Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches

Link
Why did you revert? An intentional dab link is the most logical target for a sentence that reads "There are different meanings of the word..." and the same paragraph utilises an intentional dab link for another ambiguous term. The only other good option there would be no link, since linking to an unambiguous target would be undermine the point of that sentence. -- Scyrme (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * because Rite (disambiguation) and Rite are identical pages and "Rite" is the proper name of the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the page with "(disambiguation)" in the title is used to indicate that the dab page is linked intentionally, as opposed to accidentally, and that it therefore shouldn't be changed by editors who go around disambiguating links to dab pages. Bypassing the redirect isn't always the correct thing to do. -- Scyrme (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Syro-Malabar dating
There has been a lot of back and forth on this topic over the last couple weeks and I would rather we laid out a plain discussion of the matter here. Per the cited Attwater source, the Syro-Malabar ecclesial community returned to the Catholic Church in 1662 following a brief schism, a reunion formalized in 1663 with the appointment of a bishop. This reunion is the best date I can find for saying the modern Syro-Malabar became part of the Catholic Church (there are multiple dates given to the establishment of what became Syro-Malabar Christianity more generally, usually between the late First Century and mid Third Century). There was a restructuring of the Syro-Malabar Church in 1923 that granted additional autonomy, elevating its autonomy to the degree we now refer to as sui iuris church on par with other major archiepiscopal particular churches like the UGCC. This is also viewable in the cited Attwater source. While this latter date is very important, I would suggest that it does not reflect the establishment of the church within the Catholic Church, as some degree of self-governance in communion with Rome was maintained before and after the schism with Rome in the 1600s. The 1923 date might be best understood as the date that any claims of Chaldean patriarchal authority were dismissed rather than the establishment of a new church. I intend to insert the First Century and 1663 dates with an explanatory note into the page. If any find deficiencies with this proposal, please comment here (rather than my talk page). I'll make the additions sometime after Latin Easter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * please see conversation here before editing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Their are a lot of misconceptions here. The Syro-Malabar Church became part of the Catholic Church in the mid sixteenth century. The bishops were Joseph Sulaqa and Abraham of Angamaly. The Synod of Diamper and the Second Synod of Angamaly take place in the same Church. The schism occurred (schism between padroado and saint Thomas Christians) in 1653. Vicariate of Malabar was established in late 1650s. In 1663, a native bishop was the consecrated as the latin apostolic vicar of Malabar and auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Cranganore. It was followed by nearly 300 years of Latin Church administration. The Syro-Malabar Church was separated from the Latin Archdiocese of Verapoly in late 1800s and the Syro-Malabar Church hierarchy was established in 1923. Hence 1663 doesn't carry any significance other than that of the consecration of native bishop, which by no means was the birth of a new eastern Catholic Church or an establishment of its hierarchy. Qaumrambista (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned previously, the 1663 date is the date during which the Syro-Malabars in India were formally received as a reunited group. It was not the conventional manner of reunion that we consider today (a far more bureaucratic matter as best exemplified by the establishment a separate church for the Eritreans in 2015). It was also the date that a bishop was assigned for their ministry. The 1923 date was a formalization of the arrangement that had been evolving since 1923, and the granting of the archepiscopal title. The 1663 date can rightly be seen as the date of union and establishment (something that was discussed in a text about the peculiar arrangement that I sadly no longer have access to at my new educational institution but may be available to you via inter-library loan: Thomas Pallipurathkunnel's A double regime in the Malabar Church, 1663-1716). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The reunion of the Syro-Malabar Church was in the mid sixteenth century. As already mentioned there were Catholic bishops continuously. And Coonan Cross Oath was not a schism with Catholics. Hence 1663 dies not carry any significance. The establishment of hierarchy was in 1923. Qaumrambista (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated in many sources, the schism in the Seventeenth Century was a significant proportion of the Syro-Malabar, necessitating efforts to reunite them and receive notice of formal reunion. This was accomplished from 1661 and finalized in 1663. This is visible in the Attwater source on the page I have previously cited. I am also confused and think for the sake of ensuring others can help a consensus occur: do you propose your original 50 AD date or the 1923 date (or both, or neither)? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The Syro-Malabar Church has its origin in the first century and came into communion with Roman catholic Church in the mid sixteenth century. It was recognised as an eastern Catholic Church snd it had Eastern bishops appointed, such as, Joseph Sulaqa, Abraham of Angamaly and Giwargis of Christ. However cunning colonial latin missionaries subjugated the church following the death of the last eastern bishop, declared the Chaldean Catholic Patriarch a Nestorian heretic and Schismatic and de-established the Syro-Malabar Church in 1599 through the Synod of Diamper. At times, the Syro-Malabar Christians revolted. The Coonan Cross Oath and Angamaly Padiyola. The papacy tactfully reciprocated by consecrating native bishops to heal the revolts. Palliveettil Chandy was consecrated to heal the revolt of 1653 and Kariattil Iousep was consecrated to end the schism in the eighteenth century. Both of the bishops were actually part of the Latin hierarchy. The Syro-Malabar hierarchy was established only in 1923. Since then it has been permanent and separate from latin hierarchy. Qaumrambista (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion / RFC
I have opened up an RFC to discuss the Syro-Malabar Church date issue here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mar Alenchery.jpg

Kazakhstan and Albania

 * On one hand, as of the Annuario Pontificio for 2020, the Albanian Byzantine Church is no longer listed as sui-iuris. Due to the reduction of faithful, the Apostolic Administration for Southern Albania is no longer listed as dependent neither on the Congregation for Oriental Churches nor as subject to the Holy See, but only as sufragan of Archdiocese of Tiranë–Durrës, encompassing both Latin and Byzantine faithful.
 * On the other hand, as of the same Annuario Pontificio for 2020, the newly created Apostolic Administration of Kazakhstan and Central Asia is listed now listed as a sui-iuris Church. The 2022 Annuario kept it also as such. I had the annuario on hand and can confirm it. Curiously enough, looking at wikis in other languages, only the Italian wiki has made such clarification.

I'll wait on confirmation before doing any changes to the table or the narrative.

Having an official sui-iuris Church unlisted would merits IMHO a section on the body of the article on extinct (??) churches. We know that Estonia had a few parishes that were never a jurisdiction. We know about the Church of Georgia, never officially listed, but with ambiguous history. Now, we have the Albanian Church. Coquidragon (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Coquidragon, that's interesting stuff, and I thank you for keeping us abreast of the developments. That is surely unprecedented in the case of Albania. I understand that the Russian Catholic Church is constantly on the verge, having no hierarchy of its own and a tenuous existence within Russian territory. Elizium23 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Annuario Pontificio 2023
@Pbritti, as of the most recent Pontifical Yearbook (2023) published by Rome, the Syro-Malabar Church is the most numerous.

The 15 Churches with unified synods by size (as of 2023)


 * 1) Syro-Malabar: 4,537,342
 * 2) Ukrainian: 4,295,581
 * 3) Maronite: 3,543,796
 * 4) Melkite: 1,545,990
 * 5) Armenian: 753,945
 * 6) Chaldean: 646,581
 * 7) Syro-Malankara: 487,247
 * 8) Romanian: 473,710
 * 9) Ruthenian: 365,883 [Not unified]
 * 10) ...(Eparchy of Mukachevo: 314,560;
 * 11) ....Metropolis of Pittsburgh: 34,323 (Unified);
 * 12) ....Exarchate of Praga: 17,000)
 * 13) Hungarian: 296,830
 * 14) Coptic: 253,100
 * 15) Slovakian: 210,061
 * 16) Eritrean: 173,251
 * 17) Syrian: 120,679
 * 18) Ethiopian: 80,568
 * 19) Italo-Albanian: 55,909 (only other non-unified Church over 50k)
 * 20) ...(Eparchy of Lungro: 32,500;
 * 21) ....Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi: 23,400;
 * 22) ....Monastery of Grottaferrata: 9 Logosx127 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering that you did not cite page numbers, linked to a Google Books entry that does not include a digital copy, and multiple reliable sources published earlier this year corroborate that the UGCC remains the largest, I have a hard time seeing how you verified this information. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti I couldn't find an online reference either. You can refer the book instead. Logosx127 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The multiple reliable sources published this year are actually not reliable and are most probably examples of citogenesis. Logosx127 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that the Vatican's official news agency and CNA are unreliable? Because that's not correct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They make use of Wikipedia as well. Hence yes, probably citogenesis. Logosx127 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence for this claim of citogenesis, nor am I quite certain about those totals from the AP, given the lack of a verifiable page number. Furthermore, the Syro-Malabar Church's own website confirms that It is the largest Eastern Catholic Church after the Ukrainian Church on the front page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti Every year, after the publication of the Annuario Pontificio by Rome, an Eastern Catholic Yearbook is published (in Italian) using the data for the Eastern Churches, which is edited by bishop Vartan Waldir Boghossian of the Armenian Catholic Church. The Annuario Orientale Cattolico 2019 states in its page 4, that the Syro-Malabar Church became that year the largest Church. Here is the link to a pdf copy: https://issuu.com/exarmal/docs/annuarioorientale2019_i_a_issuu_2. It has remain so until today. The numbers presented above come from the pages specific to each Church in the current Yearbook 2023. Here is the link to a pdf copy: https://issuu.com/exarmal/docs/annuarioorientale_-_2023_pdf. Does this solve the sources claims? The numbers come directly from the Annuario Pontificio, aggregated in the Annuario Orientale. Narratives take time to update, and people think the Ukrainian Church is still the largest, but it is not so. The Syro-Malabar Church is currently the largest Eastern Catholic Church.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to get the ISSUU link to open on my device (I'll double check later on a better computer some other time) but I'll take it on good faith. Thanks for finding a good source on this; feel welcome to revert me. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @Coquidragon. Actually, I had already added the source. It is sad that Pbritti did not look into it prior to reverting my edits. It is intriguing to see that Wikipedia articles were not updated and certainly that is the main reason why the narrative is still outdated. Wikipedia editors need to be more tolerant and less resistant to edits by fellow users here, otherwise this will continue to happen and result in spread of misinformation. Logosx127 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)