2025, മാർച്ച് 26, ബുധനാഴ്‌ച

Council of Chalcedon

Council of Chalcedon (by Vasily Surikov, Public Domain)
Council of Chalcedon
Vasily Surikov (Public Domain)

The Council of Chalcedon was called in 451 CE by the Roman Emperor Marcian (r. 450-457) to settle debates regarding the nature (hypostases, "reality") of Christ that had begun at two earlier meetings in Ephesus (431 CE and 439 CE). The question was whether Christ was human or divine, a man who became God (through the resurrection and ascension) or God who became a man (through the incarnation, "taking on flesh"), and how his humanity and divinity affected his essence and being, if at all.

Shortly after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 CE, an Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, applying logic, had simply taught that if God created everything in the universe, then at some point he must have created Christ. This caused debates and even riots throughout the cities of the Roman Empire. If Christ was a creature, then he was subordinate to God. Seeking empire-wide unity, Constantine I (r. 306-337 CE) called for a council meeting at Nicaea in 325 to settle the matter.

REMOVE ADS
ADVERTISEMENT

The First Council of Nicaea produced what became known as the concept of the Trinity. This concept expressed the belief that Christ was of the identical essence of God, who had manifested himself in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth. It produced the innovation of a creed that dictated what all Christians should believe. The Nicene Creed was now enforced by the legions of the Roman emperor, and Arianism was condemned as heresy. However, those who sided with Arius continued to incorporate his teachings in their communities. One of Constantine's sons, Constantius II (r. 337-361 CE), was an Arian Christian.

With the beginning of the barbarian invasions in this period, Christians were urged to be patriotic Christians, in line with the Imperial Church. However, the Antiochene and Alexandrian communities continued to debate which emperors had such authority (legitimacy), depending upon their views of continuing Arianism at their courts and other topics. The other problem was that the Council of Nicaea only addressed the relationship between God and Christ but said nothing about his nature.

REMOVE ADS
ADVERTISEMENT

Struggle Among the Sees

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 381 ELEVATED ROME ABOVE ALL OTHER SEES.

For several centuries, Christian bishops had competed with each other in relation to who had the authority to dictate beliefs and rituals for all Christians. The major sees (dioceses) of bishops were JerusalemAntiochAlexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 elevated Rome above all others (as the site of martyrdom of Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle). Alexandria, which had several Christian schools of philosophy, saw this as an insult to their prestige. Antioch resented it because they claimed their community was the first to be called Christians (from Luke's Acts of the Apostles). Jerusalem was the most insulted, as this was the site of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection. Thrown into this mix were three more heresies that ultimately required more imperial anathemas and dictates: Paulinism, Novatianism, and Nestorianism.

Paulinism

Paul of Samosata (200-275 CE) – from which we have the term "Paulinism" – was the Bishop of Antioch from 260-268 CE. In the earlier debates regarding the Trinity, he claimed that Jesus was born a man but infused with the divine logos. The logos was the principle of rationality (taught by the Greek philosopher Plato, 428/427-348/347 BCE) that connected the highest god to creation on earth often translated as "word," as in the Gospel of John: "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). Earlier Christians had taught this same logos concept, but the schools of philosophy were incomplete because they did not recognize that the logos was in fact Christ in a preexistent form of divinity.

REMOVE ADS
ADVERTISEMENT

Holy Trinity
Holy Trinity
Fr Lawrence Lew, O.P. (CC BY-NC-ND)

Through this adoption, Jesus was not a god who became man, but a man who became God. As a man, Jesus shared God's divine will. Paul was condemned as a heretic after the official doctrine of the Trinity was established at Nicaea, but there were followers of his teaching throughout the empire. Paulinist baptism was deemed unacceptable and required rebaptism.

Novatianism

Novatian (c. 20-258 CE) was a Christian theologian who refused to readmit any Christian who had lapsed during the persecution of Decius (251 CE). Some Christian bishops had sacrificed to the gods to avoid execution, and their forgiveness had to await God in the final judgment. Novatian believed that membership in the Church was not required for salvation, but as the Church is made up of saints, readmission of these sinners would threaten the community. Novatian's followers extended the idea of no readmission to all who committed mortal sins such as idolatry, murder, and adultery. Many of them also forbade remarriage after a divorce or widowhood.

Nestorianism

Nestorius (386-450 CE) was the Archbishop of Constantinople from 428-431 CE. Among other issues, his most controversial teaching was a rejection of the elevation of Mary as Theotokos ("God-bearer" referring to the 2nd-century CE claim that Mary was elevated because she carried divinity in her womb). Rejecting Theotokos, he preached Christotokos ("Christ-bearer"). Whether he intended to or not, by the 5h century CE, Nestorianism was denounced as teaching two distinct hypostases in the Incarnate Christ, or two separate realities, one human and one divine.

REMOVE ADS
ADVERTISEMENT

Portrait of Nestorius
Portrait of Nestorius
Romeyn de Hoogh (Public Domain)

In addition to these views, Jewish-Christian communities (such as the Ebionites) still existed, especially in the Eastern Roman Empire. These were Jewish followers of Christ who still argued for the full conversion of Gentiles, including circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance. In their view Jesus was born human, but God's revelation in him created a man of moral excellence. He was vindicated by his death and exalted to Heaven.

The Choices at Ephesus

Emperor Theodosius II (r. 402-450 CE) called the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE to settle all of these matters. First and foremost, all Jewish-Christian views were condemned as heresy. Secondly, the remaining views and communities of Gnostic Christians, who taught that Christ did not become human, he only appeared (docetism) as human so that his humanity was denied, were condemned.

DELEGATES FROM ANTIOCH CLAIMED THAT DIVINE ELEMENTS WERE PRESENT IN THE HUMAN JESUS, BUT FULL DIVINITY OCCURRED ONLY AT HIS RESURRECTION & EXALTATION.

The Roman delegates held to their claim that two substances were joined in a single person, including a rational soul (the logos), following the teachings of Plato. The delegates from Antioch preferred the tradition of the gospels of a more human Jesus. Jesus' humanity meant that he could be more sympathetic to the struggles of humans. Divine elements were present in the human Jesus, but full divinity occurred only at his resurrection and exaltation.

REMOVE ADS
ADVERTISEMENT

The remaining Arians in Alexandria, who taught that Christ was subordinate to God, claimed that if the "word" (logos) can combine with flesh, it receives sense impressions. Therefore, it is mutable (changing), not identical to God. The union between the divine and the human in Jesus was a true communication. In Christ, the word/spirit and the body and soul are thus joined to the divine and cannot be acted on or changed, but this was a union without forming a new nature.

Throughout the proceedings, bishops argued over the extent of Jesus' humanity. Bishop Clement of Alexandria had earlier claimed that Jesus lacked human passions. Rather, the line in the Gospel of John that "Jesus wept" (11:35) was an allegorical symbol of the loss of God's plan for humans. Others taught that Jesus' body was different, purer than all other humans. As an original soul before creation, the soul of Jesus was different than human souls. They even debated if Jesus physically ate (an allegory or metaphor?) or performed other human functions (such as defecation).

All these theologians agreed on the union of divinity and human but disagreed on the physics of how it was achieved. In relation to salvation, Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373 CE) claimed that it was not to give God an opportunity to participate in human life but so that humans could participate in the divine life, for man to become God.

Trinity
Trinity
Lawrence OP (CC BY-NC-ND)

At the Council of Ephesus, Nestorius' views were supported by Bishop John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria (who had a monastery). Bishop Celestine of Rome opposed him, but then Cyril of Alexandria sent Nestorius a letter with twelve anathemas that had to be accepted and included in all Alexandrian theology. Both Nestorius and John of Antioch were late in arriving and were condemned in abstentia. John arrived four days later and condemned Cyril. Bishops' legates arrived from Rome in the next few days. They suggested ratifying the condemnation of Nestorius but removing the ban on John's group and readmitting them.

Ephesus was notorious for the constant excommunications and charges of anathema by bishops on both sides. Theodosius II threw most of them in prison, but Cyril talked his way out. All three major heresies (Paulinism, Novatianism, and Nestorianism) were condemned, but the First Council of Ephesus essentially resolved nothing. A second one was called in 439 CE. The conclusion was that the duality of natures existed only in the ideal moment, before the Incarnation. The conclusion of the Second Council of Ephesus was that after the union, there was only one nature.

Council of Chalcedon (451 CE)

After the death of Theodosius II, those discontented with the councils of Ephesus still objected and argued different views. In 451 CE, Emperor Marcian called for the Council of Chalcedon (near Constantinople). The purpose was to finally settle the issue of the two natures of Christ and how to word the doctrine of Incarnation. It was attended by 520 bishops and their entourages and was the largest and best-documented of all the councils. Marcian wished to bring proceedings to a speedy end and asked the council to make a pronouncement on the doctrine of the Incarnation. It was decided that no new creed was necessary.

Love History?

Sign up for our free weekly email newsletter!

 

The Council issued what was called the Chalcedonian Definition or the Chalcedonian Confession:

Following then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same God, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same (consisting) of a rational soul and a body; homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted, begotten of the Father before the ages as to his Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos, as to his manhood. One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one Person and one hypostasis (essence)—not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us. (quoted in Herring, 324)

The conclusion was reached that the two natures of Christ remained distinct in the union; neither nature was diminished in any way through their joining. The Council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and hierarchy (to stem the lifestyles and corruption of the clergy). Canon 28 declared that the See of Constantinople had the patriarchal status with equal privileges to the See of Rome.

Fresco Depicting the Council of Chalcedon
Fresco Depicting the Council of Chalcedon
Dionisius (Public Domain)

Consequences

The immediate result of the Council created more schisms. Some bishops claimed that the declaration of two natures was equivalent to Nestorianism. The Alexandrian churches did concede two natures from the beginning, but they emphasized the divine nature as dominant. The Alexandrians were now labeled as monophysites ("one nature") and thus heretics. This was technically not their position, but they broke from both Constantinople and Rome and created the independent Coptic Christian Church of Egypt with their own Pope. They suffered persecution and executions until the time of the Islamic Conquest, which granted them status as "people of the Book," Jews and Christians.

In the East, the Nestorian survivors carried his teachings into Persia and other regions of the Byzantine Empire and beyond. Nestorian communities existed along the Silk Road into China and India. Periodically vestiges of heretical teachings arose, and so there were continual rounds of excommunications and denouncements from Constantinople. The existence of these divergent communities as well as other issues ultimately contributed to the separate creation of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The two main Churches separated in 1054, into Latin Christianity (the Catholic Church) and Orthodox Christianity.

Many modern Christians have difficulty understanding some of the more esoteric details of these debates and why such arguments led to condemnation and executions, but in the historical context of the ways in Christianity was transforming the late Roman Empire, the stakes were high; differences in interpretation jeopardized the very concept of salvation for Christians.

REMOVE ADS
ADVERTISEMENT

Spread of Christianity Map (up to 600 CE)
Spread of Christianity Map (up to 600 CE)
Karyna Mykytiuk (CC BY-NC-SA)

When Christians began electing bishops (overseers) in their communities, a unique innovation was added in that these bishops had the power to forgive sins on earth (from Matthew's story of Jesus commissioning Peter for this role). The bishops received this power through ordination, or the sacrament of the laying on of hands, which spiritually translated the power of Peter down to his successors. What became the sacraments (baptism, communion, marriage rituals, etc.) were now under the authority of the bishop. What made these sacraments different from other rituals was the belief that the spirit of God was literally present at that moment. Debates swirled around the problem of whether it nullified the sacraments if a bishop were accused of not following the dictates of the Imperial Church.

In the 2nd century CE, Christians had invented the concepts of orthodoxy ("correct beliefs") as opposed to heresy (from the Greek haeresis, a "school of thought") as anything that differed from their views. When Constantine I converted, he became both head of the Roman Empire as well as the Church. Anyone who now opposed the Christian beliefs of the emperor was a heretic, which meant being guilty of treason. Then as now, interpretations were crucial for the relationship between church and state. All of our literature from this period was written by the elite, upper-class, educated Christians. How these teachings were read or understood by the majority of uneducated Christians remains unknown, but average Christians would have been caught up in the many coups and civil wars resulting from these debates, in the various armies of contending emperors and bishops.

Did you like this definition?
 

2025, മാർച്ച് 24, തിങ്കളാഴ്‌ച

Ethiopic Christianity, Syriac contacts with


Ethiopic Christianity, Syriac contacts with

Christianity reached the Kingdom of Aksum, on the northern edge of the great Ethiopian plateau, by the reign of ʿĒzānā in the middle of the 4th cent. According to Rufinus (4th cent.), the introduction of Christianity was facilitated by a certain Frumentius from Tyre (later known in the Ethiopic tradition as Salāmā Kaśātē Berhān), who was ordained bp. of ‘India’ (i.e., Ethiopia) by Athanasius of Alexandria. In the 6th cent., the traveler Cosmas Indicopleustes reported that there were a large number of churches in Ethiopia as well as numerous bishops, martyrs, and monks. In time, Ethiopic Christianity became associated with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which include the Coptic, Armenian, Syriac Orthodox, and Malankara Syriac Orthodox Churches, all of which accept the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, but reject the Council of Chalcedon (see Ecumenical dialogue). Throughout its history, Ethiopic Christianity has had various contacts with Syriac Christianity. In general, the influence of Ethiopic Christianity on Syriac Christianity seems to have been rather limited, though it was certainly not non-existent. The influence of Syriac Christianity on Ethiopic Christianity, on the other hand, was more substantial. This influence can be divided into two basic time periods: the Aksumite Period (4th cent. – ca. 900) and the Solomonic Period (1270–1770).

In the scholarly literature, a great deal of attention has been focused on possible Syriac influences on Ethiopic Christianity in the Aksumite period. Although Christianity reached Ethiopia in the 4th cent., the spread of Christianity throughout Ethiopia is traditionally attributed to the efforts of a group of foreign missionaries active in the late 5th to early 6th cent. These missionaries include the Ṣādeqān, Maṭāʿ, and especially the so-called Nine Saints (see A. Brita, in EAe , vol. 3, 1188–91). A number of scholars, including I. Guidi (1888, 33–4 with n. 1; 1932, 13–5) and especially C. Conti Rossini (1928, esp. 155–65), have argued that these foreign missionaries originated from Syriac-speaking areas. Based on this connection, a theory was developed that attributed a great deal of Syriac influence to the development of Christianity in Ethiopia, including the introduction of monasticism as well as the translation of the Bible into Geʿez, the classical language of Ethiopic Christianity. The association of these missionaries with Syriac-speaking areas was based on three principal arguments, all of which have been seriously challenged in more recent scholarship.

First, it was argued that the personal names of the missionaries and the geographical names from which they are said to originate are of Syriac origin (Guidi 1888, 33–4 n. 1; Conti Rossini 1928, 161). More recently, however, Marrassini (1990, 35–8; 1999, 326–8) has shown that few, if any, of these names are actually of Syriac origin.

Second, it was proposed that the transcription of Greek names in Geʿez, especially in translations of the Bible, was based on the pattern of Aramaic (Guidi 1888, 33–34 n. 1; Conti Rossini 1928, 156). Marrassini (1990, 39–41; 1999, 329–30) has, however, pointed out that this pattern is not restricted to Aramaic, but rather it is the typical way in which Greek is transcribed in Semitic languages.

The third argument adduced in favor of Syriac influence on Ethiopic Christianity in the Aksumite period involves Syriac loanwords in Geʿez. More than a century ago, Th. Nöldeke drew attention to a number of Aramaic loanwords in Geʿez. Guidi (1932, 14) and especially Conti Rossini (1928, 155) argued that some of these Aramaic loanwords in Geʿez are more specifically of Syriac origin, e.g., Geʿez hāymānot ‘faith’ (often translating Greek pístis) from Syriac haymānutā. In an influential study, however, Polotsky showed that several of these Aramaic loanwords were not borrowed from Syriac, but rather from Jewish Aramaic, e.g., Geʿez meṣwāt ‘alms, charity’ (no such word exists in Syriac) and Geʿez ṭāʿot ‘idol’ (Syriac has ṭāʿyutā, which not only preserves the third root consonant y, but means ‘error, mistake’). Further research by Ullendorff (1967, 120–5), Witakowski (1989–90, 191–2; forthcoming), and Marrassini (1990, 38–9; 1999, 328–9) has raised additional questions about some of the purported Syriac loanwords in Geʿez while at the same time suggested several new possible examples. In the current state of research, it can only be conclusively stated that Geʿez contains a number of Aramaic loanwords, some of which are certainly not Syriac, but others of which may potentially be Syriac. Before any meaningful historical conclusions can be drawn, an updated analysis of all the Aramaic loanwords in Geʿez is needed, taking into account recent developments in Aramaic dialectology as well as the increasingly robust methodology of contact linguistics.

In the end, the evidence for significant Syriac influence on Ethiopic Christianity in the Aksumite period is rather slim. Nevertheless, it does seem all but certain that there were contacts between Ethiopic Christianity and Syriac Christianity at this time, especially given that the Aksumite kingdom was involved in various power struggles with South Arabian kingdoms in the Arabian Peninsula, a place where Syriac-speaking Christians are known to have resided. In one instance of particular importance to contacts between Syriac and Ethiopic Christianity, the Aksumite neguś Kālēb (fl. first half of the 6th cent.) intervened against the king of Ḥimyar on behalf of miaphysite Christians who where being persecuted in Nagran (see recently Nebes).

Setting aside the problematic evidence of the Aksumite period, Syriac influence on Ethiopic Christianity can be firmly established for Geʿez literature from the Solomonic period. In this case, however, Syriac influence was almost always mediated by Arabic Christianity, which inherited a great deal from the Syriac heritage.

Alongside original compositions, Geʿez literature contains a significant body of translations which were made from Greek in the Aksumite period and from Arabic in the Solomonic period; there is little evidence for literary activity in the intervening time of the Zāgwē dynasty (900–1270). In many cases, the Arabic literature was itself translated from Greek, Coptic, and Syriac. While there may be a few rare cases in which Syriac literature in Geʿez was translated directly from Syriac, in most cases Arabic was the bridge by which Syriac literature reached Ethiopic Christianity.

The Bible is the earliest piece of literature associated with Ethiopic Christianity. At least part of the Bible was already translated into Geʿez by the end of the 4th to the early 5th cent. as can be deduced from biblical quotations in the Aksumite inscriptions (Knibb, 46–54). Though there is now general consensus that the Geʿez OT and NT were both translated from Greek, a number of different Vorlagen, including Syriac, have been proposed throughout the history of scholarship. A. Vööbus, for instance, argued that the Geʿez Gospels were translated from Syriac and then revised against the Greek text. It is now clear, however, that Syriac influence on the Geʿez Bible occurred at a later stage (probably in the 14th cent.) when the Geʿez biblical text was revised against a Syriac biblical text or, more likely, an Arabic version of a Syriac biblical text (see Knibb, in EAe , vol. 1, 565 and more extensively Knibb 1999). Evidence of interest in the comparison of Syriac and Ethiopic biblical texts (along with Coptic, Arabic, and Armenian) is found in ms. Vat. Barberini Or. 2, a 15th-cent. polyglot Psalter in five languages, which was owned by a Syr. Orth. priest named Ṣalib (see S. P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac tradition [2nd ed. 2006], 145).

Moving beyond the Bible, a number of Syriac-speaking authors appear in Geʿez literature. Two demonstrations by Aphrahaṭ (fl. 336–45) are found in the Ethiopic tradition (see W. Witakowski, in EAe , vol. 1, 287). In 1906, F. M. Esteves Pereira published a Geʿez version of Dem. 5. In this text, the author is (incorrectly) identified as Yaʿqub of Nisibis, an attribution which is also found in the earliest Syriac ms. of Aphrahaṭ (London, Brit. Libr. Add. 17,182; dated 474), as well as in the Armenian translation. In 1964, E. Cerulli published a text on the resurrection of the dead, which was subsequently identified as a portion of Aphrahaṭ’s Dem. 8 by T. Baarda.

A number of Geʿez texts are attributed to Ephrem (d. 373), including both homilies and prayers (a list is provided by Weninger, in EAe , vol. 1, 331–2); it is, however, unclear whether any of these are among Ephrem’s genuine writings. Several homilies attributed to Ephrem are extracted in the Hāymānota ābaw ‘Faith of the Fathers’, which is a large compendium of patristic writings, synodical statements, and canons (unedited; see A.  Wion and E.  Fritsch, in EAe , vol. 2, 1073–5 and Graf). In addition, Ephrem is said to have composed the Weddāsē Māryām ‘Praise of Mary’ (ed. with FT Velat), a collection of hymns to Mary for each day of the week, which is found in Ethiopic Psalter mss. as well as in the Meʿerāf, a liturgical text which forms part of the Divine Office. Due to his association with the Weddāsē Māryām, Ephrem is usually depicted in Ethiopic iconography standing at the feet of an enthroned Mary (see Hammerschmidt and Jäger, 101–8). Ephrem also sometimes bears the sobriquet labḥāwi ‘the potter’ in the Ethiopic tradition, likely due to a conflation with Shemʿun Quqoyo.

The legend of Abgar V Ukkama (see Abgarids), which is found in Syriac in the Teaching of Addai, exists in at least four Geʿez versions, two of which are associated with the Taʾāmmera Iyasus ‘The miracles of Jesus’ (see Weninger, in EAe , vol. 1, 40–41 and especially Haile). Most of the Taʾāmmera Iyasus consists of a translation of the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John (ed. with LT I. Galbiati, Iohannis evangelium apocryphum arabice [1957]), which is itself based on a variety of sources, including the Cave of Treasures and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius (see Witakowski 1995).

No less than twenty texts are attributed to Yaʿqub of Serugh (d. 521) in the Ethiopic tradition (inventories are provided in W. Witakowski, in EAe , vol. 2, 263 and Uhlig 1999, 13–16). A majority of these belong to the genre of dersān ‘homily’, the Geʿez equivalent of Syriac memrā. While only one of these homilies has thus far been edited (Uhlig 1999), it seems that many of them were translated from Arabic, and at least some may go back to Syriac originals. Others, however, were only ascribed to Yaʿqub in the Geʿez ms. tradition, e.g., the Dersāna sanbat ‘Homily on the Sabbath’ (see Wurmbrand 1963). Interestingly, Yaʿqub’s ‘Homily on the death of Aaron’ formed the basis for the Mota Āron ‘Death of Aaron’, a Geʿez text that is found not only in the literary tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but also in that of the Bēta Esrāʾēl (or Falāšā) (see Wurmbrand 1961). In addition to homilies, an anaphora, incipit ‘Stand up in the fear of the Lord’, is also attributed to Yaʿqub (ed. with GT Euringer), but again it is probably pseudonymous (see Hammerschmidt, 47–8).

A Profession of Faith attributed to Yaʿqub Burdʿoyo (d. 578) is preserved in Geʿez in the Hāymānota ābaw (ed. with GT Cornill; see J. Tubach, in EAe , vol. 3, 261–2). This text is not extant in Syriac, but is found in Arabic (ed. with DT H. G. Kleyn, Jacobus Baradaeüs. De stichter der syrische monophysietische kerk [1882], 121–63), from which the Geʿez was translated.

Geʿez preserves the ‘Conflict of Severus’ by Athanasios I Gamolo (d. 631) (ed. Goodspeed and Crum), which deals with the life of Severus of Antioch (d. 538). Though not extant in Syriac, this text is found in Arabic as well as in Coptic fragments. Several texts attributed to Severus also exist in Geʿez, some of which may ultimately derive from Syriac originals (see Witakowski 2004).

Several Syriac authors feature prominently in the Maṣḥafa manakosāt ‘Book of monks’, which is one of the central collections of Ethiopic monasticism (see A. Bausi, in EAe , vol. 2, 997–9). This collection consists of three distinct texts, each of which is directly associated with at least one Syriac-speaking author. Included in the Maṣḥafa manakosāt is the Āragāwi manfasāwi ‘Spiritual Elder’, which is the name by which the Ch. of E. mystical writer Yoḥannan of Dalyatha (8th cent.), or Yoḥannan Saba (‘Elder’), is known in Geʿez. The Āragāwi manfasāwi was translated from an Arabic version of Yoḥannan’s original Syriac composition (see E.  Lucchesi, in EAe , vol.  1, 309–10). Another text found in the Maṣḥafa manakosāt is the Filkesyos (see Witakowski 2006; idem, in EAe , vol. 2, 541–2). Though attributed to the Syr. Orth. theologian Philoxenos of Mabbug (d. 523), the Filkesyos is actually a Geʿez version (via Arabic) of the commentary of Dadishoʿ Qaṭraya (late 7th cent.) on the ‘Paradise of the Fathers’ by ʿEnanishoʿ (7th cent.). ʿEnanishoʿ’s work is in turn a large compilation of monastic texts, which includes Palladius’s ‘Lausiac history’, the ‘History of the monks in Egypt’, and various apophthegmata. The final book that makes up the Maṣḥafa manakosāt is the Maṣḥafa Mār Yesḥaq ‘The book of Mar Isaac’ (ed. with GT Berhanu; see S. Weninger, in EAe , vol. 2, 193–4). As the title suggests, this text is attributed to the famous Ch. of E. monastic author Isḥaq of Nineveh (late 7th cent.). More specifically, the Maṣḥafa Mār Yesḥaq is a Geʿez translation of the Arabic collection attributed to Isḥaq. The Arabic version is in turn a translation from a Greek version of writings attributed to Isḥaq, which consists of most of the ‘First Part’ of the original Syriac writings of Isḥaq as well as four homilies by Yoḥannan of Dalyatha and an abbreviated version of the ‘Letter to Patricius’ by Philoxenos of Mabbug. Thus, although the Filkesyos is incorrectly ascribed to Philoxenos, the Maṣḥafa manakosāt does still contain a text by this Syr. Orth. theologian. Outside of the Maṣḥafa manakosāt, Geʿez monastic literature preserves a number of sayings attributed to Syriac-speaking authors, including Ephrem, Yoḥannan of Dalyatha, and Isḥaq of Nineveh, in various collections of apophthegmata (ed. with LT Arras 1963, 1967, 1984, 1986, 1988).

Geʿez biblical exegesis has also been influenced by Syriac-speaking authors, especially those belonging to the Ch. of E., such as Aḥob Qaṭraya (late 6th cent.?), Theodoros bar Koni (fl. end of the 8th cent.), Ishoʿ bar Nun (d.  828), and Ishoʿdad of Merv (fl. ca. 850). This contact was mediated by the Christian Arabic tradition, in particular the exegetical works of Ibn al-Ṭayyib (d. 1043), especially his Firdaws al-naṣrāniyya ‘The Paradise of Christianity’. In its Geʿez version, E.-Syr. biblical exegesis was transmitted to the Andemta commentary tradition (Cowley 1983, 1988). The Andemta commentaries contain a translation of the Geʿez biblical text into Amharic, the official language of present-day Ethiopia, as well as a wealth of traditional exegetical material (Psalms ed. with ET Stoffregen Pedersen; Hosea ed. with IT Andeberhan). Several anonymous Syriac exegetical homilies are also extant in Geʿez. The Syriac verse homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (ed. with ET S. P. Brock and S. Hopkins, ‘A verse homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt: Syriac original with early Arabic translation’, LM 105 [1992], 87–146), for instance, found its way via Arabic into Geʿez (ed. with FT Caquot), where it is attributed to Ephrem. Similarly, the Geʿez Zenāhu la-Yosef ‘History of Joseph’ (ET Isaac; an edition of the Geʿez is in preparation by the current author) ultimately derives (via Arabic) from a Syriac version, which is attributed to Basil of Caesarea (see Heal; ed. M. Weinberg, Die Geschichte Josefs angeblich verfasst von Basilius dem Grossen aus Caesarea [1893]; S. W. Link, Die Geschichte Josefs angeblich verfasst von Basilius dem Grossen aus Cäsarea [1895]; K.  Heal, ‘A Missing leaf from the Syriac History of Joseph’, forthcoming).

Finally, a number of Syriac individuals appear in Geʿez hagiographic literature. The Senkessar ‘Synaxary’, for instance, commemorates, among others, Abgar V Ukkama, Barṣawmo, Ephrem (cf. Pérès), Marutha of MaypherqaṭShemʿun the Stylite, and Yaʿqub of Nisibis (ed. with FT by various authors in PO; for full references, see Colin; ET Budge 1928). More developed hagiographic works, such as the Life of Barṣawmo (ed. with FT Grébaut), are also extant in Geʿez.

Among the many interesting aspects of this large body of Geʿez literature that is attributed to Syriac-speaking authors is the fact that several E.-Syr. authors are represented in the Ethiopic tradition, especially in texts related to biblical exegesis and monasticism. The appearance of these E.-Syr. authors is intriguing given that Ethiopic Christianity has throughout its history been dogmatically aligned with the Syr. Orth. Church, not with the Ch. of E. In some cases, a work by a Ch. of E. author seems to have been stripped of its distinctive E.-Syr. features before it passed into Geʿez. This is, for instance, the case with Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s ‘Commentary on the Gospels’, which is extant both in an original form as well as in an adapted, miaphysite version (ed. Y. Manquriyūs, Tafsīr al-mašriqī [1908–10]; see Faultless), which served as the textual basis for the Geʿez translation. In other cases, however, it is less clear how Syriac-speaking authors belonging to the Ch. of E. found their way into Geʿez.

In addition to the Geʿez literature that is attributed to Syriac-speaking authors, there are a number of originally Greek works that passed through Syriac on their way to the Ethiopic tradition, again almost always with Arabic standing in between. This is, for instance, likely the case with the Didascalia Apostolorum (ed. with ET Platt; ed. with ET Horner), the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ (ed. with FT Beylot 1984), and several texts related to the Alexander cycle (ed. with ET Budge 1896; see G. Lusini, in EAe , vol. 1, 195). Likewise, the Sayings of Aḥiqar seem to have traveled through Syriac (and then Arabic) on their way to the Ethiopic tradition, where they are transmitted in late mss. of the Maṣḥafa falāsfa ṭabibān ‘Book of the wise philosophers’ (see U. Pietruschka, in EAe , vol. 2, 485–6). A similar trajectory is likely for the related narrative about Aḥiqar that is preserved in Geʿez (ed. with FT Schneider).

It is clear then that Geʿez literature from the Solomonic period, which includes a number of texts that are attributed to Syriac-speaking authors as well as texts that passed through Syriac on their way to Geʿez, provides an example of Syriac influence on Ethiopic Christianity. It must be stressed, however, that this Syriac influence was in most, if not all, cases mediated by Arabic Christianity.

The Syriac influence on Ethiopic Christianity in the Solomonic period can be explained by various points of contact. During the reign of Yekunno Amlāk (1270–85) at the beginning of the Solomonic period, it appears that a ‘Syrian’ became head of the Ethiopian Church, a position normally restricted to Coptic monks (see Tamrat, 69–72). Though this seems to have been short lived, it clearly demonstrates a Syriac presence in Ethiopia at this time. Outside of Ethiopia, contacts between Ethiopic and Syriac Christianity occurred at various locations. Ethiopic monks are known to have lived in several monastic communities in Egypt alongside Syriac monks (in general, see O. Meinardus, in EAe , vol. 2, 243–5). Both Syriac and Ethiopic monks also resided at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Cerulli, 1943–7, vol. 1, 148 and 151). In addition, contacts between Syriac and Ethiopic monks took place in Jerusalem, where the various Christian communities were represented (Cerulli 1943–7). Finally, moving closer to the Syriac homeland, Ethiopic monks were present from the 13th cent. onwards in Lebanon and Syria, and some may have possibly played a role in the renaming of Dayr Mār Mūsā al-Ḥabashī (‘Monastery of St. Moses the Ethiopian’) (Cerulli 1943–7, vol. 1, 325–33; Cruikshank Dodd, 19–25; Kaufhold, 54–9).

See Fig. 48 and 49c.

    Primary Sources

    • W. Andeberhan, Commentari etiopici sul Libro del Profeta Osea (ÄF 40; 1994). (Amharic with IT)
    • V. Arras, Collectio monastica (CSCO 238–9; 1963). (Geʿez with LT)
    • V. Arras, Patericon aethiopice (CSCO 277–8; 1967). (Geʿez with LT)
    • V. Arras, Asceticon (CSCO 458–9; 1984). (Geʿez with LT)
    • V. Arras, Geronticon (CSCO 476–7; 1986). (Geʿez with LT)
    • V. Arras, Quadraginta historiae monachorum (CSCO 505–506; 1988). (Geʿez with LT)
    • D. Berhanu, Das Mashafa Mar Yeshaq von Ninive (1997). (Geʿez with GT)
    • R. Beylot, Testamentum Domini éthiopien (1984). (Geʿez with FT)
    • E. A. W. Budge, The life and exploits of Alexander the Great being a series of Ethiopic texts … (2 vols.; 1896). (Geʿez with ET)
    • E. A. W. Budge, The book of the saints of the Ethiopian church (4 vols.; 1928). (ET)
    • A.  Caquot, ‘Une homélie éthiopienne attribuée à Saint Mar Éphrem sur le séjour d’Abraham et Sara en Égypte’, in Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont. Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux (Cahiers d’orientalisme 20; 1988), 173–85. (Geʿez with FT)
    • E.  Cerulli, ‘ “De resurrectione mortuorum” opuscolo della chiesa Etiopica del sec. XIV’, in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 2. Orient chrétien (SeT 232; 1964), 1–27. (Geʿez with IT)
    • C. H. Cornill, ‘Das Glaubensbekenntniss des Jacob Baradaeus in äthiopischer Uebersetzung’, ZDMG 30 (1876), 417–466. (Geʿez with GT)
    • F. M.  Esteves Pereira, ‘Jacobi, episcopi Nisibeni, Homilia de adventu regis Persarum adversus urbem Nisibis’, in Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (2. März 1906) gewidmet …, ed. C. Bezold, vol. 2 (1906), 877–92. (Geʿez)
    • S. Euringer, Die äthiopischen Anaphoren des hl. Evangelisten Johannes des Donnersohnes und des hl. Jacobus von Sarug (OCA 90; 1934), 79–122. (Geʿez with GT)
    • E.  J.  Goodspeed and W. E. Crum, The Conflict of Severus, patriarch of Antioch, by Athanasius (PO 4.6; 1909). (Geʿez with ET)
    • S.  Grébaut, ‘Vie de Barsoma le Syrien’, ROC 13 (1908), 337–345; 14 (1909), 135–42, 264–75, 401–16. (Geʿez with FT)
    • G. Haile, ‘The legend of Abgar in Ethiopic tradition’, OCP 55 (1989), 375–410. (Geʿez with ET)
    • G.  Horner, The statutes of the Apostles or Canones Ecclesiastici (1904), 1–87 (Geʿez), 127–232 (ET).
    • E. Isaac, ‘The Ethiopic History of Joseph’, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 6 (1990), 3–125. (ET)
    • T. P. P. Platt, The Ethiopic Didascalia (1834). (Geʿez with ET)
    • R.  Schneider, ‘L’histoire d’Ahiqar en éthiopien’, Annales d’Éthiopie 11 (1978), 141–52. (Geʿez with FT)
    • K. Stoffregen Pedersen, Traditional Ethiopian exegesis of the Book of Psalms (ÄF 36; 1995). (Amharic with ET)
    • S. Uhlig, ‘Dersan des Yaʿqob von Serug für den vierten Sonntag im Monat Taḫśaś’, Aethiopica 2 (1999), 7–52. (Geʿez with GT)
    • B. Velat, Études sur le Meʿerāf. Commun de l’office divin éthiopien (PO 33; 1966), 284–96. (FT)
    • B. Velat, Meʿerāf. Commun de l’office divin éthiopien pour toute l’année (PO 34.1–2; 1966), 76–91. (Geʿez)
    • M.  Wurmbrand, ‘Le “Dersâna sanbat”. Une homélie éthiopienne attribuée à Jacques de Saroug’, OS 8 (1963), 343–394. (FT)

    Secondary Sources

    • T.  Abraha, ‘Quotations from patristic writings and references to early Christian literature in the Books of St. Yared’, LM 122 (2009), 331–404.
    • T. Baarda, ‘Another treatise of Aphrahat the Persian sage in Ethiopic translation’, NTS 27 (1980–81), 632–40.
    • E.  Cerulli, Etiopi in Palestina. Storia della comunità etiopica di Gerusalemme (2 vols.; 1943–47).
    • G. Colin, Le synaxaire éthiopien. Index généraux (PO 48.3; 1999).
    • C. Conti Rossini, Storia d’Etiopia (1928).
    • R. W. Cowley, The traditional interpretation of the Apocalypse of St John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (1983).
    • R. W. Cowley, Ethiopian biblical interpretation. A study in exegetical traditions and hermeneutics (1988).
    • E.  Cruikshank Dodd, The frescoes of Mar Musa al-Habashi. A study in medieval painting in Syria (Studies and Texts 139; 2001).
    • J.  Faultless, ‘The two recensions of the Prologue to John in Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Commentary on the Gospels’, in Christians at the heart of Islamic rule. Church life and scholarship in ʿAbbasid Iraq, ed. D. R. Thomas (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations 1; 2003), 177–98.
    • G.  Graf, ‘Zwei Dogmatische Florilegien der Kopten, B. Das Bekenntnis der Väter’, OCP 3 (1937), 345–402.
    • I. Guidi, Le traduzioni degli Evangeli in arabo e in etiopico (1888).
    • I. Guidi, Storia della letteratura etiopica (1932).
    • E.  Hammerschmidt, Studies in the Ethiopic Anaphoras (ÄF 25; 2nd revised ed. 1987).
    • E.  Hammerschmidt and O. A.  Jäger, Illuminierte äthiopische Handschriften (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 15; 1968).
    • K. S.  Heal, ‘Identifying the Syriac Vorlage of the Ethiopic History of Joseph’, in Malphono w-rabo d-malphone, ed. G. A. Kiraz (2008), 205–10.
    • H.  Kaufhold, ‘Notizen über das Moseskloster bei Nabk und das Julianskloster bei Qaryatain in Syrien’, OC 79 (1995), 48–119.
    • M. A.  Knibb, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic version of the Old Testament (1999).
    • P.  Marrassini, ‘Some considerations on the problem of the “Syriac influences” on Aksumite Ethiopia’, Journal of Ethiopian Studies 23 (1990), 35–46.
    • P.  Marrassini, ‘Ancora sul problema degli influssi siriaci in età aksumita’, in Biblica et semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni, ed. L. Cagni (1999), 325–37.
    • N.  Nebes, ‘Die Märtyrer von Nagrān und das Ende der Ḥimyar. Zur politischen Geschichte Südarabiens im frühen sechsten Jahrhundert’, Aethiopica 11 (2008), 7–40.
    • Th.  Nöldeke, ‘Lehnwörter in und aus dem Äthiopischen’, in his Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (1910), 31–66.
    • J.-N. Pérès, ‘Saint Éphrem dans le Sinaxaire éthiopien’, in Saint Éphrem, un poète pour notre temps (Patrimoine syriaque, Colloque XI; 2007), 255–63.
    • H. J.  Polotsky, ‘Aramaic, Syriac, and Geʿez’, JSS 9 (1964), 1–10.
    • T. Tamrat, Church and state in Ethiopia. 1270–1527 (1972).
    • S.  Uhlig (ed.), Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (2003–). (3 vols. of a projected 5 have appeared)
    • E.  Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (1967).
    • A. Vööbus, Die Spuren eines älteren aethiopischen Evangelientextes im Lichte der literarischen Monumente (PETSE 2; 1951).
    • A. Vööbus  ‘Taʾāmera Iyasus. Zeuge eines älteren äthiopischen Evangelientypus’, OCP 17 (1951), 462–67.
    • A. Vööbus   Early versions of the New Testament (PETSE 6; 1954), 243–69.
    • W.  Witakowski, ‘Syrian influences in Ethiopian culture’, Orientalia Suecana 38–39 (1989–90), 191–202.
    • W.  Witakowski  ‘The Miracles of Jesus: An Ethiopian apocryphal Gospel’, Apocrypha 6 (1995), 279–98.
    • W.  Witakowski, ‘Severus of Antioch in Ethiopian tradition’, in Studia Aethiopica in honour of Siegbert Uhlig, ed. V.  Böll et al. (2004), 115–25.
    • W.  Witakowski, ‘Filekseyus, the Ethiopic version of the Syriac Dadisho Qatraya’s Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers’, Rocznik Orientalistycny 59 (2006), 281–96.
    • W.  Witakowski, ‘Syrian influences in Ethiopia’, in EAe , vol. 4. Forthcoming.
    • M.  Wurmbrand, ‘Homélie de Jacques de Saroug sur la mort d’Aaron’, OS 6 (1961), 255–78.


2025, മാർച്ച് 15, ശനിയാഴ്‌ച

സെന്റ് ജോൺ വിയാനിഫ്രഞ്ച് പുരോഹിതൻ

എൻസൈക്ലോപീഡിയ ബ്രിട്ടാനിക്ക

സെന്റ് ജോൺ വിയാനി ഫ്രഞ്ച് പുരോഹിതൻ

Cure d'Ars എന്നും അറിയപ്പെടുന്നു: സെൻ്റ് ജീൻ-ബാപ്റ്റിസ്റ്റ്-മാരി വിയാനി
എഴുതിയതും വസ്തുത പരിശോധിച്ചതും 
എൻസൈക്ലോപീഡിയ ബ്രിട്ടാനിക്കയുടെ എഡിറ്റർമാർ
വിയാനി, സെൻ്റ് ജീൻ-ബാപ്റ്റിസ്റ്റ്-മാരി
വിയാനി, സെൻ്റ് ജീൻ-ബാപ്റ്റിസ്റ്റ്-മാരി സെൻ്റ് ജീൻ-ബാപ്റ്റിസ്റ്റ്-മാരി വിയാനി, ഫ്രാൻസിലെ സെർമെൻ്റിസൺ പള്ളിയിലെ പ്രതിമ.

സെന്റ് ജോൺ വിയാനി (ജനനം: മെയ് 8, 1786, ഫ്രാൻസിലെ ഡാർഡിലി - 1859 ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 4, ആർസിൽ മരിച്ചു; 1925 മെയ് 31-ന് വിശുദ്ധനായി പ്രഖ്യാപിക്കപ്പെട്ടു; തിരുനാൾ: ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 4 [മുമ്പ് ഓഗസ്റ്റ് 9]) ഒരു ഫ്രഞ്ച് പുരോഹിതനായിരുന്നു , അദ്ദേഹം കുമ്പസാരക്കാരനും അമാനുഷിക ശക്തികൾക്കും പേരു കേട്ടവനായിരുന്നു. ഇടവക പുരോഹിതരുടെ രക്ഷാധികാരിയാണ് അദ്ദേഹം.

ഫ്രഞ്ച് വിപ്ലവം കാരണം , വിയാനിക്ക് വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം കുറവായിരുന്നു.  

ഭീകരതയുടെ ഭരണകാലത്ത് 

ഹെബർട്ടിസ്റ്റുകളുടെ മതവിരുദ്ധ

വികാരം കണക്കിലെടുത്ത്, രഹസ്യമായി തന്റെ ആദ്യ കൂട്ടായ്മയും കുമ്പസാരവും നടത്താൻ അദ്ദേഹം നിർബന്ധിതനായി. വിശ്വാസത്തിനു വേണ്ടി ജീവൻ പണയപ്പെടുത്തിയ കന്യാസ്ത്രീകളുടെയും പുരോഹിതരുടെയും വീരത്വത്തിൽ അദ്ദേഹം ആകൃഷ്ടനായി. പൗരോഹിത്യം പിന്തുടരാൻ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന് വിളിക്കപ്പെട്ടതായി തോന്നിയെങ്കിലും ലാറ്റിൻ ഭാഷയിൽ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുണ്ടായിരുന്നു, 

ഔപചാരിക വിദ്യാഭ്യാസത്തിന്റെ അഭാവം നികത്താൻ സ്വകാര്യട്യൂട്ടറിംഗ് ആവശ്യമായി വന്നു. 1809 ൽ 

നെപ്പോളിയന്റെ സൈന്യത്തിലേക്ക് ഡ്രാഫ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടപ്പോൾ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ പഠനം തടസ്സപ്പെട്ടു. മനഃപൂർവ്വമോ അല്ലാതെയോ , അദ്ദേഹം തന്റെ ഡ്രാഫ്റ്റ് ഗ്രൂപ്പിൽ നിന്ന് വേർപെടുത്തപ്പെടുകയും നിരവധി സൈന്യത്തിൽ നിന്ന് ഒളിച്ചോടിയവരുള്ള ഒരു ഗ്രാമീണ ഗ്രാമത്തിൽ അവസാനിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു, അവിടെ 1810-ൽ എല്ലാ സൈനികർക്കും പൊതുമാപ്പ് ഉത്തരവ് വരുന്നതു വരെ ഒളിച്ചിരിക്കാൻ നിർബന്ധിതനായി. 1815-ൽ അദ്ദേഹം നിയമിതനായി, ഫ്രാൻസിലെ എക്കുളിയിൽ അസിസ്റ്റന്റ് പുരോഹിതനായി .

പെട്ടെന്നുള്ള വസ്തുതകൾ
പൂർണ്ണമായി:
 
വിശുദ്ധ ജീൻ-ബാപ്റ്റിസ്റ്റ്-മേരി വിയാനി
ഇങ്ങനെയും അറിയപ്പെടുന്നു:
 
ക്യൂറെ ഡി'ആർസ്
ജനനം:
 
മെയ് 8, 1786, ഡാർഡിലി, ഫ്രാൻസ്

1818-ൽ അദ്ദേഹം ഒരു ചെറിയ ഗ്രാമത്തിന്റെ പുരോഹിതനായി.

അദ്ദേഹം ഒരു മാതൃകാ ഇടവകയാക്കി മാറ്റിയ ആർസ്, അവിടെ നിന്നാണ് അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ വിശുദ്ധിയെയും അമാനുഷിക ശക്തികളെയും കുറിച്ചുള്ള വാർത്തകൾ പെട്ടെന്ന് പ്രചരിച്ചത്. കന്യകാമറിയത്തോടും 

വിശുദ്ധ ഫിലോമിനയോടുമുള്ള ഭക്തിക്ക് പേരുകേട്ട അദ്ദേഹം , തന്റെ ഇടവകക്കാർക്കായി അനുരഞ്ജനത്തിന്റെ (കുമ്പസാരം) കൂദാശയ്ക്കായി സമർപ്പിതനായിരുന്നു . 1824 മുതൽ പിശാചാണ് പിശാചിന് കാരണമായതെന്ന് അദ്ദേഹം വിശ്വസിച്ച ആക്രമണങ്ങൾ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന് നേരിടേണ്ടി വന്നു, ഒരു സന്ദർഭത്തിൽ വിയാനിയുടെ കിടക്കയ്ക്ക് തീയിട്ടതായി ആരോപിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു. 1827 ആയപ്പോഴേക്കും ആർസ് ഒരു തീർത്ഥാടന കേന്ദ്രമായി മാറി, 1845 മുതൽ വിയാനിയുടെ മരണം വരെ എല്ലാ വർഷവും ഏകദേശം 20,000 പേർ വിയാനിയെ കാണാനും പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് അദ്ദേഹത്തോട് കുമ്പസാരിക്കാനും ആർസ് സന്ദർശിച്ചിരുന്നു. വിശുദ്ധ ചികിത്സ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ കുമ്പസാരക്കൂട്ടിൽ ദിവസവും 12 അല്ലെങ്കിൽ 15 മണിക്കൂർ ചെലവഴിച്ചു. പയസ് പതിനൊന്നാമൻ മാർപ്പാപ്പ അദ്ദേഹത്തെ വിശുദ്ധനായി പ്രഖ്യാപിച്ചു .

എൻസൈക്ലോപീഡിയ ബ്രിട്ടാനിക്കയുടെ എഡിറ്റർമാർ ഈ ലേഖനം ഏറ്റവും ഒടുവിൽ എൻസൈക്ലോപീഡിയ ബ്രിട്ടാനിക്ക പരിഷ്കരിച്ച് അപ്ഡേറ്റ് ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട് .

2025, മാർച്ച് 14, വെള്ളിയാഴ്‌ച

165-year-old Catholic church appoints first woman trustee

Suja Anil with Fr. Xavier Chiramel after her appointment as trustee of Our Lady of Assumption Church at Poomkavu in Alappuzha.

165-year-old Catholic church appoints first woman trustee

Suja Anil took charge as trustee of Our Lady of Assumption Church, Poomkavu, which comes under the Diocese of Cochin, alongside two male trustees at a ceremony earlier this week

Sam Paul A.

 

ALAPPUZHA

In a rare move, a 165-year-old Catholic church in Alappuzha has appointed a woman as ‘kaikari’ (female trustee), a role traditionally held by men.

Suja Anil (39) of Poomkavu took the oath and assumed charge as trustee of Our Lady of Assumption Church, Poomkavu, under the Diocese of Cochin at a ceremony held at the church earlier this week. She was appointed alongside two male trustees (kaikaran).

According to Fr. Xavier Chiramel, vicar of the church, the decision to appoint a woman as a trustee was made in line with the church’s commitment to “women empowerment.”

Male domain

“Suja is the first woman to serve as kaikari in the long history of the Poomkavu church. Until now, only men have held this position. To the best of my knowledge, she is also the first female trustee in any church under the Diocese of Cochin. There are no known instances of a woman having served or currently serving as trustee in Catholic churches across Kerala before this,” says Fr. Xavier.

Describing Suja as an active church member and a dedicated social worker, Fr. Xavier says her appointment will send a “strong, positive message.” Fr. Xavier had earlier urged the Parish Pastoral Council to consider appointing a woman as trustee. A few weeks ago, the Diocese of Cochin approved Suja’s nomination, as recommended by the council.

“I am honoured to be appointed as trustee of the church. This is a significant step toward women’s empowerment. I look forward to working with my fellow trustees,” says Suja.

A degree holder in Sociology, Suja has been appointed for a two-year term. She also serves as unit secretary of the Kerala Latin Catholic Association at the Poomkavu church. As a people’s representative, she represented Ward 11 in Mararikulam South grama panchayat from 2015 to 2020.

As trustee, Suja, along with her co-trustees N.D. Sebastian and P. Manoj, will assist the church vicar in managing the finances and assets of the church.

Our Lady of Assumption Church, located on the outskirts of Alappuzha town, was consecrated in 1860. The church with 2,000 families is a major pilgrim centre.