Indian Orthodox Church?!

[Matthias]

Indian Orthodox Church?! I have never heard of it! I guess you learn something everyday! I am guessing the Divine Litury is in Hindi?!

[Moros]

I don't think they are in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy?

http://www.stgregorioschurchdc.org/cgi/Lectionary.cgi?ids=all

http://www.indian-orthodox.co.uk/

http://www.malankara.org/default.htm

The Malankara Orthodox Church was founded in Kerala, India, by St. Thomas the Apostle around AD 52. This Orthodox Church is eastern in origin and follows the leadership of Catholicate of the East with its headquarters at Devalokam, Kottayam, Kerala, India.

http://www.st-thomas-orthodox-dc.org/

The Indian Church had a character different from that of any other Church of ancient times. Christanity has been in existence in India from the beginning of the christian era. Christanity came to India much before it went to Rome or Western Europe. The syrian christians of Kerala constitute the most ancient Christian community of India. Their form of christanity is apostolic and derived directly from Apostle St.Thomas.

The name, Malankara Orthodox Church, refers to the section of the St. Thomas Christians of India, that Canonically came under Catholicate of the East whose Supreme Head is His Holiness The Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan, with head quarters at Devalokam, Kottayam, Kerala, India. St. Thomas Christians at present belong to ten different churches and denominations. The Malankara Orthodox Church is one among them and it is the second largest.

http://www.st-thomas-orthodox-dc.org/indianorthodox.htm

The Faith of the Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Syrian Church
http://www.st-thomas-orthodox-dc.org/faithandbeliefs.htm

[Moros]

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Indian%20Orthodox%20Church

The Indian Orthodox Church (Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church), a prominent member of the Oriental Orthodox Church family.

The term Oriental Orthodoxy refers to several Eastern Christian traditions that diverged from their more "western" counterparts by the time of the Council of Chalcedon. Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from the churches that collectively refer to themselves as Eastern Orthodoxy, a distinction that is agreed upon by both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.

[Matthias]

Wow, great websites. They are not in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy? Someone had better tell a local priest, Fr. Jack that! He's going out to help promote them along with the Romanian, Russian, and Greek Orthodox local parishes! Should I drop him an email and tell him that they are actually not in communion?!

[Matthias]

I honestly find it really weird that he would be promoting them now I find they are not in communion! Something really weird is going on here.

[Moros]

I don't know for sure, it was just a guess.

[Matthias]

The websites you listed and some I have been visiting sure sound like it! Very weird!

[Eusebios]

The Ancient Mar Thoma Church is indeed non-Chalcedonian. She has struggled mightily do to persecution, much of it at the hands of the "Christian" west. While it is true that they are not currently in communion with canonical Orthodoxy, it does not mean that they are not our brothers and sisters in Christ.The actual web-site of the Malacandrin Church has much solid information on it. It seems to me our duty is to pray and work toward the reunion of the ancient See of Thomas (c. 55 AD) with the larger Orthodox community.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.
:bow:

[Amandine]

Yes, the Oriental Orthodox churches are coming ever closer to communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is much communication between the two, and Oriental Orthodox are allowed communion at many Eastern churches if an Oriental church is unavailable in the area. Quite a few of my friends from OCF (college Orthodox group) are Oriental Orthodox. In fact, one is Indian and will be president of it next year (btw, they speak Malayalam ;) )
-Catherine

[Photini]

Catherine....I just noticed that your "faith icon" has now changed to Orthodox. :)

[Eusebios]

Catherine....I just noticed that your "faith icon" has now changed to Orthodox. :)
Cool! :)

[nicodemus]

There are both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in India. The Oriental Orthodox churches waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outnumber the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox churches.

[Slider]

They aren't Orthodox and shouldn't be communed.

Yes, the Oriental Orthodox churches are coming ever closer to communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. There is much communication between the two, and Oriental Orthodox are allowed communion at many Eastern churches if an Oriental church is unavailable in the area. Quite a few of my friends from OCF (college Orthodox group) are Oriental Orthodox. In fact, one is Indian and will be president of it next year (btw, they speak Malayalam ;) )
-Catherine

[Eusebios]

They aren't Orthodox and shouldn't be communed.
Slider,
I think, and respectfully suggest that, perhaps you might want to qualify your statements above with the caveat that they are your opinions and not necessarily the position of the Church.
Catherine is correct in that many EO priests will commune OOCs so long as they recite the creed in a amanner consistent with EO beliefs. (ie w/o the filoque). Much of what seperates us from Those who initially rejected the Council of Chalcedon has been found to be senabtic and not Theologic in nature (or perhaps more appropriately Christologic).
Guarding the chalice is, I believe, truky important, but it seems to me that priests would rather err on the side of grace and mercy in the case of so-called "mia-physites". In any event, it is the decision of the priest and it is they who must answer to either the Bishop or other heirarch and ultimately to our Lord.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

:prayer:

[DjHurricane]

Slider--
brash statements like the one you made earlier really aren't helpful. If you have an opinion, back it up with facts, and stay in your own territory (ie dont make cover-all statements about what priests should or shouldn't do without a sliver of support for your (questionable) ideas).
Also
1. EO leaders secretly supported OOC at Chalcedon but went along with Rome for political Reasons (and ended up braking off 600 years later anyway)(refs from books avail @ UC Berkeley if wanted)

2. OOC was The Orthodox church 600 years before EO decided to split from Rome hence you have no grounds to discredit the orthodoxy of a church which existed 600 years before your own

Your Servant In Christ,
-DJ Hurricane

PS in my opinion all members of Apostolic CHurches should be communed, be they orthodox, assyrian, or catholic given they all have valid lines from christ. The small differences which separate us are not worth the loss of hundreds of millions from the church as christ left it to protestantism. And yes, I did grow up in a mixed Catholic/Orthodox family which has shaped many of my opinions :).

[Matthias]

Slider, after reading your factual opinion, I totally agree! Your evidence was outstanding!

[Eusebios]

Slider, after reading your factual opinion, I totally agree! Your evidence was outstanding!
Uhmm,
What is a "factual opinion"? and what evidence are you speaking of? I did not see any offered.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

[Kripost]

Uhmm,
What is a "factual opinion"? and what evidence are you speaking of? I did not see any offered.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.
I think it was a "tongue in cheek" reply.

[Matthias]

Yes, it was. :)

[Aristokles]

My dear Slider,
You seem to be taking some flak for bluntly stating the truth here, albeit in an insensitive fashion. You are correct that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are not "Orthodox" in the sense that they, in rejecting ecumenical Councils 4 through 7 are not within the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East (the Eastern Orthodox communion). Yes, the first schism in the fabric of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was a sad occurrence amidst an extremely complex set of circumstances and with enough blame for all concerned is to be shared. But you are still correct.
Part of the problem is, of course, the use of "Orthodox" in the names of all of these churches. Please bear in mind that "orthodox" began to be used by the undivided Church in the fourth century to describe the Church free from the heresies of Nestorianism and Arianism, not the later so-called "mono-physite" controversy that resulted from Chalcedon.
The Oriental Orthodox accept the first THREE councils only. The Eastern Orthodox have SEVEN official councils. Of the 550 bishops who participated in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, 60 rejected the Tome of Leo and the work of the council. The Church of Alexandria split in two (the greater part becoming the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox), the Church of Antioch split, the Malankara Indian Orthodox rejected the council in toto, as did the Church of Georgia, and the Armenian Apostolic Church. In 601 AD the Church of Georgia, wihout diplomatic pressure, but on theological grounds after the 5th Council explained the Fourth to their liking, recanted and rejoined the Eastern Orthodox communion.
I have spent the better part of two years studying this schism and it does not reduce easily to a quick post here.
As to intercommunion, we are not in full communion with each other. There exists today the now third attempt in the last 1500 years at rapproachment and re-union between the communions. There exists a "working agreement" meant to help bridge the Christological divide. The Church of Antioch has gone a bit further and honed their agreement with the Syriac Orthodox Church in areas of mixed marriages. Some intercommunion is done in their "old country" and with permission from both churches individuals may commune at SOME churches here in the US.
But we are not in communion at this time; we are not one Church. You are correct, in other words.
And of course we all pray that all people will be united in Christ.

Demetri