts of Syriac St James have retained this expression. This expression certainly existed in the text of St James commented by Moses bar Kepha. However, this must have existed in the Syriac text used for the translation of the 1836 Taksa. Apparently, the missionaries were not aware of the variant readings and did not know Syriac. The Malayalam translation was made with the help of a Malpan whose knowledge of Syriac was limited.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Reformed liturgy of 1872

57

tial with thee, O God the Father and with thy co-eternal and equal Son, who spake by the Law and by the Prophets and by the New Testament and descended on our Lord Jesus Christ in the form of a dove in the river Jordan and came down on the holy Apostles in the shape of tongues of fire. People: Have mercy upon us.

Thy Old and New Testament, and descended like a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and like tongues of fire upon the Apostles in the upper room. [Elevating his voice] Hear me, O Lord! Hear me O Lord! Hear me O Lord, and spare and have mercy upon us! People: Kyrie eleison, Kyrie… Kyrie…

12. Priest: That by his coming on this bread, He may sanctify it for the remission of sins and life eternal to those who duly partake of it. People: Amen.

12. Priest: So that He may come down and make this bread the life-giving body of Christ our God.

13-14. Priest: That they may be to us and all who duly partake thereof and communicated therein for the sanctification of our souls and bodies and for the bringing forth the fruit of good works, through the grace, mercy and love towards mankind of thine only begotten Son, through whom and with whom glory, honour and power are due to thee and thy most holy and good Spirit.

13. Priest: And may thoroughly make this cup, the blood of the New Testament, the saving blood of Christ our God. People: Amen.

[INTERCESIONS]60

[THE GREAT INTERCESSION]61

15-26. [Long single revised prayer]

15-26. [Revised prayers]

People: Amen.

14. So that they may sanctify the souls and spirits, and bodies that partake of them; for the bearing of the fruit of good works; for the confirmation of the holy Church which is made strong upon the rock of the faith, and against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. And deliver her from heretical offences, even to the end; that she may raise to Thee glory and thanksgiving, and to Thy Only-begotten Son … and to Thy all-holy, and good, and adorable, and like-making, and consubstantial Spirit; now, and all times, forever.

60 This is the most reformed part of the anaphora. Canons said by the deacon and the silent prayers by the priest are omitted. Names of the Virgin Mary or any of the saints are not mentioned. No prayers for the departed are given. It contains Anglican type prayers incorporated to the sections from the original text. Intercession is given in the form of a long prayer. 61 Threefold division of each of the canon is retained [a prayer by the priest, followed by that of the deacon, during which the priest says a silent prayer]. But prayers are revised. Virgin Mary or any of the saints are named and the prayers for the departed are omitted. Prayers follow Anglican models.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

58

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

27-28. [Suppressed; also, Christological benediction is omitted] Fraction [Apparently without prayers]

27-28. [Same as in the original text]

29-31. [Lord’s Prayer and the two prayers that follow: No change] [No sancta sanctis. Immediately after §31, the priest partakes of the bread and wine.]

29-31. [Lord’s Prayer etc. Same as in the original.]

32-33. [Thanksgiving prayer. Not much change.] [No dismissal and no Post Communion: Immediately after §33, the priest says the Pauline benediction.] Priest: The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all evermore. Amen. [Anaphora ends] [No Post-Communion rites]

32-33. [including Sancta sanctis, communion, prayer of thanksgiving, Dismissal same as in the original.] [Post Communion: Prayers are omitted. But the Psalms are retained.]

[Fraction as in the original text. But General Prayers (Katholikon) are revised and abridged.]

In the two versions (1836 and 1872), a smaller number of changes were introduced in the central part of the anaphora (lifting up of the veil to epiclesis: §4–§14). Notable changes were made in the preparation rites, Intercessions, and the Post Communion. 1836 text does not give several of the rubrics, deacon’s exhortations, and the peoples’ responses. We do not know whether it was intended for the use of the priests. Probably they were free to follow the rubrics as usual. In both versions, intercessions of the Virgin Mary and the saints and the prayers for the departed are omitted. Most probably, Abraham Malpan and Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan must have used the 1836 version (known as ‘half mass’) and Mathews Mar Athanasius never used it. 1872 Taksa must have been composed by the missionaries to address the concerns of the majority who were not favourable for reform and to persuade them to accept it. The importance of the 1872 text is that it represents the liturgical attitude of the Reformed group before the origin of the revival movement (under the influence of the preachers from Tamilnadu etc.) and changed the nature of the reforms from an Anglican to an Evangelical and revivalist orientation. K.N. Daniel claimed that Kovoor Ipe Kathanar translated the Syriac manuscript reformed by Abraham Malpan, which is unlikely62. According to Daniel, till 1895 (ME 1070), the reformed liturgy of Abraham Malpan was mostly in use63. Daniel’s words must be taken with great caution. However, this has become the official position of the Reformed party. Thus, 62 Mar Thoma Church case: OS No. 116 of 1955 in the District Court of Kottayam, pub. by K.N. Daniel, Quilon, V.V. Press, nd, p. 3. Statements presented in courts are not always based on historical facts. They are aimed at winning a point. 63 K.N. Daniel (1951), p. 211.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Mar Thoma Church and the Revival Groups

59

the authorship of Kovoor Ipe Thoma Kathanar has been affirmed by Metropolitans Titus II and Yuhanon Mar Thoma (obviously repeating the statement of Titus II)64. [This liturgy was presented in the Royal Court Case as Exhibit III.]

6. Arrival of the Patriarch Ignatius Peter IV Soon after his return to Malabar with the letters from the Patriarch, Pulikottil Joseph Mar Dionysius approached the Travancore Government to get recognition as the legitimate head of the Syrian Christians. His request was turned down. He wrote to Patriarch Peter IV who arrived in Malabar and stayed for two years (1875–77). The patriarch’s presence changed the situation in favour of the Orthodox Church. The Patriarch met the king of Travancore and following his request, the Government withdrew the recognition of Mar Athanasius (On March 4, 1876). The patriarch ‘excommunicated’ Mar Athanasius and thus he lost the canonical right to continue in office. As Mathews Athanasius passed away in 1877, Thomas Athanasius took over the charges. In 1879, Joseph Mar Dionysius filed a suit in the Judicial court for the eviction of Thomas Athanasius from office. Finally, in July 1889, the Travancore Royal court pronounced a verdict in favour of Mar Dionysius. Mar Thomas Athanasius passed away in August 1893 and was succeed by Titus I in January 1894 (he was the youngest son of Abraham Malpan and was consecrated by Joseph Mar Athanasius I, Metropolitan of the Thozhiyoor Church)65. Titus I (1894–1910) was the first head of the MTC to assume the title Mar Thoma. In 1899, Mar Titus II Episcopa, younger brother of Mathews Athanasius, was consecrated by Titus I and Mar Coorilos of Thozhiyoor. Later he became the head of the MTC under the title Titus II Marthoma (1911–1944). It was during his episcotate that the “Reformed Group’ took the title ‘Mar Thoma Church’. The liturgical texts of the Mar Thoma Church got their present form under Titus II.

7. Mar Thoma Church and the Revival Groups The so-called ‘Reform movement’ took a different orientation under the influence of revival groups from Tamilnadu, who often free evangelists. This had lasting impacts on the spiritual and liturgical life of MTC. 7.1 Tamil Revival Groups Mathews Mar Athanasius introduced some practices hitherto rare in the pastoral life in Malankara such as prayer meetings, extempore prayers and preaching by laypeople in the churches. In 1863, he authorized a group of Tamil female singers led by Ammal (from Tanjavoor), relatives and followers of Vedanayaka Sastri) to visit parishes. They preached in 64 See John, Zacharia (1994), pp. 92–93. 65 Joseph Mar Athanasius I (1883–1898). In fact, in 1856, when Geevarghese Mar Coorilos of Thozhiyoor passed away, Mathews Athanasius consecrated Joseph Mar Coorilos IV (1856–1888) as the head of the Thozhiyoor Church. Though the Antiochene bishop Yoyakim Mar Coorilos claimed jurisdiction over Thozhiyoor, Mar Athanasius ignored it.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

60

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

Malayalam with revival songs in Tamil accompanied by musical instruments. Mar Athanasius encouraged the works of Mosavalsalam Sastri (LMS), a poet-singer from South Travancore. 7.2 Revival of 1872 Since 1872, several Tamil revival groups were active in the parishes in Tiruvalla, and Maramon area. Most of them were free evangelists and were not under any strict Church discipline. Almost always they were invited by like-minded Church members and the Church leadership was not always aware of the consequences of their works. In 1872, a CMS Evangelist named Mathai (‘Mathai Upadesi’) from Christianpettah, near Tirunelveli came to Travancore. He was a disciple of John Arulappan, a revival preacher of Brethren persuasion, and a close associate of Antony Norris Groves, the first Brethren missionary to India (1833–1852). Mathai preached mostly on the passion of Christ, second coming, millennial reign, and eternal condemnation. Mar Athanasius appreciated the works of Mathai. Justus Joseph, known as ‘Vidwankutty’ (1835–1887), a Tamil Brahmin convert and a CMS priest came to Kerala in 1875. When Mathai returned to Tamilnadu, his work was taken up by Justus Joseph and his brothers. Being excellent preachers and singers, their revival movement soon became popular. Justus served an Anglican parish in Kannetti, near Mavelikara. He predicted that the second coming of Christ will take place on 2 October 1881. Following his prophecy and the publicity on the second coming of Christ, he was dismissed from the Anglican Church. In 1875, he formed Kannetti Revival Church and Christians from several denominations joined him. As the prophesy failed, Justus Joseph reorganized his Church under a new name Yuyomayam Church (Yuyo = from Justus Joseph and mayam = fullness). He composed about 427 hymns of which 26 found place in the official hymn book of the Marthoma Church. Later Mathai Upadesi returned to Kerala and joined the Yuyomayam Church. The works of Mathai Upadesi and Justus Joseph represent a turning point in the history of the Marthoma Church. The immediate impact was seen among the clergy. In 1878, a group of 17 priests of MTC signed a pamphlet (‘The Memorandum of Reformation’) and circulated it among the priests and the members of the MTC. The memorandum urged to convene an Assembly for consultation presided by Thomas Mar Athanasius to purge the corrupt doctrines and practices crept into the Church. It asked for the removal of ‘hypocritical and foolish traditional customs’, intercession of the saints, prayers for the departed, which are contrary to the scripture and introducing regulations in accordance with the Bible and ancient customs of the Church in Malabar66. Obviously, this memorandum served as one of the basis for the articulation of the ‘Reformation Principle’ (in 1926). As a suit was filed by Joseph Mar Dionysius against Thomas Athanasius in 1879, copies of the memorandum were traced and destroyed as much as possible, lest it may have an adverse impact on the interests of the MTC in the litigations67.

66 Chacko (1937), Sabhacharitra samgraham II, pp. 46–50; Mathai John (1996), p. 28. 67 K.T. Thomas (1926), p. 10. See Mathai John (1996), p. 29.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Revival of 1894

61

8. Thomas Mar Athanasius and the Reformed Liturgy Mathews Athanasius passed away in 1877 and Thomas Athanasius succeeded him (1868– 1893). In the above-mentioned important letter of C.P. Philipose Kasheesha, we are told that reformed liturgy was used for the first time under Thomas Mar Athanasius. “Taksa was revised and used in [ME 10]53 (= AD 1878). It was then (= in 1878) that I saw for the first time the qurbana omitting the prayers for the departed and intercession of the saints”68. I have not heard that anybody has used the reformed Taksa before the revival (of 1863 onwards?). Since [ME 10]58 (= AD 1883) all began to celebrate [qurbana] using the reformed Taksa. But all have retained shoes, cap and candles”69. Litigations between Pulikottil Joseph Mar Dionysius (leader of the Orthodox group) and Thomas Athanasius began in 1879. The confusion created by the revival groups, especially the works of Mathai Upadesi and Justus Joseph and the litigations changed the nature of the ‘Reform movement’. Thomas Athanasius or the leading clergy were not able to give a theological or spiritual orientation to their followers.

9. Revival of 1894 Another wave of Revival Movement started in 1894 with the arrival of a Tamil Evangelist V.D. David from Tirunelveli (known in Kerala as Tamil David) and his companion L.N. Wardsworth (sic), an Indian Tamil from Colombo in Sri Lanka. David was invited by a CMS pastor from Mavelikara. When he was in Trivandrum, he received another invitation from the Vicar General of the ‘Reformed Syrians’ to preach among them. From 9th to 18th March 1895, he held a Bible convention in Maramon for ten days. On 18th March Metropolitan Titus himself opened the service and concluded it with prayer. David and Wardsworth took communion from the Metropolitan70. Soon David and Wardsworth embraced the Brethren Movement. However, henceforward ‘Maramon Convention’ became one of the largest annual Christian gatherings in Asia reiterating the Evangelical (Revival) spirit of MTC. C.M. Agur writes on the shift in the doctrinal orientation of the Reform Movement: “Present reforms of the reformed Church: In proportion to the light received, the Syrian Christians are beginning to modify the practices, rules and orthodox doctrines of their church….. The doctrinal reforms begun by Abraham Malpan are still going on the Reformed Syrian Church. Abraham

68 Chacko (1949), p. 20. 69 Chacko (1949), p. 20. 70 Agur, pp. 185–188. According to one report, David said that he would have spitted the Eucharist, if the elements of the Lord’s Supper had contained the real flesh and blood. K.V. Simon, Malankarayile Verpadu Sabhakalude Charitram, Kumbanadu, 1939, p. 41; (Quoted by Mathai John [1996], p. 32, n.17). Such attitude towards Eucharist prevailed among a strong group of Marthomites during the fixation of the liturgical texts.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

62

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

Malpan, when he revised the Syrian Liturgy expunged only such portions as referred to prayers to the saints, prayers for the dead &c., but left unaltered the current notions about the Eucharist, Baptism, &c. Some of the reformed clergy now hold that the Lord’s Supper is no sacrifice but only a remembrance of a sacrifice. They also believe that baptism is not regeneration, and that regeneration is not necessarily affected at the time and by the effect of baptism, which is only a symbol of regeneration. Some of the clergy are also earnest ‘Life and Advent believers’. Of course, these beliefs are not all universally accepted by the Reformed Church, but only by some of the enlightened and leading Cattanars, and many of the educated youths have accepted them. Cases of the doctrinal changes: Such changes in the doctrines and belief of the Syrian Christians have chiefly been effected by the labours of the special missionaries above mentioned, the books, pamphlets and magazines published by the Keswick convention, and by the healthy literature of the American life and Advent believers freely scattered among them”71. Like the bishops and the leading clergy of the Orthodox side, Abraham Malpan, Mathews Athanasius and Thomas Athanasius or other leading clergy of the reform movement were lacking a theological training and knew almost nothing about the Syriac or Eastern tradition. Most of them had an elementary knowledge of Syriac language, often merely to sing or chant prayers. We have but a highly exaggerated view of their ‘scholarship’ which is uncritically repeated even today. The rhetoric of the Evangelical preachers was viewed with high esteem and taken for the true teaching of the Bible. Consequently, under their influence, the Reform group lost the Eastern ethos. 9.1. Works of J.G. Gregson The works of David and Wardsworth were taken up by J.G. Gregson, an English Baptist minister who left the Baptist Church and joined the Keswick Movement. In 1896, he came to India as a Keswick preacher. Mr. C.P. Thomas, younger brother of Rev. C.P. Philipose, Ayroor, met him in Madras and recommended that he may be invited to preach in the Church. Thus, the Metropolitan Titus I officially invited him to preach among the Reformed Syrians. In 1897, Gregson went around churches and preached along with Wardsworth. In 1898 he was again invited, and he came with a three-year programme, accompanied by Miss Gregson and Mrs. Nicholson and others of Brethren persuasion72. In September 1898, Mr. Gregson conducted Biblical and Theological classes for about one month in Ayroor Church for the priests and preachers of the Reformed faction. He met all expenses of the participants. Mr. T.C. Chacko writes on the impacts of this ‘Brethren mission’: “As the classes ended, many began to question the validity of Infant Baptism, Holy Orders and the traditions and customs of the Episcopal Church. Meanwhile Mr. Gregson established links with Mr. V.N. Nagel, Separatist Brethren preacher. One of the priests [Rev. P.E. Mammen] became the disciple of Mr. Nagel. He left the Church 71 Agur, pp. 188–189. 72 Mrs. Nicholson, founder of Nicholson Syrian School for Girls, Tiruvalla, was a supporter of adult baptism.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

‘Anglicans’ and the Syrians

63

and received believer’s baptism. This was the most difficult situation within the Church had to face consequent to the revival of 1896”73. The Revival Preachers of Brethren persuasion popularized their ideas through preaching, Bible Study, and pamphlets. A significant number of Marthomites came under their influence. This led to the emergence of two groups in MTC: one more traditional (‘Conservatives’) and another more radical and Evangelical (‘Radical Reformers’). The radicals wanted to have further reforms in the light of the Scriptures. Following the Brethrens, the radical reformers rejected the idea of Eucharist as sacrifice. [In fact, this was not a major theme in the Syriac Eucharistic theology.] According to them, the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ, but a means to commemorate the death of Christ. These ideas deeply influenced the liturgical reforms in the Marthoma Church in the early decades of the 20th century. The bishops had little control over the liturgical matters and several laypeople and priests took control of the discussions. But very few had a respectable knowledge of Syriac language and the history of the liturgy. The advocates of radical reform had a knowledge of the Bible and theology through the preaching and tracts published by the revival movements came from outside Kerala. The active presence of the Revival groups in Kerala had another impact on the nonCatholic Syriac Churches in Kerala. Pentecostals and all kinds of Sectarian groups from USA, England and Europe arrived and made converts mainly among the Marthomites, Protestants and the Orthodox.

10. ‘Anglicans’ and the Syrians After the Royal Court verdict there was a confusion in the MTC regarding its liturgy and identity74. As the Old Seminary was lost, a group of deacons moved to CNI (Cambridge Nicholson Institute?) to continue their studies. [This would explain why Rev. Palmer was appointed to lead the liturgical revision Committee in 1900, see below). Another group joined Kovoor Ipe Thoma Kathanar and stayed and travelled with him in order to continue their clergy training. In 1872, The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) of the Anglican Church was translated into Malayalam. Students of CNI regarded this prayer book with great esteem. As Fr. Kovoor was a firm supporter of the move to popularize the BCP, his followers and students of CNI wanted to replace the Syriac liturgy with the Anglican rite. Meanwhile, Bishop Titus I convened a meeting of the “Consultative Committee” of the Marthoma Church (Samudaya Alochana Yogam) in Maramon. A pro-Syrian group of leading priests consisting of Rev. C.P. Philipose Kasheesha, Ayroor, Thazhathu Chandapilla Kathanar, Kottayam and Puthenpuracakl Mathai Kathanar, Thumpamon, argued for continuing the traditional Syrian rites and symbols. Thus, they insisted on continuing the use of candles, censor, cross and liturgical dresses in the celebration of the Holy Qurbana. But 73 Chacko (1949), Ayroorachen, p. 48. Mr. K.V. Simon, a noted writer and poet from MTC also received adult baptism and joined the Brethren Church. His conversion was decisive in the spread of Brethren and Pentecostal sects in Kerala. 74 I owe this information to: Mathew Varghese Thumpamon (ed.), Chronicles of Puthenpurackal Mathai Kathanar (in Malayalam: Puthenpurackal Mathai Kathanarude Dinavruthanthakurippukal)

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

64

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

Kovoor Ipe Thoma Kathanar, and the teachers and students of CNI wanted to introduce the Malayalam Translation of BCP and Anglican liturgical rites. They caused disturbances in the meeting and threatened to walkout. Bishop Titus I wanted to keep both group together and to avoid a division in the Church. Thus, the effort to introduce a uniform Taksa failed. Subsequent developments in MTC are to be understood in the light of this conflict between ‘Anglican/Radical Reformers’ and ‘Conservative’ factions. There was a strong minority pro-Syrian group who wanted to continue the Eastern liturgical traditions to which they were familiar with. Punnathra Chandapilla Kathanar from Kottayam (1845–1931) was one among them. In his memoirs published in Malayalam (Vilapangalude cherupusthakom; A booklet of Lamentations) he wrote: “Until recently in our churches, church bells were rung in the evening and morning, lamps were lighted in the evening, that means, the priests of the parish and the people nearby came together to pray and to worship God, lighting candles and offering incense. (They used to) sing hymns and to worship God regularly twice a day in the churches”75. Those who were under the influence of Anglican and Evangelical teachings regarded such things as superstitions and senseless practices. Gradually the pro-Syrian group was reduced to silence and the MTC adopted a rather protestant orientation.

11. Reformed Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Church For the use of the faithful, a reformed version of the Diakonia was published in 185676. As a counter measure, the Orthodox faction also published a Malayalam version in 1859. The differences between the two are not much. However, the following are to be noted. 1. In the initial qauma of the Orthodox text, Lord’s prayer was followed by Hail Mary, certainly adopted from the Catholics. Even though Hail Mary is theologically acceptable, it is not part of the Syrian Orthodox qauma. In the reformed version of the Diakonia (1856), Hail Mary has been dropped. The Orthodox group, which had no idea about the origins of this prayer, resented to this change. 2. The intercession to the Blessed Virgin and prayers for the departed were either dropped or modified. Generally speaking, the early reforms were limited to the prayers in the ordo communis, preparation rites, pre-anaphora and the post communion. As these prayers can be used by the people, leaders must have thought that the prayers can imprint ideas which were regarded as ‘erroneous’. We can assume that such changes were made here and there by priests who were 75 Thazhath (1925), Vilapangal, pp. 7–8. 76 See Mathai John (1996), ch. V, pp. 70–95. It was reprinted in 1890. According to the diary of Thazhathu Punnathra Chandapilla Cathanar, a booklet containing the ordo communis was printed in 1870. Cf. Rev. Abraham Varghese (ed.), Thazthau Punnathra Chandapilla Kathanarude Diarv kurippukal, Thiruvalla, 2016, pp. 71, 86–87. The diary gives the impression that this booklet was the first Marthoma liturgical text to be published.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Reformed Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Church

65

zealous for reforms. Much more significant reforms were introduced after 1900, under the influence of the Evangelical preachers, who were often without any Church affiliation. In their official publications, Marthoma Church has never acknowledged this influence and regularly points out the role of Abraham Malpan, with some exaggeration. In the forward to the Mar Thoma Taksa (1942), Titus II Metropolitan speaks of an attempt of liturgical reform in 1863 (ME 1038): “About the year [ME] 1038 (AD 1863), a Committee for the revision of the Taksa was appointed at the interest of the CMS Missionaries who came to help the Malankara Church. But it was not fruitful because of the opposition from the conservative group in the Church. But in our Church, the Order of the Qurbana was composed and got printed for the first time by the late Vicar General Fr. Ipe Thoma [Kovoor]”77. In a document entitled Chila Supradhana rekhakal (‘Some Important documents’) we have a fairly complete description of the history of the Marthoma Liturgy78. The introduction of the description begins with the following words: “Abraham Malpan, the author of reforms in the Syrian Church, has not recorded any principles of reform, nor he has formulated the reformed doctrines. In no way he had the intention of founding a new Church. [Abraham] Malpan started reforms by changing some phrases and words in the existing Syriac Taksa in the light of the scripture (…). He was convinced that they did not agree with the Scripture”79. Then the introduction continues80: “The priests who followed the reform of Abraham Malpan used to celebrate qurbana with the Syriac text before their eyes and translated (ex tempore) into Malayalam, accepting the changes he had made according to the principles of reforms. It was Rev. [Ipe Thoma] Kovoor, the Vicar General who published a Taksa in Malayalam for the first time81. There was no authorized Order of the Qurbana in Malayalam; and (qurbana) was celebrated with extemporary translation. This was not helpful for [maintaining] uniformity [in prayers]. The differences regarding the teaching existed among some of the priests and laypeople of the Church became clear when attempts were made to publish an authorized Taksa in Malayalam”.

77 Taksa (1942), p. i. As we have seen, Fr. Ipe Thoma Kovoor had probably no role in the translation and publication of the Taksa of 1872. However, this has become the official position of the MTC since the Taksa revisions of 1920s. 78 Some Important Documents (on the Faith and customs of the Marthoma Church) (in Malyalam), TAM Press, Tiruvalla, 1965, pp. 18–27. [Quoted Important Documents (1965)]. Brief descriptions are given in the Introduction to the Marthoma Taksa (1942) by Titus II and Taksa (1954) by Yuhanon Mar Thoma. 79 Important Documents (1965), p. 18. I have tried my best to give a literal translation as far as possible. But priority has been given to clarity. 80 Important Documents (1965), pp. 18–19. 81 The Important documents do not say that Fr. Ipe Thoma composed the Taksa of 1872, but that he got it published.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

66

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

The liturgy published in 1872 did not get wider acceptance. Several priests continued to use manuscripts of Syriac anaphora and made extemporary translations into Malayalam82. As a result, there were striking differences in the Malayalam versions. Priests made changes according to their interests. In the preface to the 1954 Liturgy, Yuhanon Mar Thoma says: “Since 1895 priests began to introduce changes at their own will. Thus Fr. Thazhathu dropped the initial prayer, You who took flesh from Mary…”83. As the differences (often in the use of phrases and expression) increased, in 1900 (ME 1075), Metropolitan Titus I appointed a “Committee for Purging the Prayer Book” (Prarthana Pusthaka Shuchikarana Committee) in order to prepare an “Order of Qurbana” ‘generally acceptable to all’. An Anglican priest, Rev. Palmer, Principal of CNI (Cambridge Nicholson Institute, Kottayam?) was appointed as the president of the eight-member Committee, who was most probably not an expert on liturgical matters. During the first session of the Committee, Fr. Stephanos Peedikayil, one of the members, strongly objected to the appointment of Rev. Palmer. According to him, it is not at all fitting that a member of the Western Church presides over the liturgical revision Committee of an Eastern Church84. Rev. Palmer resigned. However, the Committee prepared a “tentative” Eucharistic liturgy and in 1900 (ME 1075), it was published85. The new liturgy did not get acceptance. In 1911, P.V. Joseph Kathanar published Marthoma Liturgies and other offices. All texts, except the Burial service, are the same as that of the Orthodox Church86. In 1914 (ME 1089), the Consultative Assembly appointed another Committee for liturgical revision which also could not produce any result87. Discussions went on and the reformists gained popularity among the faithful.

12. Liturgical Revision Committees of 1923–1926 The Consultative Assembly of ME 1098 (1923) appointed a Committee consisting of 36 members and a subcommittee of 12 for revising the Taksa. One year later (ME 1099=AD 1924) the Assembly appointed another Committee for further discussions and to prepare a detailed report providing reasons and justification for the reforms88. They formulated the doctrines of MTC regarding the Eucharist and made a list of corrections to be made and

82 Until the middle of the 20th century, good number of bishops and priests of the Orthodox Church followed this practice. 83 Preface to Taksa (1954), p. ii. Here the Metropolitan refers to the eqbo before Mongenes ‘Mary who brought you forth...’. In fact, it was one of the prayers modified by the Reformers. In fact, Fr. Thazhathu was a leading member of the Conservative group. 84 M.M. Samuel, Peedikayil Stephanos Kathanar, Loyal Press, Mavelikara, 1970, p. 9. Quoted by Mathai John, 1996, p. 68. 85 Titus II, Foreword to Taksa (1942), p. i. 86 Mathai John (1996), p. 81, n.19. 87 Important Documents (1965), p. 19. 88 Chacko (1949), p. 126.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Liturgical Revision Committees of 1923–1926

67

submitted the report to the Assembly met in 1924. Subsequently another Committee of 12 members was appointed89. Among them, five were priests and seven laymen. Among the priests only Rev. Olasseril Joseph Malpan II (b. 1875) could translate the Syriac text of the Anaphora. His father (late Olasseril Joseph Malpan) was a student of Abraham Malpan in 1830s. He attended only two sessions and later published his notes of dissent. Another priest (Rev. K.T. Thomas) had learnt Syriac, probably could read liturgical texts. Rev. C.P. Philipose was influenced by the Brethren preaching which was held regularly at his home in Thiruvalla. Several laymen were nominated because of their social repute and status, rather than their competence in theology or liturgy90: 1. Rev. Olasseril Joseph Malpan II (knew some Syriac); 2. Rev. C.P. Philipose (influenced by the Brethren preachers); 3. Rev. K.T. Thomas (could read Syriac); 4. Rev. George John; 5. Rev. K.E. Oommen (convener of the Committee, later stepped down and was replaced with Mr. C.P. Mathew, son of Rev. C.P. Philipose, but unlike his father, he was a conservative); 6. Mr. P.J. Varghese (lawyer and judge, conservative); 7. C.K. Mathen (lawyer and Divan Peshkar or Government secretary); 8. K.K. Kuruvilla (theological graduate and teacher, conservative); 9. Mr. C.P. Mathew (professor of philosophy); 10. P.V. Varghese (a teacher); 11. T.C. Varkey (influenced by the Brethren preachers); 12. K.N. Daniel. Five sessions were held and only C.P. Mathew attended all the five sessions. K.N. Daniel had read some theological literature and published several pamphlets and articles, including a study on the anaphoras91. As most of the members were ignorant in liturgical and theological matters, Daniel could dominate the discussions with his rhetoric. He was influenced by the Brethren ideals, but accepted infant baptism and episcopacy. Under his leadership a group of radicals broke away from MTC and formed the St Thomas Evangelical Church. In the sessions there were heated arguments between the Reformists and the conservatives. As the report of the Committee was drafted, Daniel and Mathew prepared two separate appendices on behalf of the group which they represented. The first was led by K.N. Daniel and the latter by C.P. Mathew, the convener of the Committee. In fact, two reports were made: first in March 1925 and the second in September 1925, replacing the first with further additions and modifications. The radicals wanted to have a liturgy with more Evangelical orientation. The conservatives had to make concessions, probably to avoid an immediate division. Fr. Thazhathu wrote on the difficulties that the Committee faced. His words reflect the disappointments of a priest who wanted to retain the Syriac liturgical practices: “During the session of the Consultative Assembly last year (i.e., 1925), I placed some papers (before it) and explained them, which called for the establishment of the Seminary and the translation of various liturgies. But Brother Mr. Daniel and some others raised objections against them, in order to press for reforms. It was reckoned to 89 Mathai John gives a brief description of each of them; Ibid. pp. 96–98. 90 This happens even today in MTC and the Orthodox Church. 91 K.N. Daniel, A Critical Study of the Primitive Liturgies, Kottayam, 1937. It is not a scholarly work, though he gives an impressive bibliography. Daniel argues that the ‘Jacobites’ have introduced several ideas, words and phrases contrary to the Bible and the faith of the early Church.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

68

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

be an occasion to incorporate the doctrinal teachings of reformist Churches like the (Plymouth) Brethren, and to bring about changes in the current liturgies and to mutilate them…..that this report is not in accordance to the directives of the Assembly… that the pamphlets published by Mr. Daniel sometime ago, prove that the Taksa which is part of the report and the changes in that Taksa were suggested by Mr. Daniel even before 1922 (…). And that the committee had no mandate to tamper with the text of the liturgy or to revise it, but only to bring out exact translation (…). Dear ones in the Lord, do not let weeds to be sown in the Church as seeds. The book recently published by Mr. Daniel92 is aimed at the destruction of our ancient faith and practices and to instruct our youngsters in the doctrines of Churches like (Plymouth) Brethren, who reject the Church, ministry and sacraments, the ancient institutions...”93. The Committee approved unanimously the Principles of Liturgical Reform on 31st Chingom 1101 (15th September 1925). The Joint Statement reads: [Principles of Liturgical Reform]94: 1. In the Eucharist Christ gives Himself to the faithful and they consume Him. 2. There are two views: that the holy body and blood of the Lord are present in the midst of the worshippers (in and) through the sanctified bread and wine; and the other that they are not present. The Church does not enjoin the one or reject the other. 3. Yet the Church rejects the teachings that some physical change takes place in the bread and wine; or that a localization or localized presence of Christ takes place in them. But these (rejections) in no way affect point two mentioned above. 4. The Eucharist is: – An act commemorating and proclaiming our Lord who offered Himself as the eternal sacrifice for the salvation of the whole world and His death. – The sacrificial feast to eat and to drink Christ who was offered as the sacrifice. – The pledge to the certainty of the salvation through Christ. – The means of incorporation with Christ and mutually between the faithful. – The thanksgiving to proclaim our gratitude to Christ for the salvation through Christ and for all benefits we enjoy from God. – The supplication unto God for all blessings from the eternal sacrifice of Christ. – An offering unto God in which the Church offers herself as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, in union with the sacrifice of Christ. But in no way Christ is slain in the Eucharist as a sacrifice. 5. The Eucharist is to be partaken by the faithful, not to be adored. 6. The Church rejects the teaching that remission of sins is obtained only be confessing the sins to a priest. 92 K.N. Daniel, Malankara Sabha. Charitravum Upadeshavum, 2nd ed., R.V. Press, Tiruvalla, 1924. 93 Fr. Thazhathu, Velipadu, p. 39. Chacko (1949), pp. 126–130 gives another account. 94 From Thaksa Committiyude Report, R.V. Press, Tiruvalla, 1925, pp. 9–10; also, Important Documents (1965), pp. 23–24.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan

69

7. Those who receive the Holy Eucharist in true repentance and active faith are united to Christ. But by this holy celebration, like any other (act) man does not earn or increase merit before God. 8. The priest is the indispensable organ of the Church, the royal priesthood, appointed by God to conduct that service and (he is) also the ambassador of Christ for the Church. But he is not a mediator-priest, who stands in between God and the people”95. The Committee prepared a liturgy with 51 changes based on the above principles and linguistic corrections. The first singular “I” said by the priest was invariably changed into the plural form “We” (‘me’ with ‘us’ etc.). This was, according to them, to eliminate any slightest suggestion of ‘mediatory priesthood’.

13. Reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan K.N. Daniel played the most vital role in the adoption of the principles of Reforms and the list of liturgical reforms allegedly made by Abraham Malpan. The document entitled Important Documents (1965) gives an account of the developments96: “In the Consultative Assembly of 1923 (ME 1098) Mr. K.N. Daniel moved some resolutions on the reform of the Taksa. The resolutions on the prayer for the departed and the intercession to the departed saints were passed unanimously and easily. But Mr. K.N. Daniel and Mr. K.K. Kuruvilla moved resolutions regarding the meaning of the qurbana. Several members (spoke) expressing their views for and against the resolutions. Without making an immediate decision on this (subject), twelve-member committee was elected to make detailed discussion on it and on the changes to be introduced in the Taksa. In [ME] 1102 (AD 1927), they presented a unanimous report and a Taksa before the Consultative Assembly. The Consultative Assembly passed only the part of the report which contained the ten changes introduced in the Taksa by Abraham Malpan and the three changes in the practices”97. The Important Documents (1965) gives the background of adopting the “ten plus three” list by the Consultative Assembly, beginning with the following words: “Mar Thoma Church members shall know the circumstances which led to the passing of only a small part of the report. The resolutions on qurbana (moved by) the Committee and the Taksa presented by them were acceptable for the majority of the members of the Consultative Assembly. But there was a minority which thought that the changes recommended in the Taksa are ‘unnecessary and undesirable. They strongly objected to it. In the disturbed situation, it was feared that people who are not 95 Report of the Committee (1925), pp. 9–10; Important Documents (1965), pp. 23–24. 96 Important Documents (1965), pp. 18–23. 97 Important Documents (1965), pp. 18–20.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

70

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

members of the Consultative Assembly may enter the hall where the meeting is held and make commotion. So, the authorities sought police protection. Before the beginning of the meeting, authorities of the Assembly and leading members gathered together here and there and held discussions. Very Rev. V.P. Mammen expressed his opinion emotionally saying that it is lamentable to adopt the Taksa with police protection and ignoring the opposition of a small minority. [Bishop] Titus II and Abraham Mar Thoma found this opinion acceptable. Therefore, when the meeting was held, only part of the (report) where the [Committee] members had listed the reforms introduced by Abraham Malpan was passed”98. In the official version of the Mar Thoma Church, the changes are attributed to Abraham Malpan and Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan. We shall quote from the introduction written by Yuhanon Mar Thoma to the Taksa of 1954: “It was the Church Council (alochanasabha) of [ME] 1102 [=1926 AD] that has recorded and given us the reforms made by Abraham Malpan and others [….]. The following are the reforms made in the Taksa used here in [ME] 1012 (=1837) AD) by Abraham Malpan and Kaithayil Geevarghese Malpan and others, authors of the modern reforms. 1. All prayers addressed to the saints were removed. 2. All prayers for the departed were removed. 3. The following prayer [at the time of communion] was removed: ‘Thee I hold, who holdest the bounds of the world, Thee I grasp, who orderest the depth; Thee, O God, do I place in my mouth…’. 4. The prayer, ‘we offer Thee this bloodless sacrifice for Thy Holy Church throughout the world…’ to read ‘we offer this prayer for the Church’. 5. The prayer ‘we offer this living sacrifice’ was changed to read ‘we offer this sacrifice of grace, peace and praise’. 6. The statement ‘this Eucharist is … sacrifice and praise’ was removed. 7. The declaration that ‘the Holy Spirit sanctifies the censer’ was removed. 8. The rubric about the blessing of the censer was omitted. 9. [The phrases in the Epiclesis] ‘May [the Holy Spirit] make this bread life giving body and salvific body’ was changed to read ‘May He [Holy Spirit] with the hovering make this bread the body of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and life eternal for those who receive it’. 10. The prayer (when the veil is lifted up) ‘Thou art the rock of flint set against the tomb of our Saviour’ and changed to read ‘Thou art the [stone] tested and rejected by the labourers and the precious rock of flint’. The following changes also were introduced [Abraham Malpan]: 1. It was decided to give communion in both kinds. 2. The custom of receiving absolution by confessing sins to the priest was abolished.

98 Ibid. pp. 20–21.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan

71

3. The custom of celebrating the Eucharist when there is no one (besides the priest) was abolished”99. In fact, it was a ‘formula of compromise’ accepted by the reformists and the conservatives to avoid a division. Mr. T.C. Chacko gives a brief account of the Consultative Assembly of ME 1102 (AD 1926): “The subject [of reform] was discussed in the Assembly of [ME] 1102 (AD 1926)100. On the first day, the meeting was held peacefully. On the second day, Dhanu 14, it was not possible to hold quiet and peaceful discussion. So the meeting was postponed to the next day”. Some priests and laypeople met and made special prayers. After discussions, the Committee reached a consensus. “The following condition was agreed: Accepted the ten reforms and three practices introduced by Abraham Malpan in the Taksa, and the Taksa shall be composed on their basis”101. In the reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan, no reference has been made to the Reformed liturgy of 1836. Henceforward the official documents of MTC are silent on this important text (e.g., The introductions to the Taksas published in 1942 and 1954). This would support my observation that Abraham Malpan probably played no role in the composition of the 1836 liturgy. But the liturgy composed by the missionaries in 1872 has been attributed to Kovoor Ipe Thoma Kathanar and mentioned in the official documents of MTC, such as the introductions to the Taksas. The ideas and arguments of K.N. Daniel were certainly decisive in articulating the principles of liturgical reforms and the list of reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan. Following the defeat in the litigations in which MTC lost all churches, there were confusions and disappointments everywhere. Bishops or clergy were not capable of giving a spiritual and theological orientation. [The Orthodox Church also had a similar situation]. Several dedicated laymen like C.P. Mathew, K.K. Kuruvilla and K.N. Daniel came forward to fill the vacuum. Mr. Mathew represented the ‘conservative’ group. The other two were deeply influenced by the teachings of the Brethren preachers, which appeared to them as genuinely biblical. As the clergy did not have proper theological training and knowledge of the Biblical studies, revival preachers were invited to visit parishes freely. As we can imagine, these preachers were critical of the Eastern liturgical rites and spiritual practices and people felt being ‘enlightened’ by the knowledge of the Bible. This marks the beginning of a shift in the identity of the Marthoma Church. Syriac prayers and rites were seen as superstitions, corrupt

99 Yuhanon Mar Thoma, Introduction, Taksa (1954), pp. iii–iv. Also, Report of the Taksa Committee (1925), pp. 1–2; Some Important Documents (1965) (in Malayalam), pp. 20–21; Mathai John (1996) quotes from the Minutes book of the Samudayalochana Sabha for the month of December 1926: 28, 29 & 30), pp. 274ff. The four sources give the same text. 100 The Assembly was held from 13 to 15 Dhanu 1102 (= 28–30 December 1926. As the difference between ME and AD is 825 years, usually the date is given as 1927 in official sources of MTC. But it must be 1926. 101 Chacko (1949), p. 129. According to T.C. Chacko, C.P. Philipose Kasheesha played a vital role to get the acceptance of the Assembly and the majority of priests. Ibid. pp. 129–130.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

72

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

practices contrary to the Scripture. However, under the influence of the ‘conservative group’, the MTC retained its Episcopal structure with Evangelical orientations. However, the Assembly of MTC met in 1926, accepted the list of Reforms attributed to Abraham Malpan, but the liturgy prepared by the Committee was put aside. The different interpretations on the doctrine of Eucharist continued to be circulated and there emerged a ‘liturgical anarchy’, as the priests used any liturgy as they pleased102.

14. Taksa of Titus II (1942) Though the reformed order of the qurbana presented by the Taksa revision Committee was not passed by the Consultative Assembly of December 1926, it was published under the initiative of Titus II. We shall quote from the Important Documents (1965)103: “Though the Taksa presented by the [Reform] Committee before the Consultative Assembly was not passed under the circumstances described above, most of the priests began to use it. Titus II wished to get the Taksa of the Committee printed and published, as he found that in the absence of an officially accepted Taksa, undesirable diversity will prevail in the celebration of the qurbana. When this was discussed in the Synod, the following decision was made, taking into account the delay which may occur if the Taksa will be read phrase by phrase and approved: ‘As in the case of other services composed and published by the Church for the use of various occasions, Order of the Qurbana also shall be arranged under the supervision of the Metropolitan, according to the Principles of Reforms and the concepts confirmed by the Consultative Assembly of 1102 (AD 1927)’104. It was on the basis of that decision that in 1942, Titus II published the Taksa containing the order of St James with six other orders and an order of the qurbana for the sick as well as SedraPromiun”. Thus, the liturgy compiled by the Committee in 1925 was published with a few changes. They are: 1. The deacon’s proclamation when the priest puts incense was retained. 2. Eucharistic elements are referred to as “Holies”, instead of “Holy Things”. [In fact, this shows the lack of knowledge of Syriac by the members. It is a question of the translation into Malayalam. The Syriac expression “qudshe l-qadishe” – “Sancta sanctis” means “Holy things to the holy” (or those who are holy).] 3. Intercession to the Holy Virgin was left out. Both groups agreed to the use of the prayer of administering the communion as: “The Holy Body of our Lord Jesus Christ that was broken and his Holy Blood that was shed on Golgotha are given to you for the healing of soul and body”.

102 Mathai John, p. 108. 103 Important Documents (1965), pp. 22–23. 104 It must be 1926 (December), as ME 1102 begins in mid-August 1926.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Taksa of the Synod (1954)

73

But the Radical Reformists led by K.N. Daniel objected, because according to them the formula implies that Eucharist is recognized as the effective means for divine grace for the healing of the body and the soul of the believers. They wanted to have further reforms. Taksa of Titus II is the most widely used liturgy in the MTC (for the list of other Syriac anaphoras included in the Taksa of 1942 see below).

15. Taksa of the Synod (1954) For the conservative group, the Taksa of 1942 (Titus II) was more ‘Evangelical’ and for the reformists it needed further changes. After the demise of Titus II [in 1944], Mr. K.N. Daniel insistently requested Abraham Mar Thoma to make further revisions in the Taksa, and in 1945 the Episcopal Synod appointed a ‘Committee for the Revision of the Order of Prayers’ with 14 members, including both reformists and conservatives105. In 1951, the Committee presented its report along with a revised order of the celebration of the Eucharist. In 1954, the Synod published it with a few minor changes. This edition is popularly known as Taksa of the Synod. K.N. Daniel disagreed with the changes and filed a suit against Metropolitan Yuhanon Marthoma to oust him on charges of apostasy and selfalienation from the MTC. The plaint (§19) says: “The first defendant (= Yuhanon Marthoma) as, in diverse ways, tried to reintroduce into the Taksa many things which Abraham Malpan had expurgated from the Jacobite Taksa, finding them to be contrary to the faith and practices of the MTC.”106 Thus, the Orthodoxy of the doctrines became an issue to be decided by the Judicial courts mainly consisting of Hindu judges. Daniel lost the case in the trial court, High Court of Kerala, and the Supreme Court of India. The honourable judges were not aware of the doctrinal differences between various Churches, pronounced the verdict on the basis of the literature and the arguments presented before them. However, they made some interesting observations in their verdict: “… we proceed to give our decision on the material in our possessions and the arguments based on them, such as they were.”107 “This Church follows the Syrian rite and Syrian liturgy of St James with the emendations of Abraham Malpan. Unfortunately, this reformer has left no written record of his views and no special formularies which could be regarded as the fundamental articles of the new creed… Ten reforms of Abraham Malpan are outlined in the Report. These reforms are the foundation of the claims made in this suit. All references to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, all invocations to the Saints and prayers for the dead were omitted from the liturgy”108. 105 Important Documents (1965), p. 23. See the list of the Committee members in Taksa (1954), p. vi. Of the fourteen members nine were priests and five laymen (K.N. Daniel was one among them). 106 Mathai John (1996), p. 109, n.18. 107 Faith on Trial, p. 180f. 108 Ibid. p. 182.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

74

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

As Daniel lost the case in the trial Court, he appealed to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court of India. In 1965, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal by Daniel. Meanwhile in 1961, the radical group broke away from the MTC and founded the St Thomas Evangelical Church of India. However, Daniel continued in the MTC, lest he would lose the court case on the ground of leaving the Church. The Synod’s Taksa (1954) is different from the Taksa of Titus II (1942), as it was published to satisfy the ‘Evangelical group’ led by K.N. Daniel. In the 1954 Taksa, PostSanctus has been dropped. In the case of the Epiclesis, the following two forms are given (after the usual silent prayer): “Blessing the bread, the Priest says: May the Holy Spirit sanctify this bread that it may be the holy body of our Lord Jesus Christ OR May the Holy Spirit bless this bread and sanctify it that it may be for us the fellowship in the body of Your Beloved Son and our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Blessing the chalice, the priest says: May the Holy Spirit sanctify the Wine in the chalice that it may be the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ OR May the Holy Spirit bless this chalice and sanctify it that it may be for us the fellowship of the blood Your Beloved Son and our Lord and God Jesus Christ”109. This is followed by the following note (with the mark N.B.): “Body and blood said in these prayers can be understood in the sense of type”110. In a few instances a black line has been printed on the left margin111. The introduction says: “(These) prayers can be omitted, according to convenience, to save time. They do not contain any special teachings”112. These prayers include (i). the prayers that follow the sixth diptych (for the departed); (ii). Embolism of the Lord’s Prayer; greeting of the peace; deacon’s exhortation to bow down the heads and the prayer that follows. It shall be noted that they are part of the Syriac anaphora of St James. Between the Creed and the washing of the hands, provision for an Anglican type of ‘confession’ has been inserted. [In the Taksa of Titus II, a prayer of confession, inspired by the Anglican prayer has been given.]113 The theology of Eucharist, followed by MTC is typically Protestant. In the introduction to the Taksa of the Synod (1954), Metropolitan Yuhanon Mar Thoma gives the freedom to interpret the prayers114. Thus, the Radicals and the conservatives follow their own interpretations.

109 110 111 112 113

Taksa (1954), p. 38. Ibid. Taksa (1954), p. 44, 45, 53 and 55. Introduction by Metropolitan Yuhanon Mar Thoma, p. xii. Taksa of Titus (1942), the prayer has been printed on the page facing the table of contents. No page number is given. 114 Taksa (1954), p. xiv.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

The Taksas now used in the Mar Thoma Church

75

16. The Taksas now used in the Mar Thoma Church The Taksa of Titus II got wider acceptance. In its fifth edition (TAM Press, Tiruvalla, 1995) reformed/revised Malayalam text of seven ‘order of Qurbana’ is given. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Order of Qurbana (kurbanakramom) of Mar Jacob Metropolitan Mar Dionysius [Bar Salibi] Patriarch Mar Sixtus The Order of Qurbana said to be that of the Apostle Peter Patriarch Mar Yuhannon [Bar Shushan] Mar Thoma, Episkopa of Harkal Mar Ivanios Metropolitan (= John of Haran)

In addition to the above seven liturgies, the following two are given [composed by MTC following Syriac Anaphoras]: 1. Order of the Qurbana to be celebrated at home for the sick [Prayers are taken from different anaphoras; but the ordo has been abbreviated]. 2. Taksa of Qurbana [Shorter Version, adapted from the Anaphora of Dionysius Bar Salibi]. In the Intercessions (‘Dyptichs’), the names of the Anglican bishops are commemorated: “Remember O Lord, Our Father Mar Thoma Metropolitan and Moderator of the Church of North India and the Church of South India, who are in communion with us….”115. Thus, the Mar Thoma Church identifies itself as part of the Churches of Anglican Communion. Two English translations of the Liturgy of St James can be regarded as ‘Official Texts’: i. ii.

The Order of the Holy Qurbana. An English Version of St. James Liturgy as used in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, CLS, Madras, 1976. The Lord’s Supper of the Church of North India and of the Church of South India and the Holy Qurbana of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, ISPCK, New Delhi, 1982. (Mar Thoma Liturgy is given separately, pp. 39–64.)

In the second text (1982), the English text of 1976 has been reproduced without preparation rites and Pre-Anaphora. In the intercessions of the 1982 text, the names of the moderators of CNI and CSI are commemorated along with the Metropolitan of MTC. In both editions, PostSanctus (silent prayer in Syriac original) has been omitted. Likewise, after the Anamnesis (abridged) and people’s response, the main part of the epiclesis (also said silently) has been dropped. Apparently, the reason for the suppression is that both prayers are said silently (or in low voice). In the 1976 English text, alternate prayers have been given for intercessions. In the case of the prayer of communion, an Anglican formula has been added: “An Alternate form which may be used when administering the Elements: The Holy Body (Blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ, broken at Calvary (shed at Calvary) for the

115 Taksa of Titus II (1942), p. 27.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

76

VI. Marthoma Liturgy

remission of debts, forgiveness of sins, and for eternal life, is given to you. Take this with thanksgiving, in remembrance that Christ died for you”116. In the introduction to the 1982 text (written jointly by the Moderators of CNI, CSI and the Metropolitan of MTC), MTC declares itself as a Protestant Church: “The Joint Council of the Church of North India, the Church of South India and the Mar Thoma Church was inaugurated in July 1978, for the purpose of giving visible expression to the unity these three churches already have, because of their being in full communion with one another, their having a common faith represented by the acceptance of the Scriptures and the Creeds and the mutual acceptance of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry”. At the same time, in the intercessions, following the Syriac tradition, the first three Ecumenical Councils are remembered: “Deacon: Lord, we remember the three Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus, and all the holy fathers who participated in them. Lord, grant us grace that we may obey and follow their true doctrines”117. In fact, CNI and CSI belong to the Chalcedonian tradition. However, MTC has not yet made any official declaration of its Christological position.

116 The Order of Holy Qurbana (1972), p. 30. 117 Lord’s Supper (1982), p. 54; The Order of Holy Qurbana (1976), p. 19.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

VII. Conclusion In its origin, the reform movement was planned and promoted by the Anglican Missionaries and the young Abraham Malpan was used by them for implementing their plans. The Taksa of 1836 was composed by the missionaries and apparently Abraham Malpan played little or no role in it. Perhaps he was the first to celebrate this reformed version. The 1872 Taksa, closer to the original Syriac liturgy, was also composed and published by the missionaries and attributed to Kovoor Ipe Kathanar (who probably played no role in it). Most of the priests seem to have ignored it and continued to celebrate using manuscripts of Syriac liturgy and translated extempore. In 1926, MTC adopted a list of Reforms allegedly introduced in the liturgy by Abraham Malpan. Most probably, MTC adopted an exaggerated view of Abraham Malpan’s role in the reforms, under Thomas Athanasius and Titus I, the eldest and youngest sons of Abraham Malpan, who became the second and the third heads of MTC. The main problems with the Marthoma liturgy are the following: Firstly, the reforms/changes were almost never done in a systematic way. Thus “elements of Orthodox prayers coexist with definite Reformation features”1. Secondly, some of the essential elements of the Eucharistic prayer are abridged or other parts are dropped (e.g., Post-Sanctus and Epiclesis of St James). Thirdly, almost every edition of the liturgy is different from the previous one. We have noted a few examples. Fourthly, though MTC repeatedly claims that the reforms were made on the basis of scriptures, those who translated prayers from Syriac into Malayalam were not aware of the fact that several of the prayers were direct quotations from the Peshitta Bible2. Fifthly, the priests follow different versions and even introduce unauthorized improvisations of the liturgy. Mar Thoma Church has retained number of Eastern elements such as the use of the Nicene Creed without the addition of filioque, and the celibacy of bishops. Along with the liturgy, MTC has retained a few West Syriac features such as Trisagion with the Christological addition (“He who was crucified for us...”), liturgical instruments and vestments, including masnaptho (skymo) of the bishops. [Now in the liturgical celebrations, the priests and deacons do not wear black garments.] Western or Evangelical forms of worship are widely followed in prayer meetings in the parishes. Hymns from the Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and other books are found in the manuals of worship and are widely used in the Sunday morning service in the place of Syriac hymns and prayers. Several litanies and collects from Protestant prayer books are also adopted. The traditional canonical offices have been reduced to two (morning and Evening) with the singing of hymns from the Protestant Manuals. 1

Paul Verghese, “Mar Thoma Church Worship”, in J.G. Davies (ed.), A Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, SCM Press Ltd. 1972, pp. 251–253. Here p. 252. 2 E.g. 1 Kings 18:36; Ps. 145:1. In both cases the Malayalam translation uses first person plural (‘we’), whereas the original has first person singular (‘I’). Likewise, in the case of the Words of Institution, they were not aware of the fact that it was a conflation of Peshitta Gospel texts on the Last Supper or the multiplication of the bread.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Abbreviations BO: Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana JTS: The Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford) ME: Malayalam Era (began in mid-August 925 AD) MEP: Malankara Edavaka Patrika (Kottayam) MOC: Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church MTC: Marthoma (or Mar Thoma) Syrian Church OCA: Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome) OCP: Orientalia Christiana Periodica (Rome) PO: Patrologia Orientalis (Turnhout) SC: Sources Chrétiennes (Paris) SEERI: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, Kottayam SMC: Syro-Malabar Church

Bibliography I. General & Pre-Portuguese Period Birnie = M.J. Birnie, The Eastern Synods. From the Collection of the ‘Nestorian Synods’, San Jose, 1991 (English Translation of the Synodicon Orientale). Braun = Oscar Braun, Das Buch der Synhados oder Synodicon Orientale, Philo Press, Amsterdam, 1975 (Reprint). Briquel-Chatonnet (2008) = Françoise Chatonnet, Alain Desreumaux & Jacob Thekkeparamapil (eds.), Recueil des inscriptions syriaques, Tome I, Kérala, Paris, 2008. Brown, Leslie W., The Indian Christians of St Thomas, Cambridge, 1956, 2nd ed. 1982. Chronicle of Se’ert = Histoire nestorienne inédite (Chronique de Se’ert), ed. texte arabe et trad. fr. par A. Scher, Patrologia Orientalis IV-3, Paris 1907; PO V-2, Paris, 1910 ; PO VII-2, Paris, 1910 ; PO XII-4, 1918. Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography = W. Wolska-Conus (ed.), Cosmas Indicopleustès: Topographie chrétienne, Introduction et livres I–IV, tome I, Sources Chrétiennes, 141, Paris, 1968; id., Livre V, SC 159, Paris, 1970; id., Livres VI–XII, SC 197, Paris, 1973. Fiey (1970) = J.M. Fiey, Jalons pour une histoire de l’église en Iraq, CSCO 310, Subsidia 36, Louvain, 1970. Germann (1877) = W. Germann, Die Kirche der Thomaschristen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der orientalischen Kirchen, Gütersloh, 1877. Gignoux (1995) = Ph. Gignoux, “The Pahlavi Inscription on Mount Thomas Cross (South India)”, in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin & M. Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic and Semitic Studies in Honour of Jonas C. Greenfield, Winona Lake, IN, 1995, pp. 411–422. Hough (1829) = James Hough, History of Christianity in India, Vol. II, London, 1839.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

80

Bibliography

Joseph T.K. (1925) = The Malabar Christian Copper Plates, Trivandrum, 1925 (Malayalam). Makenzie (1901) = G.T. Mackenzie, History of Christianity in Travancore, Trivandrum, 1901. Reproduced in V. Nagam Aiya, Travancore State Manual, Vol. II, Trivandrum, 1906, Reprint, 1989]. Mingana (1926) = Alphonse Mingana, The Early Spread of Christianity in India, Manchester, 1926 [Reprinted from The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 10-2, 1926]. Panaino (2007) = Anonino Panaino, “The Pazand version of Our Father”, in A. Mustafa & J. Tubach (eds.), Inkulturation des Christentums im Sasanidenreich, Wiesbaden, 2007, pp. 73–90. Synodicon Orientale = J.B. Chabot (ed.), Synodicon Orientale, Paris, 1902 [Syriac Text and French Translation]. [Eng. tr.: M.J. Birnie, The Eastern Synods. From the Collection of the ‘Nestorian Synods’, San Jose, 1991.] Varghese (2015) = Baby Varghese, “The so-called Persian Crosses in South India: State of Research”, in Sidney H. Griffith & Sven Grebenstein (eds.), Christen in der islamischen Welt. Festschrift für Martin Tamcke zum 60. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 2015, pp. 388–399. Winkworth & Burkitt = C.P.T. Winkworth, & F.C. Burkitt, “Notes on the Pahlavi, Kufic and Hebrew Signatures to the Quilon Plates”, in Kerala Society Papers, Series 6, Vol. I, Trivandrum, 1928, pp. 320–323 (Reprint, 1977). [See also: Syro-Malabar Liturgy].

II. Syro-Malabar Liturgy 1. Sources Assemani, J.S., Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, 4 Vols. Rome, 1719–1728; Reprint, Hildesheim/New York/Olms, 1975. Ordo Chaldaicus Missae iuxta ecclesiae Malabaricae, superiorum permissu editus, Romae, 1774. Ordo Celebrationis Quddasa iuxta Ecclesiae Syro-Malabarensis, Rome, 1959. Order of the Solemn Form of Raza of the Syro-Malabar Church, approved by the Holy See on 19 December 1985, Trivandrum, San Jose Process, 1986. The Syro-Malabar Qurbana: The Order of Raza, Trivandrum, San Jose Process, 1989.

2. Studies Beltrami (1933) = Beltrami, Giuseppe, “La Chiesa nel Secolo dell’Unione”, Orientalia Christiana 29 (1933), fasc. 83, pp. 40–43. Burkitt, F.C (1928), “The Old Malabar Liturgy”, The Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1928), pp. 155–157. Chediath (1990) = G. Chediath, Indiayude Metrapolita Mar Abraham, (= Mar Abraham, Metropolitan of India), Kottayam, 1990 (Malayalam). Chabot (1909) = J.B. Chabot, “L’autodafé des livres syriaques du Malabar” in Florilegium ou recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à M. le marquis Melchior de Vogüé a l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance, 18 Oct. 1909, Paris, 1909. Connolly, R.H. (1914), “The Work of Menezes on the Malabar Liturgy”, JTS 15 (1914), pp. 396–425; 569–589. Francis Ros, A Report on the Serra = “Report on the Serra” (1603/1604) by Bishop Francis Ros, in Nedungatt (2001), pp. 299–367 (= Appendix IV). Geddes, Michael (1694), The History of the Church of Malabar, London, Smith, 1694. Gilman & Klimkeit (1999), = Ian Gilman & Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press, 1999.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Bibliography

81

Gouvea, A. (1606), Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Alexio de Menezes Primaz da India Oriental religioso da Ordem de S. Agostinho, Coimbra, 1606. Kanichikattil, Francis (1992), To Restore or to Reform. A Critical Study on Current Liturgical Renewal in the Syro-Malabar Church in India, Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 1992. Melekandathil, Pius (2004) (ed.), Jornada of Dom Alexis de Menezes: A Portuguese Account of the Sixteenth Century Malabar, LRC Publications, Kochi, 2003 (Second Impression). Mundadan (1967) = A. Mathias Mundadan, The Arrival of Portuguese in India and Thomas Christians under Mar Jacob (1498–1530), Dharmaram College, Bangalore, 1967. Mundadan (1984) = A. Mathias Mundadan et al, History of Christianity in India, Vol. I: From the Beginning up to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century, Church History Association of India, Bangalore, 1984. Mannooramparampil (1986) = Thomas Mannooramparampil, Syro-Malabar Kurbanayude Charitra Pachathalam (Malayalam; Historical Background of the Syro-Malabar Qurbana), Vadavathoor, Kottayam, 2nd ed, 1986. Mannooramparampil (2013) = id., “The Restored Text of the Syro-Malabar Qurbana in 1962 and its background”, The Harp 28 (2013), pp. 75–142. Nau, Francois, “Deux notices relatives au Malabar”, Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 17 (1912), pp. 77–81. Nedungatt (2001) = George Nedungatt (ed.), The Synod of Diamper Revisited, Kanonika 9, Rome, 2001. Pallath (2008) = Paul Pallath, The Eucharistic Liturgy of the St Thomas Christians and the Synod of Diamper, Vadavathoor-Kottayam, 2008. Placid, P. J. (1957), “Present Syro-Malabar Liturgy, Menezian or Rosian”, OCP 23 (1957), pp. 313– 331. Raes (1944) = A. Raes, “Le récit de l’institution eucharistique dans l’anaphore chaldéenne et malabare des Apôtres”, OCP 10 (1944), pp. 216–226. Ratcliff (1928/29) = E.C. Ratcliff, “The Original form of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari: A Suggestion”, JTS 30 (1928–1929), pp. 23–32. Raulin, F. (1745), Historia Ecclesiae Malabaricae cum Diamperitana Synodo, Roma, 1745. Thadikkatt, Jeo (2004), Liturgical Identity of the Mar Thoma Nazrani Church, Vadavathoor-Kottayam, 2004. [With good bibliography on the Syro-Malabar Church.] Thaliath, J. (1958), The Synod of Diamper, OCA 152, Rome, 1958. [Reprint: Bangalore, Dharmaram Vidya Shetram, 1999.] Thekkedath (1988) = Joseph Thekkedath, History of Christianity in India. Vol. 2: From the Middle of the Seventeenth Century to the End of the Seventeenth Century, Church History Association of India, Bangalore, 1988. Tisserant (1957) = Eugène Tisserant, Eastern Christianity in India, London, 1957. van der Ploeg, J.P.M (1983), “Mar Joseph, Bishop Metropolitan of India (1556–1569)”, IIIe Symposium Syriacum, OCA 221, Rome, pp. 161–170. van der Ploeg (1983), Manuscripts = id., The Syriac manuscripts of St Thomas Christians, Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 1983. Varghese (2003) = Baby Varghese, “The Impact of the Synod of Diamper on the Faith and Liturgy of the St Thomas Christians”, The Harp 16 (2003), pp. 151–158. Varghese (2013) = id., “East Syrian Mission to the Malabar Coast in the Sixteenth Century”, in Li Tang & Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.), From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Berlin, 2013, pp. 317–340. Vellian (1975), Jacob Vellian (ed.), The Romanization Tendency, The Syrian Churches series, Vol. 8, Kottayam, 1975. Vellian (1989), id., Syro-Malabar Liturgy, Vol. I: Raza: The Most Solemn Qurbana, The Syrian Churches Series, Vol. 14, Kottayam, 1989.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

82

Bibliography

Vellian, J., A Historical Introduction to the Syriac Liturgy. Syro-Malabar Liturgy. Encounter of the West with the East in Malabar, SEERI Correspondence Course (SCC) on Syrian Christian Heritage, 3, Kottayam (no date). Vellian (2001) = id., “The Synod of Diamper and the Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy”, in Nedungatt (2001), pp. 173–198. Webb (1958) = Douglas Webb, “Mar Joseph Sulaqa et la liturgie du Malabar”, L’Orient Syrien III (1958), pp. 185–208. Webb (1962) = id., “Antonio de Gouvea’s Version of the Nestorian Liturgy of the Apostles”, Studia Patristica, Vol. 5, part III, TU 80, Berlin, 1962, pp. 213–240. Webb (1970), id., “The Versions of the Malabar Liturgy and the manuscripts”, in J. Vellian (ed.), The Malabar Church, OCA 186 (1970), pp. 41–54 [Reprint in Christian Orient, 1-2, Kottayam, 1980, pp. 21–34]. Zacharia (1976) = Scaria Zacharia, Randu Prachina Gadya Kritikal (Two ancient Prose Writings), Changanachery, 1976 [The Statutes of Francis Ros: 1606 in pp. 109–177]. Zacharia (1994), id. (ed.), The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper. 1599, Edamattam, 1994.

III. Malankara Orthodox Liturgy 1. Sources Varghese, Baby (ed. & tr.), West Syrian Anaphoras, Awsar Slawot’o 4, SEERI, 2017 (Syriac text and English trans. of 33 Anaphoras). Varghese, Baby (ed. & tr.), Order of the Anaphoras, MOC Publications, Kottayam, 2021 (Syriac text and English trans. of 25 Anaphoras).

2. Studies Malancharuvil (1973) = Cyril Malancharuvil, The Syro-Malankara Church, Alwaye, 1973. Varghese (2015) = Baby Varghese, “From East to the West: Introduction of the West Syriac Liturgy among the St Thomas Christians on the Malabar Coast”, The Journal of Malankara Orthodox Theological Studies II-2 (February 2015), pp. 18–38. Varghese (2016) = id., The Anaphora of St James: History and Theology, MOC Publications, Kottayam, 2016.

IV. Mar Thoma Liturgy 1. Sources Manuscript: CI-2 M-14, Birmingham University Archives. CMS Hand Book-South India. Important Documents (1965) = Chila Supradana Reckakal (= Some Important Documents – Regarding the Faith and Practices of the Marthoma Church), TAM Press, Tiruvalla, 1965 (in Malayalam). Mar Thoma Sleehayude Edavakayakunna Malankara Suriani Sabhayude Canon, (Malayalam: Canon of the Malankara Syrian Church, the Congregation of the Apostle St Thomas), Kottayam, CMS Press, 1857, Imp: Mathews Mar Athanasius Metropolitan. Taksa (1872) = Nammude Karthavum Rakshithavumaya Yeshu Mashihayude Sahodaranaya Shudhamana Yakobu Slihayude Qurbana Kramom (Malayalam; Order of the Qurbana of the Apostle St James, brother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), Printed at the CMS Mission Press, Kottayam, 1872.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

Bibliography

83

Taksa (1942) = Malankara Mar Thoma Suriyani Sabhayude Qurbana Thaksa (Malayalam; Order of the Qurbana of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church), Tiruvalla, TAM Press, 1942, Imp: Titus II Metropolitan. 5th Edition, 1995. Taksa (1954) = Mar Thoma Suriyani Sabhayude Qurbana Thaksa (Malayalam; Order of the Qurbana of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church), Tiruvalla, TAM Press, 1954, Imp: Juhanon Mar Thoma Metropolitan. Mar Thoma Suriyanikkarude Qurbana Thaksa (Malayalam: Order of the Qurbana of the Mar Thoma Syrians), V.V. Press, Quilon, 1954; Pub. by K.N. Daniel. The Order of the Holy Qurbana. An English Version of St James Liturgy as used in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, CLS, Madras, 1976. Lord’s Supper of the Church of North India and of the Church of South India and the Holy Qurbana of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, ISPCK, New Delhi, 1982. The Order of the Holy Qurbana (An English Translation of St James Liturgy as used in the Mar Thoma Syrian Church), VGC, Tiruvalla, 1984. Tovey, Philip (1998) (ed.), The Liturgy of St James as presently used, Grove Books, Joint Liturgical Studies 40, Cambridge, 1998. [Gives English translations Greek, Syriac, and Mar Thoma (1988) liturgies in parallel columns.]

2. Studies and Secondary literature Agur = C. Agur, Church History of Travancore, Trivandrum, 1903. Chacko (1937) = T.C. Chacko, Sabha Charitra samgraham II, TAM Press, Tiruvalla, 1937. Chacko (1949) = id., Ayroorachan, adhava, C.P. Philipose Kasheesha, TAM Press, Tiruvalla, 1949. Cherian (1935) = P. Cherian, The Malabar Syrians and the Church Missionary Society: 1816–1840, Kottayam, 1935. [Second Revised Edition, Kottayam, 2015; with different page numbering.] Daniel, K.N. (1924) = id., Malankara Sabha. Charitravum Upadeshavum, 2nd ed., R.V. Press, Tiruvalla, 1924. Daniel, K.N (1937), A Critical Study of Primitive Liturgies, CMS Press, Kottayam, 1937; Second Edition: TAM Press, Tiruvalla, 1949. Daniel, K.N. (1950), Malankara Sabhayude Naveekaranam (Malayalam; Reformation in the Malankara Church), Vol. I, Chitra Press, Tiruvalla; Vol. II, Kerala Vilasam Press, Tiruvalla, 1950. Daniel, K.N. (1951), Oru Atmavruthakadhanam (Malayalam; An Autobiography), VV Press, Quilon, 1951. Daniel, K.N., Mar Thoma Church Case: OS No. 116 of 1955 in the District Court of Kottayam, V.V. Press, Quilon. George, M.C., Palakkunnathu Abraham Malpan (Malayalam), V.G. Press, Kottayam, 1919. Howard, George Broadly, The Christians of St Thomas and their Liturgies, Oxford/London, 1864. John, Mathai (1989) = id., The Reformation of Abraham Malpan. A Theological Evaluation, A Thesis submitted to the United Theological College for the Degree of Bachelor of Divinity, Bangalore, 1989 [Unpublished]. John, Mathai (1996) = id., The Doctrine of Grace in the Eucharistic Liturgies of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, A Thesis submitted to the Senate of Serampore University for the Degree of Master of Theology, FFRRC-Kerala, Kottayam, 1996 [Unpublished]. John, Zacharia (1994) = id., The Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar in the light of its History, Submitted for the Degree of M.A. in the Faculty of Arts, University of Durham, 1994, Durham Thesis, Durham University. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5839 Kuruvilla, K.K. (1951), Mar Thoma Church and Its Doctrines, Mylapore, 1951. Mar Thoma, Yuhanon (1952), Christianity in India and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Diocesan Press, Madras, 1952.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9

84

Bibliography

Mar Thoma, Alexander (1985), The Mar Thoma Church Heritage and Mission, Ashram Press, Manganam, Kottayam, 1985. Mathew, K.V. (1985), The Faith and Practice of the Mar Thoma Church, Kottayam, 1985. Samuel (1970) = M.M. Samuel, Peedikayil Stephanos Kathanar, Loyal Press, Mavelikara, 1970. Thazhath (1925 & 1989) = Thazhath Punnathra Chandapilla Kathanar, Vilapangal (Malayalam; Lamentations), CMS Press, Kottayam, 1925. Reprint 1989 (with different pagination). Thazhath (1926) = id., Velipadu (Malayalam; Revelation), CMS Press, Kottayam, 1926. Thazhath (2016) = id., Thazhathu Punnathra Chandapilla Kathanarude Diary Kurippukal (ed. Rev. Abraham Varghese), Tiruvalla, 2016. Thomas K.T. (1926) = K.T. Thomas, Marthoma Sabhayum Thaksa Parishkaranavum, SRV Press, Quilon, 1926. Thomas K.T. & T.N. Koshy (eds.), Faith on Trial, Ernakulam, 1965. Tovey, Phillip, “Colonel John Munro, Evangelical Christian”, The Harp 28 (2013), pp. 13–156. Varghese (1997) = Baby Varghese, “A Brief History of the Syriac Study Centres in India”, The Harp X, 1&2 (1997), pp. 65–70. Varghese (2006) = id., “The CMS Missionaries and the Malankara Church (1815–1840)”, The Harp 20 (2006), pp. 399–446. Verghese, Paul, “Mar Thoma Church Worship”, in J.G. Davies, A Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1972, pp. 251–253.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-11964-1 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39366-9