|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 023, Zeilen: 01 |
Quelle: Thekedathu 1972 Seite(n): 066, Zeilen: 21 |
|---|---|
| connection of the Malabar church with the patriarchate of the Chaldea, even though the patriarch in question was fully in communion with Rome.57 After this, Latin rite bishops were imposed on them. Also several of the ceremonies and rites in the celebration of holy mass and the administration of the sacraments were changed in order to bring those more in line with Latin usages and to avoid the Nestorian heresy among the Christians. In fact, Thomas Christians were very much attached to their eastern rite bishops and merely tolerated the government of the Latin bishops. It can be understood from the petitions which they wrote from time to time to the various authorities, in which, they pleaded for Syrian bishops, an also from the wild enthusiasm that followed the announcement in 1652 that a Syrian patriarch sent to them by the pope in answer to their numerous petitions, was actually in Mylapore. The Jesuits wanted to eliminate the authority and the special position which the archdeacons held for centuries in the church of Malabar. [...] There had some secondary causes. In fact, the Jesuits were the most broadminded of the missionaries of those days. And their policies caused for an ill feeling among the Thomas Christians. The rigorous exclusion of the others left Archdeacon Thomas was with hardly any room for maneuvering, and drove him to look for help beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, and brought about the general revolt of 1653.58 Finally, it has to be said that the character of Garcia and of Archdeacon Thomas played an important role in bringing about the rebellion. | The discontent can be easily traced back at least up to the Synod of Diamper. It severed the long standing connection of the Malabar Church with the patriarchate of Chaldea. The Patriarch in question, Simon Denha, was fully in communion with Rome. After this, Latin bishops were imposed on them. Also several of the ceremonies and rites in the sacraments were hastily and unnecessarily changed, in order to bring them more in line with Latin usages. All this caused discontent. The Thomas Christians always remained very much attached to their eastern rite bishops and merely tolerated the government of the Latin bishops. This is clear from the many petitions they wrote to various authorities, in which they pleaded for Syrian bishops. The enthusiasm that followed the announcement of the arrival of Mar Ahtallah also indicates clearly this attachment. It was also natural that most of the odium of the new and unwanted arrangements should fall on the Jesuits and their archbishops. More than that they were the ones who took the place of the ousted Syrian bishops. Under such circumstances, acts of imprudence from their part, which were unfortunately not lacking, aggravated the situation. The most disastrous of these was the attempt of the Jesuit archbishops, particularly Roz and Garcia, to eliminate the authority and the special position of the archdeacon, which he held for centuries in Malabar. Secondary causes that lead to the rebellion: 1. the persistence with which the Jesuit archbishops excluded all the other religious families from Malabar. This policy caused considerable ill feeling. Of course, the other religious were not better prepared than the Jesuits to change the basic, anti-oriental policy of the Padroado. In fact, the Jesuits were the most broadminded of the missionaries of those days. 2. The character of the archbishop Garcia and of archdeacon Thomas played an important role in bringing about the rebellion. 3. A rebellion of the proportions of that of 1653 would not have occurred but for the arrival of Mar Atallah. |
|
|