Talk:Coonan Cross Oath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV dispute[edit]

Recent spurt of edits from Br Ibrahim john (more than 100 edits within 5 months!) has severely degraded this article's quality and devalued it to a biased mess prejudiced in favor of the party who opposed the event that is the subject of this article. Until this issue is remedied, please maintain this section to discuss how this can be resolved.Swordofcherubim (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Letterof MorDionysius I(1759-1809) to Pope Pius VI[edit]

The recent study conducted by István Perczel[1] ,University of Tübingen,Central European University[History of Kerala Christianity on the Basis of Newly Found Documents: Methodological Challenges and Possible Answers] shows that Mar Dionysius I of malankara send a historical letter to The same pope requesting permission to join catholic church Letter of MorDionysius I(1759-1809) to Pope Pius VI, ErnakulamMAP Syr7, f. 516v-517r Page 65,66,67[2]

A detail from the Syriacversion of the letter of Mor Dionysius I(Mar ThomaVI) to Pope Pius VI (1778 AD) •“After the fact that they behaved despitefully and jeopardisedthis plan, I asked the illustrious Joseph Kariatty, from Alangad, student in the school for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome, apostolic preacher in India, <with compunction> in my heart, in many tearsand in distress <…> the Saviourmay grant that I end my erring. When he saw my compunction, <…> he was inflamed by my tears, and he promised in truth <…> that “I will go to Rome and <pray that> nothing happens to me on the way and I will be anxious about presenting your supplication before the feet of our Lord, the holy Pope. For it has not been heard that the Church would abandon a penitent man.”Therefore I trusted his great love <…> because he took my cause upon his shoulders in order to bring it to Rome upon my behalf

This single evidence is enough to refute this claim "By the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that henceforth we would not adhere to the Franks, nor accept the faith of the Pope of Rome"

suggested Revision[edit]

"On january 1653 priests and people assembled in the church of Our Lady at Mattanceri, and standing in front of a cross and lighted candles swore upon the holy Gospel that they would no longer obey Garcia, and that they would have nothing further to do with the jesuits they would recognise the archdeacon as the governor of their church. This is the famous oath ofthe ‘ Koonen Cross ` (the open-air Cross which stands outside the church at Mattnchery.

The Thomas Christians did not at any point suggest that they wished to separate themselves from the pope. They could no longer tolerate the arrogance of Garcia. And their detestation of the jesuits, to whose overbearing attitude and lack of sympathy they attributed all their troubles,breathes through all the documents ofthe time. But let the pope send them a true bishop not a jesuit, and they will be pleased to receive and obey him." 

|source = A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707 By Stephen Neill page 326-327+Tavancoor State Manual

Better rename it to protestant propaganda oath By the Father, Son and Holy Ghost that henceforth we would not adhere to the Franks, nor accept the faith of the Pope of Rome(Ref October 1822, Letter from Dionysious to the Church Missionary Society.)

its just an attempt to please the protestants (in all most all records its like they will not acept paulist(Jesuits).and funny thing is that )and funny thing is that the last East syrian bishops were Catholics (with the faith of rome in your words). If the revolt was actually against the pope then why there is no protest at the time of chaldean catholic church formation in Ad 1550 ?( Bishop Mar Joseph (AD 1555) was the brother of chaldean catholic patriarch of babylon)From all these its clear that the oath was against Jesuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.46.146 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge dispute on historical claims It's unfortunate that no one challenges the blatant whitewash concerning the historical association of St. Thomas Christians with the wider church. In the early days of Christianity, there were three great spheres of influence. Rome in the West, Alexandria in Africa, and Antioch in the East. It was understood that the bishop of Antioch would have the prerogative in the East. Even after the Persians fell into Nestorianism, the Antiochian Church maintained a "Maphriyono" of "Catholicose" for those adhering to the true faith. After Chalcedon, the Oriental churches were isolated, but remained vast despite persecution. It is this "Eastern" church that was in India from the beginning - St. Thomas the Apostle, an Aramaic speaking Jew, was it's first missionary. To deny this "West Syriac" influence completely is appalling. The Chaldean East Syrian Church certainly had/has a presence, but not by any means exclusive .

Not your oath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malankarnasrani (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC) The oath was under the leadership of the Archdeacon/Malankara Mooppen Thomas Kathanar. It was not just against 'a part' of the Roman Catholic church evidenced by the fact that Thomas Kathanar did not reconcile subsequently and that the Malankara church threw away the Roman yoke and the Pope's supremacy under his leadership. Those who remained loyal to the Archdeacon remained loyal to the Oath. Those who capitulated for whatever reasons, for all practical purposes went back on the oath. Whats funny is that some people imagine that Catholicism was even heard of in Malankara before Gama landed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malankarnasrani (talk • contribs) 18:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Coonen Cross OathCoonan Cross Oath


A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707 By Stephen Neill,Page 319 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.197.132 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Coonan Cross Oath was organized under the leadership of Thomas (Itty) Cattanar. The stand of Thomas Cattanar shows that he was standing against the Roman Catholicism and the Jesuits. It is believed that Thomas Cattanar had received ordination from Mor Ahattulla of Antioch at Madras on his way of pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Thomas. Most of the people in Malankara were not aware of the split of Nestorian Catholicate with the Patriarchate of Antioch and continued to receive the bishops from the Nestorian bishops until the Oath. Both people of Malankara and the Patriarch of Antioch knew all the time that they were under the patriach of Antioch.

The Oath was not against a foreign reign as can be seen that Thomas Cattanar, who led the Oat, stood with Patriarchate of Antioch which headquartered in The Middle East. Thus the Oath was against the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits. It is also logic to think that people in Malankara will not reject the Roman Catholics and all on a sudden join a totally new church which was unheard to them before or was so popular like Roman Catholic church at that time. Thus, it is logical to believe people of Malankara had connection with the Patriarch of Antioch before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.138.80 (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the church by E.M Philip shows that people in Malankara although received Nestorian bishops, were under the impression that church in Malankara were under the Patriach of Antioch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.138.80 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Coonan Cross Oathcan be merged to Coonen Cross Oath

Tinucherian 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-directed the page per suggestion. See the details. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

I wonder why "C" was selected to start the name instead of "K"? Koonan Cross seems more natural and is the natural choice of most Indian-English speakers. I'm a bit tired of reverting when I really don't agree with this spelling. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coonan Cross Oath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological arrangement[edit]

@Johnchacks: It would be nice if you could explain your views on a proposed chronological presentation (date of original publishing) of various interpretations on the Coonan Cross Oath. Anjuvannam (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjuvannam: If you and other editors are thinking chronological presentation is the better way, I am fine with that. I am not going to alter the ordering. But I feel, we need to keep third party versions first. That is, authors like Stephen Neil, Robert Erick Frykenberg etc. who are not from either Pazhayakoor or Puthenkoor factions of Saint Thomas Christians. Even though, at times, Neil/Frykenberg/ etc. are quoting (fully or partially) some of the church historians from Saint Thomas community in their books, at least we can say that they have selected that version because they felt that's more correct among other versions. So think of keeping third party versions first. [Even I believe, personally, we need to keep versions "only" from the books of these kind of authors to represent different views on this event (keep only 2 to 3 or a maximum of 4 versions to understand different interpretations) - its a suggestion to take up later] - --John C. (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnchacks, Okay. In that case, the chronological order may be unnecessary. Another recommendation is that these versions can be categorized into primary and secondary and then bring the chronological order into each category. If so, the problem you mentioned will be resolved. Anjuvannam (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuvannam, yes, we can categorize them - but not making any titles as 'primary' and 'secondary' in the article itself - and order them. In that case, I guess, the sequence will be Stephen Neil,Robert Eric Frykenberg, Angamaly Padiyola, Church Missionary Society Report, Punnathara Dionysius, E.M. Philip. Correct me if I am wrong - --John C. (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If so, you can categorize it as you see proper. That being said, in our opinion this classification seems to be better. Anjuvannam (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnchacks: while agreeing with your opinion ["Moving secondary sources first as they supposed to be less biased"] and the adjustment you have made, some sort of distinction is still needed between the types of sources. Anjuvannam (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuvannam, Yes, agree....there should be some distinction. May be in future, the titles Secondary Sources, Primary Sources can be replaced with better wordings based on suggestions from other users too. For now, we can keep these title names like this way. Btw, because of these changes, the whole section looks more organized. Thanks - --John C. (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuvannam and others, In addition to above discussion and discussions in below section, just wanted to share my final views on arranging various interpretations from different historians which are currently listed in the subsection Secondary Sources in the article - There the focus should be on right representation of different interpretations on this event. Luckily in the current/latest version of the article, it is more or less in that way, at least based on the sources currently we have. After editing on this part for some days, I realized that chronological order (date of original publishing) is not a right criteria here. Hence requesting to keep this style (representation of different interpretations) rather following a chronological order or any other order. ---John C. (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Boyd: A historian or theologian?[edit]

@Johnchacks: While looking through the content you have just added in the section 'Various interpretations of the events — Secondary sources', there is a doubt whether that part should be retained in that section or not. Because to our knowledge Robin Boyd is not really a historian, he is a theologian. Excerpts added in the section are quotes from church historical books by Stephen Neill, Robert Eric Frykenberg, Dietmar W. Winkler and Istvan Perczel. An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology is a book that cannot be accomodated to the category to which A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707, Christianity in India From Beginnings to the Present and The Syriac World belong. Anjuvannam (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjuvannam: I added excerpts from Robin Boyd's book as a third party view. I am not sure we can can consider Robin Boyd as a historian like Neil or Frykenberg and hence I am fine to take out that content from the article. But there is a concern on the quote you added from Dietmar W. Winkler's book. As per Winkler's affiliation details given here, its very difficult to consider his views as a secondary source in this topic. so we need to rethink on this part too. ---John C. (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more point - I don't think there is any need of listing out too many interpretations of same kind from various books/sources, it is going to clutter the whole article - --John C. (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnchacks, I think your point is that Dietmar Winkler is a Catholic. But that alone does not mean that his opinion is biased or wrong. All the historians mentioned here are members of some Christian church. Therefore it is only appropriate to examine whether they are historians who have a clear knowledge and expertise of the subject. Both Stephen Neill and Frykenberg have authored books on the subject. Their books are generally accepted as reliable secondary sources. Dietmar Winkler is a historian of Eastern Christianity and a notable scholar of Syriac Christianity. His books are acknowledged on many such topics. István Perczel has been a longtime researcher in the history of the Syrian Christian Churches in Kerala and has brought to light their Syrian historical documents. In my opinion, it would be most inappropriate if his opinion was not recorded. But Robin Boyd is not such a historian but a theologian. That's all I pointed out.
However I agree with your last point— [I don't think there is any need of listing out too many interpretations of same kind from various books/sources, it is going to clutter the whole article]Anjuvannam (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuvannam, Agree on the point that all these historians are members of one or other Christian Church and some are missionaries too. On Dietmar Winkler, the concern was not about his membership in a Church, but the positions he is handling in various organizations in one of the Churches directly related to this topic. Still, if you think he is a historian with impartial views, I do not have any objection in adding his quote. But again a question exists here - what is the value-add we are bringing to the article by quoting the excerpt's from Dietmar Winkler's book which is in similar line of Stephen Neil. What will we do if each user comes and add a quote from books of different historians? In this case, I may replace Robin Boyd with another author whom can be called as a "historian". But its again going to be in similar lines of already existing quotes. If you read Winkler's or Boyd's statements there is no additional details or historical values, in two or three lines both of them gave a summary of Coonan Cross event and adding their views also. Considering all these, I am suggesting to present different versions/views (that are: #1.Coonan Cross oath was only against Archbishop and Garcia and Jesuits, #2.Its against all Portuguese/European missionaries, #3. Its against Church of Rome itself) without any headings and keep only one-one quote (which is more relevant) in 'blockquote' to elaborate these views. If required, let keep other quotes of similar kind as part of references using |quote option. Otherwise soon this article will become an archive of quotes from various sources. Let me know your views on this suggestion ---John C. (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is not important to include all kinds of comments. The important thing is to include the opinion of all historians who can speak authoritatively on this subject. At the same time, As you said, it is better to keep only a few quotes. That's why I asked you whether we should include a quote from Robin Boyd or not.
I do not feel compelled to keep Winkler's quote here. But I think the quotes from the other three need to be kept. However it is not right to categorise historians in the name of their church. The prejudice that Catholics speak in favor of Catholics is not correct. If you were questioning a historian like Eugene Tissarant, though he is a reliable historian, I would have removed his quote from this section. But Dietmar Winkler is not part of church hierarchy. It is not uncommon for prominent and reputable historians and scholars to be involved in conducting interfaith dialogues. For that reason alone, is it not a fallacy to assume that they are the spokesmen of the church they represent in everything? In that case, the Protestant historians may also face the same prejudice. In my opinion church historians who are not themselves Syrian Christians can be included. I never objected to Robin Boyd's opinion, but questioned the inclusion of the opinion of a theologian rather than a historian. Anjuvannam (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuvannam, The point raised is correct - Robin Boyd is a theologian. The opinion of historians are relevant here and hence quote from his book has been removed from the article. About Dietmar Winkler, I never read his books or articles, so I am not in a position to comment on his views. I had a concern and I raised it. I trust the points you mentioned about him. Also agreeing to your point - church historians who are not themselves Syrian Christians can be included - unless they keep fully biased versions of Church history in their books. As I suggested earlier, if we combine the comments, we can mention Winkler along with Stephen Neill and keep only Neill's version. Coming to István Perczel, he is a scholar learned much about Saint Thomas Christians. No objection in keeping his quote. But a doubt on part of his statement. He says "......and the community pledged their obedience to the Chaldean patriarch". Any other sources saying like that? Also please cross-check the link given for István Perczel's quoting. ---John C. (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for that action. I totally appreciate that. You have suggested: "if we combine the comments, we can mention Winkler along with Stephen Neill and keep only Neill's version." However, there is a problem: how can we merge two different quotes from two different historians? I think it is impossible. Can you clarify it further?
You can read Istvan Perczel's "Syriac Christianity in India" here online. Hope this clarifies. Having read a number of works by Perczel, I think it is obviously the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate. It is evident since Perczel differentiates the traditional Church of the East patriarchate ("non-Catholic/Assyrian" one) from the Chaldean Patriarchate, by calling it the Nestorian Patriarchate. Anjuvannam (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuvannam, By using the term "combining", what I meant, was mentioning the names of historians who are having same/similar view on this event and keeping the quotes from only one of them. Anyway I think we can forget that idea for now, will think of that later. Better take out excerpt from Dietmar Winkler book as it is in similar lines of Neill's version. Confirm if you are fine with that.
On Istvan Perczel's quote, I understood that here 'Chaldean' is referring to Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate, not the Nestorian Patriarchate. But just wanted to make sure such a version/interpretation exists. Thanks for sharing the link of his book. I read that. Basically that is a version from Joseph Thekkedath's books. So making that clarity in the article.---John C. (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you may add that clarification in Istvan Perczel. My opinion is that deleting Winkler's quote is inappropriate. In my opinion it seems better to include everyone's opinion than to include examples of each version. But if you and the other editors feel that it is better to remove it then I will not object. Anjuvannam (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anjuvannam, check the changes made now. Winkler's quote is briefly mentioned along with Stephen Neill. Hope this should be fine because we are not completely taking out Winkler's quote, but at the same time we are not repeating same/similar versions again and again under different historians name. ---John C. (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version in Idavakapathrika[edit]

@Anjuvannam: Can you explain what is the issue with quote from Idavakapathrika? Why these changes - [3], [4] made and what is expected here? ---John C. (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnchacks, It is a vernacular language source and it is not a direct link for Idavakapathrika. How can you tell if what is said there is true or not? I think there is a an issue of WP:QS here. Anjuvannam (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuvannam, If there is an issue with vernacular language, its fine and acceptable. please point to the guidelines. I am seeing the reference name itself given in vernacular language in multiple Wiki articles. We will ask for better sources, there too. But one thing I am not at all understanding, how can we say that there is an issue since its not from the direct source while no other quotes in this section are not from the original source. How do we get the original of this source in English (a Magazine published in vernacular language in 1896)? Again, what is the reason you are doubting the statement of author of the book Fr. Dr. Joseph Cheeran that he is quoting this from the copy of the original Idavakapathrika Magazine? ---John C. (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of reasons. First of all, it is not in English. Secondly, the source must meet the criteria for reliability. The book doesn't seem to have been cited anywhere else. See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for further details on citations. Anjuvannam (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If those guidelines are restricting the use of this source, its fine. Anyway this quote was not added by me and I am not too much bothered about this quote or any other quotes in the section "Primary Resources", only wanted to know the reason behind the templates added. ---John C. (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonan_Cross_Oath&oldid=1200854232"