Talk:Mar Thoma Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Ukranian Lutheran Church is an Eastern Rite Church?
Quoted from the first paragraph of the article, Prior to 1996, it was the only Eastern rite Church worldwide which inculcated elements of Protestant thinking and reformist theology (the Ukrainian Lutheran Church was established in Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union
I didn't want to be mean and take out the Ukranian part that's in this sentancebefore checking with some more people. In fact, I'm not really even sure that the Mar Thoma Church's claim to being the only reformed Eastern Rite church is valid, although it is commonly professed. Maybe this sentance altogether should be removed. However, back to the point - the fact that the Ukranian Church is LUTHERAN precludes it from being an Eastern Rite Church. Lutheranism is quintessential western Christianity. Geography is not the only consideration (i.e. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe ergo it is an Eastern Rite church). Case in point, there are Baptist and Methodist churches in India but they aren't considered eastern. Even the Church of South India and Church of North India, though they are in full communion with the Mar Thoma Church, aren't considered eastern churches.
76.186.60.18 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)sue bob murphy
what about these: Armenian Evangelical Church Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists of Russia Evangelical Church of Egypt (Synod of the Nile) Jamiat-e Rabbani all of which are listed on eastern protestant here: Portal:Eastern Christianity/Churches
Most of those church are under the section Eastern Protestantism. 76.186.60.18 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)sue bob murphy
I think the section on Ukrainian Lutheran should be included as they are not Lutheran in the Western sense. Their worship is a reformed Ukrainian-Orthodox/Byzantine-Catholic form, while their doctrine is close to Lutheranism. In the same way the Marthoma Church is a reformed Malankara-Orthodox/Syro-Malankara-Catholic form, while their doctrines are close to Anglicanism. If Ukrainian Lutheranism shouldn't be called "reformed Eastern Rite" and is properly Lutheranism first, then the Marthoma Church isn't "reformed Eastern Rite" either but properly "Malankara Anglican". Also, the Ethiopian Tehadeso group is "reformed Ethiopian Orthodox", it is a mix of reformed-Orthodox praxis and protestant/pentecostal worship (they are different in the sense that this mix went the opposite of the Ukrainian Lutheran and Marthoma groups). MookThala (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It is strange how the user Mook Thala came to the conclusion that "Mar Thoma Church is a reformed Malankara-Orthodox/Syro-Malankara-Catholic form, while their doctrines are close to Anglicanism."Neduvelilmathew (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Listing individual parishes and youth groups within parishes seems contrary to WP:EL. Most parishes are in the first directory link. Furthermore, if some are listed then there is no strong reason not to list them all, which would result in a far-too-large External links section. Gimmetrow 04:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move of interest
In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted
I deleted a ridiculous statement that espoused, 'Hinduism being a syncretic religion between Gnostic Christianity and the Vedic religion.' This is slightly bias and factually inaccurate. "Hinduism" as we know it now is highly syncretic but the entire religion is not the syncretism thereof but something that contains syncretic elements (as do all religions) as well as the native socio-historical/religious and philosophical progression away from Vedic influences toward Vedanatic ones; also the interaction between the educated Oxford Indian elite and their systematic classification in Western terms of the varying sects and philosophies of N. and S. India.simonmatt1100 17:59 1 April 2007
[edit] Joseph Mar Thoma Consecration
The current statement in the "Who's Who" section about Joseph Mar Thoma consecration is incorrect. He was "consecrated" when he first became a bishop, which is February 8, 1975 according to the Sabha website. We need to find who the celebrants of that service were; it is most likely Juhanon Mar Thoma and the Metropolitan of the Thooziyoor Sabha.
There's seems to be tons of confusion (in terms of verbiage) about what exactly happened in October 2007 to Joseph Mar Thoma. He certainly was not consecrated on this date. Rather, he was "installed" or "enthroned" as Metropolitan. This change has been made; again, the missing information is the celebrants of the consecration service in February 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portraitofalady (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Navigation boxes
Recently both the navigation boxes Template:Syriac Christianity and Template:Anglican Churches were removed by Neduvelilmathew (talk · contribs). Although this user is a member of the church and has written a history of it, he hasn't been able to give good reason for their removal. The discussion can be read on my talk page (here and here). My reasoning is clear. The Syriac template should be included because this church has a Syriac heritage, in liturgy, language and ritual. This is undeniably true, and the arguments against this were confused. The Anglican template has a bottom line that includes all the churches that are in communion with the Anglican Communion. The Mar Thoma Church is in communion with the Anglican Communion, and so the template fits. The template sits at the bottom of the page and in no way suggests that the Mar Thoma Church is an Anglican church. Historically, the church has had very close ties with the Anglican Communion. I have outlined this in full, but have not received further response. I shall put the templates back and await further response on this page. Please do not remove them again with out full agreement. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Still dont understand why you want to put a category as Anglican church when Marthoma Church is not a part of this. Marthoma Church has lots of friendly relationships with many other churches but that doesnt mean that Marthoma Church is a part of another church. The historians and members of the church have confirmed this. Please revert you changes regarding Template:Anglican Churches .Otherwise this will lead to a misunderstanding and false information. The explanation is clearly given by Neduvelilmathew (talk · contribs) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGarzo&diff=188971141&oldid=188737837
-
- Tinucherian (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't agree that Mathew's point is well made at all. The Anglican navbox is present on all articles on Anglican Churches and churches in communion with Anglican Churches. The Mar Thoma Church is clearly the latter, and, therefore, should have the box present, just as the Old Catholic Church and Philippine Independent Church, also not Anglican Churches, have. I have stated this repeatedly, but you appear to misunderstand the issue. The navbox appears on all articles on churches that, while not Anglican, are in communion with Anglican Churches. It is at the bottom of the page. It is clearly stated what is meant. It is in no way misleading. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Redundant Passage
The section "Independence of the Church" consists of two nearly identical sentences. As I do not have access to the original quote, I am reluctant to choose one; perhaps someone who does can rectify this.Scalasaig (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This is a strange discussion page.
Mar Thoma Christians are real Christians, notwithstanding the history-writing questions. What they claim has as much standing as that the Pope claims for the primacy of Peter. Thus, I suggest that much of this discussion be archived. I also suggest thaat Thomas Christian' be the article title.--Ace Telephone (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The present day Marthoma church is only a part of larger St. Thomas Christian community. There are seperate articles about Saint Thomas Christians and Malankara Church. The present day Mar Thoma Church is a denonimation within the Saint Thomas Christians tradition community. - Tinucherian (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Definitions
The definitions of "Sabha" and "palli" are completely wrong.
A "Sabha" is not only used for a Church, for example the Indian Parliament is called the "Lok Sabha"
A "palli" is not from the Buddhist Tradition, the Buddhist Tradition happened to use the same word as the Dravidian language for "learning center/resting place" because the earliest stages of Buddhism moved southward toward the Dravidian speaking areas and adopted the term. MookThala (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Neduvelilmathew cites Psalm 74:8 (???) after "Sabha" and deletes it's definition which is "meeting place" or "assembly" - why not write the proper definition, when even his citation states - [8] They said to themselves, "We will utterly subdue them"; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land. Sabha clearly means meeting place, there is no doubt about it. --MookThala (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Mook Thala, which translation of the Bible are you using? There are so many translations. So naturally they will be using different words to explain the same thing. Now I have gone through seven translations: “every place where God was worshiped, God's places of assembly, synagogues of God, God's meeting-places, etc.” are some of the translations. Which one is the correct one?
In this article, just to expalin what this Malayalam word Palli means, is it that necessary to give a long and winding description and explanations? I think, it is enough to use just the mininmum number of words to convey the meaning. In fact it is not even necessary to include Psalm 74:8
So, please leave both words Palli and Sabha as they are.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Neduvelilmathew, All the translations you site state exactly the same thing. Sabha means meeting place/assembly; "synagogue" is simply the Hebrew for "assembly". It seems to me you are misleading in the definition, even the non-religious government body the "Lok Sabha" uses the word and it has nothing to do with God. Why are you citing Psalm 74:8 at all? Another issue to be aware of, this website isn't supposed to lean toward favoring the Marthoma perspective on history, inherently this site should be neutral, why does your writing keep skewing the history? It is simple to keep neutral by using word such as " he viewed himself as correcting error", etc; instead of stating that "he was correcting unbiblical practices". --MookThala (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Synod of Diamper
The Pope did urge restraint in regard to the latinizing posture of Archbishop Alejio de Menezes.
From Fr. Berchmans Kodackal,JCD/JD - http://members.tripod.com/~Berchmans/western.html:
Synod of Diamper
The Portuguese missionaries wanted to do away with Chaldean jurisdiction over Malabar and wield their politico-religious power over the Thomas Christians. The archbishop of the Thomas Christians, Mar Abraham, sent by the Catholic Chaldean patriarch, was found guilty of heresy by the Portuguese missionaries. In the light of the report of the missionaries, in 1595, Pope Clement VIII sent two apostolic briefs to Archbishop Dom Menezes of Goa. These were only to inquire into the life and doctrine of Abraham and, if he was found guilty or if he died, to appoint a Vicar Apostolic. Mar Abraham died in 1597, and then Dom Menezes, the Portuguese archbishop of Goa, and the ex-officio political ruler during the absence of the Portuguese Viceroy of Goa, entered Malabar, claimed he had authority from the Pope, and visited the churches of the Thomas Christians exercising jurisdiction. Using force, he opened churches and exercised jurisdiction over them by giving confirmation. He did not mind the excommunication served to him by the archdeacon. Visiting churches, he held three ordination services and ordained at least a hundred, making them condemn Nestorianism. He thus gained to his side those who were ordained and their relatives. The Malabar kings, especially the one of Cochin, also were threatened and won over.
Dom Menezes made hasty preparations for his synod to which, sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, were summoned all priests and other clerics and four lay men elected from each church, even from the churches he had not visited. Around 153 priests and 671 laymen (elected ones and specially invited ones) from some 64 churches in 168 villages met at Diamper (Udayamperoor) in the territory of the king of Cochin. The synod was held in June (20-29), 1599, at which the Thomas Christians had to sign the Profession of Faith at the beginning, and the decrees at the close of the synod. They were also to condemn the Patriarch as a heretic and schismatic and to swear they would not accept any bishop except the one immediately nominated by Rome. The Patriarch thus condemned was Denha Simon who was in explicit communion with Rome being also honored with the sacred Pallium from the Pope.
Menezes passed decrees using force which practically converted the Malabar Church into a branch of Latin Church. The synod enacted fundamental changes in the rite, liturgy and ecclesiastical laws of the Thomas Christians. Portuguese and Latin laws and customs supplanted all others. This Latinization was mainly based on the discipline of the Council of Trent.
The Synod cut the link of the Malabar Church with the Mesopotamian Church which was at that time in full communion with the Church of Rome. This Synod was publicized in the west as the conquest of heretics for the Catholic faith. It should be noted that there is a contradiction between this notion and the fact that the Thomas Christians were summoned to the Synod under the pain of "excommunication"! Click here to see the Catholicism of the Thomas Christians.
On the other hand, the laws of the Synod of Diamper had no binding force as it was not a lawful synod because of lack of authority on the part of those who convoked it, absence of intention on the part of those who attended it, lack of form in the manner of conducting it and lack of integrity in the text promulgated. It is Possible that the laws concluded by the prelates who ruled the Malabar Church and which were all Latin in form and content were made under the erroneous assumption that Latin laws were universal.
Roz S.J. and Campori S.J. who were present at the synod, clearly state in their letters to the General of the Jesuits and his Assistant in Portugal that the "synod" was not "in forma". According to these letters 1) the Thomas Christians were not consulted in the "synod", 2) they understood nothing of all that was decided upon there, 3) there was no synod, but only reading of regulations which were not understood by those concerned, 4) Dom Menezes said he behaved like that just to show the way of salvation to the assembled without hindrance, 5) there were many things in the decrees unacceptable to the Thomas Christians, 6) those who assembled put their signature to the acts only at the insistence of Roz S.J., 7) the zeal of Dom Menezes was preposterous, 8) Dom Menezes made additions to the acts after the "synod" was over, 9) Dom Menezes obtained from Roz S.J. the signatures of the assembled detached from the original and had them attached, to his copy prepared to be sent to Rome for approbation, 10) the authors of the letters pray that the Pope may not approve the synod to rectify which they say, Roz S.J. (as bishop) had celebrated a synod at Angamaly "in forma" with the satisfaction of all, undoing certain things which Dom Menezes had ordered at Diamper. Such is the "synod" of Diamper, the acceptance of which was later on insisted upon even as a condition for the reunion of non-Catholic Thomas Christians. There is no document which says that the Holy See ever approved the "synod" of Diamper.
The Synod of Diamper, although not legitimately and properly conducted, is the first formal and canonical endeavor in Malabar Church on such a large scale. It has great historical value. It brings to light many ancient practices of the Thomas Christians. This has become the unique and sole important document in this respect because many of their other books were burned after the synod. The synod helped the organization of the diocese into parishes and their administration. It helped the evangelization of the low castes and also the raising of their social status. Many of the canons and decrees of the synod were just reproductions of the Councils of Trent, Lateran and Florence. Unfortunately the Synod of Diamper effected Latinisation in the Malabar Church, and later the Latin jurisdiction was imposed over this Church.
MookThala (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mook Thala, Thanks for the above article taken from a web site. I have read a number of books on what had happened in Cochin at that time. Also I have been to these places.
But this web site article has nothing to do with the article, Mar Thoma Church. Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know the professor-scholar Fr. Berchmans Kodackal, he isn't making up this history. What does having been to these places prove? I have also been to some of these places. Being there doesn't prove or disprove to me whether the Portuguese Bishop was doing what the Pope ordered or acting on his own, nor does it show that the Chaldean Bishop that attempted to come to Kerala was in union with the Pope. The Bishop clearly was sent by the Chaldean Patriarch who was in the Catholic Communion. It has to do with the Synod of Diamper, which is mentioned under the Marthoma Church title - if you don't want this included, delete the whole section but don't make up misleading tales instead.--MookThala (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disagreements are not "Vandalism"
Mr. Mathew, disagreeing with your version of history is not "vandalism". You repeatedly promote your version of history as if it were undisputed fact, especially when writing about some "original purity". First show evidence that this "original purity" you mention ever existed or if anyone had thought of such a thing prior to the arrival of the low-church Church of England-CMS missionaries to Kerala. Also, if this is the "original purity", why is it that the high-church Anglicans of the same Church of England have the exact same practices (prayers to saints, for the dead, statues/icons, etc), in addition to EVERY Orthodox Church, including the Oriental Orthodox and (Assyrian) Church of the East? The idea that Rome infiltrated every Orthodox Church, inserted these "non-biblical practices" - even the Churches most opposed to the Pope, and forces them to practice these things to this day - borders on insanity. These and other errors make this article against Wikipedia policy in terms of 'Neutral Point of View' and is more a propaganda piece supporting one side rather than history. Deleting sourced and cited information for rhetoric is also considered a Wiki violation. --MookThala (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Marthoma Metrans
Hello Mathew, While reading through your article on Marthoma Church,I came to note a few points.. All the Marthoma Metrans starting from Marthoma I and ending in Marthoma IX were members of the 'Pakalomattam 'family.Also ,soon after Marthoma IX was consecrated , Pulikkotil Joseph Mar Dionysus recieved the royal permission and became Malankara Metropolitan.He also recieved all canonical signs and symbols of authority from Marthoma IX .Thus ended the reign of Marthoma Metrans.Then it was the reign of Malankara Metropolitans.This being the fact how can you say that Marthoma Metrans still continues to exist????? Arunvroy (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To me, it only makes sense if the same Bishop claiming to be Marthoma Metran is also Malankara Metropolitan, Maphryian, and Catholicos. The way it's stated here, the Mathew's Marthoma Church perspective - the Marthoma Metran lineage continued under the authority of the British Crown, if so, when the British left did that authority also(??) Nonetheless, if this is going to be included, it must be noted that this is disputed and only the Marthoma Church's view.--MookThala (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hellow Arun V Roy, A very good question. I shall divide this into three sections.
Pakalomattom Family: Geevarghese Kathanaar was the Malankara Mooppen (leader of the Malankara Church. Portuguese called him Archidiacon). Mooppen means Elder. After his demise Thomas Kathanaar became Malankara Mooppen. Both of them were from Pakalomattom family. A study the the customs, traditions and practices of Kerala people, we find that such postions are passed on from generation to generation. Thus from Mar Thoma I to Mar Thoma IX the Malankara Mooppens were from the Pakalomattom family or were closely related to them.
This brings to another interesting conclusion. Because the first 9 Marthoma Meteropolitans were from Pakalomattom family, it can be assumed that the previous leaders were also from that family. That is from the first century Malankara Mooppens were from Pakalomattom Family. Of course to confirm this more evidences are required.
Royal Proclamations: This has nothing to do with the Malankara Metrapolitan or with his family. It is related to a fixed deposit known as Vattipanam. (see para about Mar Thoma VII). Royal declarations were issued only if there was a dispute after the demise or resignation of a Metropolitan. So I am adding related points to the article. Hope that will answer your question. I have seen some of the original documents regarding these Royal Proclamations.
Malankara Metropolitans: This appointment has nothing to do with the Governmnet(s). First century. The leaders of the parish were called Presbeteros in Greek and Edavaka Mooppen (Malayalam) in Kerala. The head of the churches were known as episkpos (in Greek) and Malankara Mooppen (Malaylam) in Kerala. During the Synod at Diamper in 1599, these were the names used in Malyalam. (Ref. Canons of The Synod of Diamper, 1599).
From first century, members of this church were called Malankara Mar Thoma Nazrani. ((Ref. Canons of The Synod of Diamper, 1599). At the time of Mar Thoma I or at a later stage, the title Malankara Mooppen was replaced by the word Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan. Now this is used for the head of all Metrans (bishops). Metrachen is made up of two words Metran and Achen which means Venerable Bishop.
Malankara Mar Thoma Metrapolitan is a person elected by the followers. He should declared by them in front of a public that he is eligible to hold that position. From Mar Thoma I to the present Mar Thoma XXI, (Dr. Joseph Mar Thoma Metropolitan) were seated on the same throne and were declared that they were eligible to hold that position.
Malankara Mar Thoma Metropoilitan is a position that are occupied by a person elected by its people. Just like The Head of a State who is elected and enthroned, it does not end with a person or a family. Before reformation and after reformation; from Mar Thoma I to the present Metropolitan all of them were called Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitans.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] reply to Mathew's explanation
Hello Mathew,
You seem to be a very good supporter of your church.Ofcourse ,that is a very good thing. I read your answer to my question.But still i have some doubts..Please take these discussions in a friendly manner,I donot intend to demoralize or make fun of any religion or community.
In your reply ,you said that,Malankara Marthoma Metrapolitha is always selected by the people. Please note that i am not asking about 'malankara Marthoma metropolitan' who is the supreme head of your church. Marthoma is the name of your church, hence naturally Malankara Marthomma Metropolitan becomes the head of your church. Earlier itself i had mentioned that the reign of Marthoma Metrans ended in Marthoma 9,and after that the power was transferred to the Malankara Metropolitan.' You may very well note that H.G Mathews Mar Athanasios , founder of the marthomma church, was a Malankara Metropolitan,and reigned here for almost 10 years ,after which he was abdicated from the position, due to his reform movements in the curch,and was replaced by Joseph Dionysious V (Pulikkotiil Joseph Dionysious I). Please also note that the foundation stone for my native church,Holy Innocents Orthodox Valiyapalli,mezhuveli, was laid by Mathews Mar Athanasios ,when he was still the malankara metropolitan.So you cannot deny the fact that the reign of Marthoma Metrans had ended and the power was transferred to the Malankara metropolitan,the current Malankara Metropolitan being H.H Moran Mar Baselios Marthoma Didymos I Catholicos Of East, and this position being supported and recognized by the Supreme Court of India This being the fact,how can you say that the lineage of marthoma metrans still continues even today, when the title of Malankara Metropolitan is still being used? Arunvroy (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Arun Roy,
Mathews Mar Athanasios was approved by the governments as “Metropolitan of the Syrian Christians” and not as Malankara Metropolitan. (Ref: M.P.Varkey, 1901.Malankara Idavakayudey Methrapolita. Page 9)
You have mentioned that the reign of Marthoma Metrans ended in Marthoma 9, and after that the power was transferred to the Malankara Metropolitan. Probably you are thinking of the proclamation by the government that was given to Mar Thoma X. The declaration uses, “Metropolitan of the Syrian Church in Malabar” and not “Malankara Metropolitan”. (Ref: From one of the original proclamation). So successors of Mar Thoma IX also may be called Mar Thoma Metrans.
Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan is not a title given to one particular church. Mar Thoma belongs to all Malnkara Nazrani people. So all Nazrai churches are free to adopt that title for their church leader. Accepting such a person as Metropolitan or as Malankara Metropolitan or as Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan is left to the individual churches.
You have also mentioned that Mathews Mar Athanasios abdicated from the position. Do you have any proof for this claim?
You have mentioned that you are a member of the Holy Innocents Orthodox Valiyapalli, Mezhuveli. In 1890 it was known as Mezhuveli Yakobaya Valia Palli. Till 1890 worship services were conducted by Bavakakshi and Metran Kakshi (about 110 families) on alternate Sundays as per the agreement. (Hope you know the details of this agreement).
It is better if you can read, Malankara Marthoma Sabha Charitram (Three volumes in Malyalam), by N.M.Mathew, available at Thomsons Book store, College Road, Kozhencherry (which is nearer to Mezhuveli) or at Mar Thoma book stalls. Note that the materials in the book are copyrighted.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation Concerns
I have edited the page to note this article needs cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The concerns that prompted this change are not about the content of the page but about English grammar, usage, and punctuation.
While there has been an encouraging increase in editing activity for this article, the increase has been accompanied by a general decline in the quality of English. Since this is an encyclopedic source, it is essential that contributors do not sacrifice the quality their English for expediency in adding to the article. The errors are so diffuse that it would be impractical for one person to correct the entire article. The onus needs to be on the contributors to make sure their contribution meets Wikipedia's quality standards prior to actually finalizing the change. Wikipedia has provided a reference that can be helpful: the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There are other guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style that can also be used for reference. The errors that are troubling are not simple typographical errors, e.g. a period instead of a comma, but rather, more nuanced omissions or oversights that indicate the contributor has not mastered the subtleties of the English language.
Happy editing! Portraitofalady (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Portraitofalady is correct, the problems that have been stated and restated above primarily have to do with the contributors lack of understanding of the English language - he seems to be unaware that certain terms leave room for neutrality while others lean toward antagonism and misunderstanding to those from outside the societal circle mentioned. Terms like "open Bible" and "best practices" are unintelligible to those who are not members of this group and are unaware of the text being cited - why not simply write the meaning behind the term instead of the term itself? I have tried numerous times to correct these errors, but the contributor refuses to allow anyone else to edit, especially if it disagrees with his strict "party line". This article is not up to normal Wikipedia standards and reads more like a self-promotion piece or something one finds on the website of the group in question, the citations from the pro-MarThoma books that the contributor himself has written for his church is clearly in conflict with neutrality. --MookThala (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
