Revisiting Diamper Today

To revisit Diamper today, one has first of all to come alive to the truth about historical Nestorianism as different from the Nestorianism of the Catholic theological treatises Menezes had studied at Coimbra. Surely, he could not reasonably be expected to have had Pope John Paul II's positive appraisal of historical Nestorianism, anticipating four centuries. Today, in the event of union between Assyrian or East-Syrian church and the Catholic church, Patriarch Dinkha IV would not be required to correct the liturgical books of " Nestorian errors" anymore than the Pope would be asked to do likewise, reciprocally. We may fancy Menezes revisiting Kerala, like the legendry king Maveli, for the fourth centenary of Synod of Diamper. We can see him reel to here of the 1994 papal - patriarchal declaration revising the traditional condemnation of Nestorianism. After that shock he would surely not ask Mar Aprem, metropolitan of Trichur, or any other member of the Assyrian church of East, to abjure his/her " Nestorian " patriarch Dinkha IV. Nor would Menezes set up a committee to "correct" their liturgical books -- much less organize an auto-da-fe to burn them! Today Catholic canon law excludes any abjuration of any Eastern patriarch as a heretic in the event of reception into full Catholic communion of Eastern Christian faithful. But Menezes lived and died four centuries too early, for no fault of his. It was his Catholic zeal that set him on a crusade for the destruction of the heretical books, as was prescribed by the canon law of the times. So he held auto-da-fe of " Nestorian " books everywhere in Malabar with the help of two Jesuit correctors, Ros and Campori. Love's labor lost! And what a loss for the Thomas Christian church, though not perhaps for Europe's libraries! We need these distinctions to move beyond uncritical adulation and sheer vituperation.

The 1994 papal-patriarchal common declaration has of course no retroactive effect nor does it annul the mutual anathemas of the past, much less erase them from human memory. But it provides us with a valuable theological key for the interpretation of Nestorianism and its history with out judging past events in the light of present day standards or criteria. Thus, for example, the fact that in his last years Mar Abraham refused to co-operate with the Jesuit "Correctors" of his Nestorian "Errors" does not mean, as the Jesuits interpreted it then, and some writers uncritically repeat it today, relapse into Nestorian heresy. As Mar Abraham saw it, there was simply no heresy and no errors to correct! He possessed and professed the same faith as did the Jesuits. The difference was only verbal. What was really in question was the more or less apt theological expression, not faith. In condemning the faith of the "Nestorians of Malabar" expressed in their liturgical and other books as tarnished by "errors" it was Ros and Menezes who were in error!

Avowedly, this might sound shocking. It is hindsight buttressed by the 1994 papal - patriarchal declaration, which is in its turn the fruit of the post - conciliar progress of ecumenical dialogue. It enables us to see things differently today, though it does not authorize us to make judgments on Ros and Menezes from a moral point of view. That does not mean, however, that their understanding of and approach to the "Christianity of the Serra" was simply all right. Today's revised view of Nestorianism was not theirs, sure enough. But it was already the view of those whom they condemned as Nestorians! True, the view of Ros and Menezes carried the victory at Diamper. But it was not simply the victory of truth but of power.



(George Nedungatt, op. cit. PP. 34-35)