-John Chacko
Only the researchers from and for the future Syro-Malabar Caldaya Church (SMCC) say that the controversial Marthoma cross is of Indians, for Indians and by Indians. But all others say that the so called Marthoma cross is Nestorian.
Even the Nestorians in India claim that the controversial cross is not Marthoma Cross, but Nestorian.
The cross on the tomb of St. Thomas near Madras, India, known as the famous Nestorian Cross. Marco Polo’s interesting account of it can be found in his well known book of travel.
The Nestorians were a branch of Christianity that followed the doctrine of the 5th century Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. Contrary to orthodox belief that Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human, Nestorius asserted that Christ was two person, God the son and Jesus the man.
The Nestorian church rejected icons and images and only used simple crosses at the entrance of churches and tombs. It is unlikely that a Nestorian cross as such ever existed. In his travels, however, Marco Polo famously describes the cross on the tomb of St. Thomas near Madras, India as the Nestorian cross. This appears to be a Cross Bottony, above which may be seen the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove.
Different Kinds of Nestorian Cross
 |
| Stone marker from a Nestorian grave monument. |
 |
| Rubbing of the figure on left, showing a tri-partite motif, common to many Nestorian stone monuments, made up of a lotus flower, the Nestorian cross and an ornamental parasol (huagai). This may have been understood as a symbol of the Holy Trinity. |
 |
| Print of a stone marker similar to Fig. 25, taken from a late-Ming dynasty book by the Jesuit Emmanuel Dior on supposed Tang dynasty Nestorian monuments in Chin |
 |
| Carved stone marker from the top of an altar-type grave monument, depicting the Nestorian cross above a lotus and swirling clouds. |
 |
| Angels supporting the Nestorian cross above a base of a lotus flower and swirling clouds. These angels show a likeness to apsara seen in Dunhuang murals, providing another link between the Quanzhou stonework and central Asian art from the pre-Mongol period. |
The Cross and the Lotus
Lau Hua Teck (Rev Lau Hua Teck is Senior Pastor of Bethel Presbyterian Church)
INTRODUCTION
Judging from the Nestorian Documents in Chinese, the first Christians in T’ang China saw themselves as bearers of a religious message they claimed to be universal. At the same time, they realized it carries with it the vocabulary and symbolism, which are in many respects alien to the Chinese. They proceeded therefore to explain and communicate their message to the people they found on the Eastern end of the Silk Route by making bold attempts in using the common currency of the T’ang society.
The synthetic feature of the T’ang Nestorianism had been the studies of scholars for many years…………………………………………………..
THE SYMBOL OF THE LOTUS FLOWER
The lotus is of unique importance in Chinese symbolism due to Buddhist influence. In fact, the Buddhists have claimed the symbol of lotus from Brahmaism. There were references to the many-fold coloured lotus in ancient India. These are the green, the white, the red and the yellow lotus. The lotus flowers were linked to the creation of the universe in Brahmaism. Visnu, the maker of the great waters, produced a golden lotus from its navel side, on which sat the Brahma King. The Brahma King further gave birth to eight princes who then created the earth, the heaven, the human race and other myriad creatures. But as a tradition critical of Brahmaism, especially on the notion ofexistence by creation; Buddhism did not place great emphasis on the lotus at the early stage. However, when the symbol of the lotus gained popularity among the masses, Buddhism started to embrace the symbol of the lotus. The lotus comes out of the mire but is not itself sullied and also, it is inwardly empty. The symbol of the lotus was used in the Buddhist texts, and has since become the characteristic emblem of Buddhism.
However, besides these Buddhist images of the symbol lotus, the Confucians also made a strong claim and use of the symbol of the lotus, for their own purpose. The great late T’ang/early Song Confucian master Chou-tun-yi shared his passion for the lotus in his famous poem Ai-lianshou. In it, he affirmed the common usage of the symbol—out of the muddy pool and yet untainted, that is, purity. However, he applied the notion of chong-tong-wai-tzi to it, to express the way of a jun-tzi, thus
claiming the lotus as uniquely Confucian. Chou-tun-yi had boldly led the Neo-Confucian tradition to claim the use of the lotus by keeping the common usage shared by the Buddhists, and incorporating the Confucian’s idea of chong-tong-wai-tzi to the symbol
Nestorianism (or more correctly the Church of East) reached China in the 7th Century CE from the Sassanian Persian Empire via the Silk Road. The migration was intensified as a result of the conquest of the Sassanians by the Arabs in the following century. The religion was given permission by imperial court for diffusion as early as AD 638 and was first called “the Persian Religion (or Doctrine)” (Bosijiao) because of its long connection with Sassanian Persia. However the leaders of the sect (who were mainly Syriac-speakers) petitioned hard for the religion to be renamed the “Roman Religion” (Da Qinjiao) which was duly granted (AD 745) and this unique term is found on inscriptions in Chinese in Quanzhou which is a surprising example of continuation as Nestorianism is much better known in Medieval China as “the Luminous Religion” (Jingjiao).
Evidence of a Nestorian presence in Quanzhou first came to light in the 17th Century when Catholic missionaries noticed what appear to be grave stones decorated with the typically Nestorian ‘Cross-on-the-Lotus’ symbol embedded either in its medieval walls or used as rockery in gardens.
My next letter will elucidate what Kerala Latin Church has to say about us.
5 comments:
Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
It is quite meaningless from the Syro Malabar church to profess and preach about the mar-thom cross. Why we need to have a borrowed graveyard cross in our altar. Mar-thoma cross is not a symbol of unifier.
Ad Orientem – A flash back
The article “Ad Orientem” in Faith blog is to make confusion among those who are anti-Chaldean tradition and revive the Syro Malabar Chaldean Church. The author of this of this article in Faith blog is unknown. He/she has really copied this article from the link he/she has given below the article. The link is the following: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=55976. If you click on the above link it takes you the exact article you read in faith blog. But the author in faith blog failed to not that the article in www.catholicculture.org is three years old, that means it was published in January 15, 2008. The original author too, as in the case of Faith blog, is unknown in the website.
We need to know more about this website, where this article was first appeared. This is website is not, officially or unofficially, supported by either Vatican or USCCB. For the last para of the tab “about” reads like this, “CatholicCulture.org is run by a non-profit (501 c 3) corporation, Trinity Communications. The board and officers of Trinity Communications are Catholic laymen faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, who seek to enrich faith, strengthen the Church and form Catholic culture according to the mind of the Church.
Trinity Communications draws special inspiration from the outstanding Catholic vision and wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI.” Here they say they are ordinary laymen, just like you and me. They do not claim to have any godfather ship from any spiritual centers. But they are attracted to the vision and wisdom of Pope Benedict XVI
Whatever expressed in this article is merely the personal interest of the author. It does not have any spiritual blessings from either from the Pope or any Cardinals or Bishops. So what we need to clearly understand is that we need not take in to consideration what this author has said. These are not the words of the Pope or any of the Vatican top brass.
But we need to give importance to what the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship as reported by the author and the faith blog. I am just copying from the article. “In 2001, when asked whether priests could still use the ad orientem posture in celebrating Mass, the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship replied that both postures, ad orientem and versus populum "are in accord with liturgical law; both are to be considered correct." In fact, the Congregation added, "there is no preference expressed in the liturgical legislation for either position." This means we need not give importance to the position of the Celebrant of the Holy Mass. The Pope also never exhorted his colleagues and other persons of catholic hierarchy to say Holy Mass facing towards the wall.
If any of the readers of the article have thought that the Pope had said to say Holy Mass turning towards the wall is kindly understand the fact. He has not said like this. He may personally like to say Mass turning against the people. But that is not something to be acted upon.
The name of the real author of the article is Mr. Phil Lawler. He is friend of Rev. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf. To know more please, visit http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/phil-lawler-on-ad-orientem-worship/.
So I humbly request the extremists of Chaldean Traditions not to “take rope as soon as you hear a bull has delivered”. There is nothing binding on us, Syro Malabar Catholic Church.
Mary "God-bearer" or "Christ-bearer" according to Nestorius, same philosophy by Jacobite rite not worthy to be called mother of God or have rosary in Mary's name..
Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople in 428.
He came from the Antioch school and was taught theology there by Theodore of Mopsuestia.
He opposed a relatively new theological and devotional slogan Theotokos - affirming that Mary was the "God-bearer" or "Mother of God."
Nestorius was concerned with the thought that God might be seen to have had a new beginning of some kind, or that he suffered or died.
None of these things could happen to the infinite God.
Therefore, instead of a God-man, he taught that there was the Logos and the "man who was assumed."
He favored the term "Christ-bearer" (Christotokos) as a summary of Mary's role, or perhaps that she should be called both "God-bearer" and "Man-bearer" to emphasize Christ's dual natures.
He was accused of teaching a double personality of Christ.
Two natures, and two persons.
He denied the charge, but the term Nestorianism has always been linked with such a teaching.
Is our tradition Chaldean or not?
Did Mar Thoma introduce us the Chaldean tradition? If not, who introduced it?
Why should we follow the tradition introduced by someone else other than St. Thomas?
What was the tradition we were following after St. Thomas left us and before the Chaldean tradition was introduced?
Were these Chaldean were Nestorians?
Is the Cross in question really created in India or imported by the Chaldeans?
So let’s not be guided by vested interests but by wisdom.
Let’s pray for wise leaders for our church.
Is our tradition Chaldean or not?
We do have some traces of Chaldean tradition, much the same way we have many Latin traditions,
Did Mar Thoma introduce us the Chaldean tradition? If not, who introduced it?
Chaldean tradition is believed to be introduced by Thomas of Cana, the Persian merchant, in the 4th century. But this is only a possibility.
Why should we follow the tradition introduced by someone else other than St. Thomas?
We can follow a tradition if, in the course of history, it has helped the faithful in their devotion.
What was the tradition we were following after St. Thomas left us and before the Chaldean tradition was introduced?
We do not have any historical document to know what tradition was followed. But, based on the history and tradition of the early churches in elsewhere, many historians conclude that faith was planted in the indigenous tradition of the land.
Were these Chaldean were Nestorians?
No. Not all Christians in Persia became Nestorians. Some preserved their Christian faith, and Chaldeans were one among them. But as an indigenous church in Persia, their traditions and culture were developed in the context of Persian customs. Chaldeans are a minority community of Catholics in Persia, in communion with Rome. In the history books, many authors have mistaken them to be Nestorians.
Is the Cross in question really created in India or imported by the Chaldeans?
We do not know. There are only conjectures. Before Portuguese writers, we only have scant evidences to prove anything.
Post a Comment