Talk:Metropolitan Throne of Malankara See

message: Though it is true that such a chair exists, the claims that the primates of Malankara starting from Marthoma I were enthroned using this particular chair are uncorroborated. There is no evidence that this chair is the one used in 1653 AD or in the consecrations of subsequent primates of Malankara. In spite of the article being up over a decade, the author(s) have failed to provide even a single reference of contemporary records that verify their claims. As such, they remain claims, not historical facts.
I will edit the article to mention that these are only claims without any historical evidence. Unless valid references are added in the near future, I suggest that this article be marked for deletion.
--Swordofcherubim (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims without corroboration

message: This article contains only alleged beliefs and hearsay without any contemporary records to back them up. While the events of episcopal consecration are undisputed, the claims that a specific chair was used without even a single reliable source or contemporary document to back up the claim simply falls short of an article worthy of taking up space in Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.74 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Hearsay, not facts

message: Does All these church leaders Claim to be on the Throne of St. Thomas?
05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throne and Churches 

message: Indian Church cannot claim this throne with out the Catholicate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.11.46.234 (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your view is wrong 

message: You have not read about the history of Catholicos of East. And, it is a fact that Apostle Thomas didnot ordain a bishop in India.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulangattil (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not correct 

message: There are no reference on this article.A number of church names has been used in this article, which they dont claim Pamparam (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The correct word should be "Holy See of St.Thomas" which is the word used in the case of other Apostles. Only the church which is headed by a Patriarch/Catholicos of the lineage of St.Thomas can claim this. As being very evident, Indian Orthodox Church can do it because it has the succession of the Catholicii of the See founded by St.Thomas in Persia. Like other Holy Sees around the world, this also was shifted to various cities in centuries due to political reasons and is finally established in India from 1912.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamoommenk (talk • contribs) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From June 30, 1876 till July 1, 1909 Malankara Orthodox Church was under the Patriarch of Antioch who was neither an Indian and nor a Saint Thomas Christian. It was the Patriarch who consecrated and appointed the six bishops to that church, without even consulting the bishop Pulikottil Mar Dionaysius who took the leadership in inviting the Patriarch to the land of Saint Thomas Christians meeting all his expenses.  That is why the sentence: “During the course of time some of them joined the Patrarch of Antioch (1876)” was added there. I don’t think you want to hide this historical fact. Also try to find why the church was again divided into two, on September 12 (?), 1912 and began to use “Orthodox” with the name of these churches. For more details please refer Malankara Orthodox Church history books or to their Church authorities.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The title should be changed

message: Members of Churches whose prelates were not enthroned on the Throne of St. Thomas have entered the names of their Churches also in this article. Thus a dispute is created So please remove them to resolve this unnecessary dispute.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the dispute

message: I came across this article and saw a jaw-dropping sermon inserted into the lead, which I have removed by restoring the article to its state before it was put in.Smeat75 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted article to version before long sermon put into lead 

message: Much of the text that was recently added came from this diocesan website. That which was not, violated Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. This article was pretty ugly even without those edits, and I have found it necessary to cut down a few of the more egregious neutrality problems. Please work on this article with a view to Wikipedia policies and not advancing one particular cause. Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations removed