Talk:Syro-Malabar Church/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Travancore Syrians

Syrian Catholics from Current day Travancore including northern Travancore can officially claim genuineness especially in Liturgy. Suspect the Catholics in Chavakkad and parts of thrissur district are portugese linked... 10:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.0.66 (talk)

Church Origins

There are conflicting theories on the origin of Christianity in India. The only point some historians agree is on that Christianity was present in Kerala even in the 2nd century.

In the period of time we are talking about most of religious history, across most religions, is certainly based on tradition. The foundations of most beliefs in general tend to be tradition. Unfortunately CNN wasn't around back then to chronicle the happenings of the day. Typically, such arguments are due to a combination of ignorance of history plus post colonial mentality that can creep in.

"Conflicting" theories aside... TRADITION is what all religions are based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:900:766C:D934:EA89:9EDF:38D8 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Llywrch

Would someone verify the contents of this page?

For one, I think the opening sentence of the History section should refer to the church being founded by St. Thomas as a tradition rather than a fact. Peashy 12:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I took my own advice and changed it.Peashy 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This page was originally deleted Jan 17, 2004 due to a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation for details. -- llywrch 06:11, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Manjithkaini

The line

...the controversial Synod of Diamper formally reunited this church with Catholics ...

may not be correct. What the synod did was Latinising this church. The Syrian Catholics were in communion with Rome, but it was via the Persian Church.

Dear Manjithkaini, — I am totally unable to comprehend how one can claim to be in unity with a third person (The Pope) by being in practical, unquestioned submission to a second person or party (Nestorian heresiarch of Assyria-Chaldea) who is EXPLICITLY NOT IN UNITY with that third party (The Pope). This seems to me to be impossible intellecutal gymnastics, and outright dishonest.

Since this is an internal Christian issue, Christian principles obtain. There is no shame in confessing one's sins of schism and heresy, but it is totally unacceptable to pretend that one has never been in schism when the incontroverible truth is that one had. It is totally unacceptable from those who lay claim to the name of Christian.

Also, these histories are also dishonest in that they parrot blindly the lies of trhe Dutch Calvinists imbued among the St. Thomas Christians, when in fact, the "disaffection" was entirely due to the persecution of Catholics by the Dutch and their native Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Jain allies; and that the only true reason for the Schism, was not Portuguese persecution (the Synod of Diamper was some 80 years old at the time) but Dutch terrorism of the Catholics and pressure to revert to Nestorianism. This is a fact that no one mentions even in passing!

Lastly, why is it that the page has no mention whatsoever of the great tension and violent disagreement between the two factions of this Church? I am aware of this conflict, but I do not believe I know enough to write on it. I would suggest that you add this to the page. WikiSceptic 14:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[Manjithkaini — Please always sign your comments and also put them in chronologically, at the bottom of previous comments, to avoid confusing the talk page]

I think the controversy is not well know outside the SMCC. I had heard about Dutch issues in other areas, but not there. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to propose a project which will cover the Judeo-Christo-Malayalam ethnicity and all its facets. The interdisciplinary nature of this people demands a diverse pool of knowledge. Fundamentally the stories are the same but are being repeated over and again on many different pages. If you are interested please let me know. Zestauferov 12:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Some minor edits

I have made a few minor edits on the article, changing the punctuation and a few words here and there. I hope the sense is now clearer and the original author(s) is/are not offended. Peashy 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Syro- churches

I think it would be helpful to have a brief recap in this article on the distinction between this church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. They are both Eastern Rite Catholic churches in India whose liturgy is based on the Chaldean tradition, yes? I'm sure there are any number reasons why there are two of them, but you can't really tell from this page or the other. --Jfruh (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of interest

In case anyone here wants to weigh in, Eastern Rite Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic Churches: See Talk:Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Fishhead64 07:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Changes

I have made few changes to the History section.It didnot talk anything about history than making counter observations earlier. I have also distinguished other Syrian Churches with Syro Malabar.

For referance use

http://www.smcim.org/article2.htm -- the offical SMC site
http://members.tripod.com/~Berchmans/malabar.html
http://www.indianchristianity.org/syromalabar.html

Please discuss before anyone makes changes.

Response to Few Comments

Peashy tradition vs fact

I don’t understand how do u define fact. We are talking about a community that existed in Southern India who kept their records in palm leaves. If you look at the evidences there are plenty but u wont get anything similar as you can find in Rome or west. That’s simply because People are different their culture for maintaining records are different.

WikiSceptic Synod of Diamper

I am also of the opinion of Manjithkaini. What Synod of Diaper did was latinising this Church. Portugese wants to get credit of brining a fold of people in to Latin church and that’s the sole purpose of Synod of Diamper.

Communion with Rome is not as a one who shares the tradition of latin church. Centuries before Synod of Diamper there was latin rite in Kerala.These rites co existed successfully in Kerala.

But the Portuguese especially The Bishops was greedy and nothing less than inposing latin was acceptable to him.

The Christians on this coast always courteously received any bishops who came to them from over the seas and even made use of these to ordain or consecrate, but it does not follow that they always accepted the doctrines taught by these bishops.

Also, historians have been too ready to regard any Asiatic bishop as a Nestorian but the bishops who came to this coast may have been good Catholics. There always was a tendency among the Nestorian bishops to make overtures to Rome and on three or four occasions there was an actual reconciliation with Rome. When the Portuguese came they were very ignorant of Oriental Churches and did not understand the position of the Syrians, but Francis Xavier praised Jacob as a good Catholic and the next two bishops, Mar Joseph and Mar Abraham were in open communion with the Holy See, so that before the diocesan Synod of Diamper the Syrian Church on this coast was in union with Rome

When pope Julius III on April 6th 1553 confirmed John Sulacca as Chaldean Patriarch, the Pope said that the discipline and liturgy of the Chaldeans had already been approved by his predecessors, Nicholas I (858- 867), Leo X (1513-1521) and Clement VII (1523-1534).

This Papal letter also mentions the former Patriarch, Simon Mamma, of good memory, as Patriarch of the Christians in Malabar.

This shows that there were from time to time Chaldean Patriarchs in communion with Rome and it is contended that the Thomas-Christians of Malabar were in communion with these Chaldean Patriarchs and not with the Nestorian Patriarch.

When the Portuguese arrived here they inaccurately called the four bishops Nestorians but these bishops were Chaldean.

Their report of 1504 was addressed to the Chaldean Patriarch, else how did it find its way into the Vatican Library?

The Portuguese were startled by the absence of images and by the use of leavened bread, but these two points are in accordance with Chaldean usage.

The Thomas-Christians paid the expenses of Marignoli because he was Papal Delegate.

St. Francis Xavier in a letter from Cochin to St. Ignatius Loyola, dated 14th January 1549, asks for Indulgences for certain churches, saying, "This would be to increase the piety of the natives who are descended from the converts of St. Thomas and are called Christians of St. Thomas." In another letter dated 28th January 1549 to Rodriguez, St. Francis Xavier asks for indulgences for a church at Cranganore, "which is very piously frequented by the Christians of St. Thomas, to be a consolation for these Christians and to increase piety."

As saints are notoriously keen in detecting heresy and as indulgences cannot be granted to schismatics, it is contended that these letters of St. Francis Xavier show that the Thomas-Christians were in communion with Rome, even before the arrival of Mar Joseph in 1555. Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier, by H.J. Coleridge, S.J., ii. 74 90.

When the Portuguese deported Mar Joseph to Portugal it was not the Nestorian Patriarch but the Chaldean Patriarch who sent Mar Abraham to take his place. This appears from Action iii, Decree X of the third provincial council at Goa in 1585, which recites that Mar Abraham came as Archbishop of Angamale, with a letter from Pope Pius IV. Another point is that the letter which Pope Gregory XIII wrote on November 29th 1578 to Mar Abraham does not tell him to convert his flock, but to convert others, that is to say, those who were not Christians

Can you explain me why historians don’t write anything about this ?

But I do agree with you in few points.Not everyone were Chaldeans. There were Assyrians too. Overall why these points are neglected are because of few considerations. You have given few points in that direction

1. Christianity successfully co existed in India for more that 2000 years. No part in the world can claim that. Rome it was a persecuted sect. Middle East it was and still it is. That’s the reason why in Malabarises there are many of Eastern orgin. Accepting this fact is un thinkable to many world wide historians.

2. In India Christianity was made a mess not by Hindus or Muslims its by the Portuguese and the Dutch and few inside leaders of the community.

3. Then the politics and the power fight among the population.If you use the word Nestorian you can keep people away from looking at history and continue doing the latinisation.

MalabarSpider , 06 August 2007 (UTC)


How unfortunate that some within the Syrian Christian community would willingly choose colonial influences in practices over their own traditions. For example certain local churches that prefer the latin rite over Syro-Malabar. There is no right or wrong here, only appreciation of ones own traditions. Why accept an outside force disregarding ones own customs? Perhaps a stronger emphasis by the community to learn/teach ones own history is needed here. Is it that the richness and uniqueness of the Syrian Christian / Kerala tradition and history isnt taught well enough to its members? The story of the Syrian Christians in Kerala is much like the story of the rest of India in that it is riddled with powerful outside influences not accepting and/or trying to change the local way of life. Why go along with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.198.172 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Major Cleanup Needed!!

In my humble opinion, this article is seriously flawed and needs a major cleanup, to remove obvious typographical errors, to correct grammatical and syntactical errors, to improve its overall organization, etc. It does not present the reader with a continuous, logical flow, but jumps back and forth from one subject to another, repeating subjects, etc... --Sophroniscus 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up Article

I'm starting a sandbox for cleaning up the page and invite the community members that visits here to stop by and contribute. Tarijanel 19:41, 19 Nov 2007 (UTC)

Please use Sandbox

Please use sanbox for content additions or deletions.Tarijanel (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fraction comment

The sentence that states that the `old party` that remained in communion with Rome is `ONLY A FRACTION` of the original church is POV and carries a negative conotiation. Even if one person left the Church, both sides would then be considered only a fraction even if 99% stayed and only one person left. The Malabar Church is much larger in number today then at the time of the reestablishment of Communion with Rome and it was the Faithful who stayed. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is larger then any of the other Churches that split from her and if you add to their number those who are in the Syro-Malankara Church, you find that instead of being `ONLY A FRACTION` which sounds small, that Catholics are the MAJORITY of SYRO Christians in India. The sentence that makes the Fraction comment needs to be edited or taken out of the article. This is only fair as no one on this site treats the other churches this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC) If you want a source, the Catholic Near East Welfare Accosiation carries and publishes very accurate numbers that are accepted by EVERYONE, and those numbers clearly show the truch of my words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Corrected the fraction comment. Also did minor formatting changes. Some sections need more detailed write up.Tarijanel (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Content Changes

Made minor addition to Origin of St. Thomas Christians and East Syrian Relationship. Also added section for References and bibliography. Tarijanel (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Current controversy

Ought we not to see some reference to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/former-nun-tells-of-sex-and-suffering-inside-indian-convent-1627077.html in the article? Rikstar409 03:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. This is simply a news story/scandal. For any topic as big as the Syro Malabar Church, there will always be scandals, stories, scoops, headliners, etc... Something about the clergy abuse scandals within the broader catholic church in general perhaps might have a place, but only as a link to a different page as the story is not independently relevant as there has been a global spate of such scandals within the different catholic churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.193.156 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from univolved editor

Folks, some comments if I may from an editor who knows nothing about the subject matter:

  1. There are long sections with absolutely no references whatsoever - does this mean that those sections are original research or do they in fact represent what the sources say? We have no way of knowing without footnoted references per WP:CITE, see for example the "Division in St.Thomas Christians" section
  2. Some of the sections are way too long and need to broken down into smaller sections, eg again the "Division in St.Thomas Christians"
  3. There is a template redlinker in the "Eparchies" section
  4. There are way too many external links - we don't need a link to every, single, potentially relevant website, see WP:EL.
  5. As alluded to above, we need more footnoted references.

Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Separately, I agree with most of the above. Desperately needs more in-lin WP:FOOT from WP:RELY sources (as do most Malankaran/Keralan/St. Thomas Christian articles - one of the reasons they are edited so furiously is that neither the article nor the angry editor du jour seems to have any in-line footnotes to support their contentions. Student7 (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Revisions &Improvement

Most of the footnotes are missing in the article mainly due to forking and removal by certain editors. I have added some of the references. Pamparam (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A user-User:Karnan did selective removal claiming rework of the article is needed. Article does need improvement and the least thing which is required is manipulation of the quoted statements. I have reverted his edits. Please provide edit summary and discuss before anyone make substantial changes. Pamparam (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Common History

There are Six articles which claim common history of Saint Thomas Christians out of this 4 have almost similar contents about the same period. To avoid repetitive articles and to improve the quality of the article, share about WP:RELY sources and re organization of these articles.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Christianity#About the articles on Saint Thomas Christians common historyPamparam (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Monster list of religious orders

Someone has placed in here without reference of any sort, every religious congregation under the sun. Most have Vatican ties but are not particularly Syro-Malabarian in any way.

At best, if true, the list will have to be forked. It is too long for this article - it overwhelms it. WP:UNDUE.Student7 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I created a sub-page for Congregations and added in main article.

Syro Malabar Church Religious CongregationsPamparam (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Malayam language lesson

Common English names should be used for religious figures recognizable in the rest of the English speaking world. Specifically, "Jesus Christ" instead of the Malayam name. "Virgin Mary" instead of Mariam. A possible alternative is to link to the English article, but that works if the name is only used once, and probably not a good idea. Note that we don't use "Yoshua" which was Jesus' real name. And, admittedly, the Malayam name for Mary is a lot closer to her real name than what is generally used. Student7 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Major reversion

Editor Rahuljohnson4u erased many entries giving no reason for most of them. I have reset the article to an old version. For those who made intervening changes and gave an edit summary, my apologies. Please re-enter them. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

    • -Editor Rahuljohnson4u continues to make edits with out discussion. He has added Servant of God also in the section Saints and Blessed with out discussion. Only Varghese Palakkappillil has been added considering that such a list is enormous, which would account for wrong presentation.

It is better to include only Saints and Blessed in that section. Servant of God is the earliest stage in the Canonization and list of Servant of God and the next stage Venerable is enormous as far as Syro Malabar Church is concerned.

There should be a sub page for them provided that the editor can do justice in including all the Venerable and Servant of God from Syro Malabar Church. It should not be done for highlighting only Varghese Palakkappillil.

Removed Content is pasted below for resue in subpage,

  • Servant of God Varghese Palakkappillil - Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly - Declared Servant of God on 6 September 2009 by Mar Varkey Vithayathil, the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church at Chunangamvely, Ernakulam.

Pamparam (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Eparchies

I added the names of 2 new eparchies to the list. These were announced at Kakkanad and Vatican on 1/18/2010. We can start working on adding more information to these links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcvalayam (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) --Jcvalayam (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should create pages on eparchies of Mandya and Ramanathapuram. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Total population

According to the kerala govt, total christian population is only 6.1 million in the state. Of this only 3.7 million are Catholics and they belong to three different rites. Latin rite alone accounts for atleast 1.5 million people.

The figure quoted here in the page as syro malabar rite is 4 million which is double the original.number. The reference given is untrustworthy and seems like a catholic author repeating a hyped church claim. A govt figure should be more accurate.

If we add up the populations as claimed by various kerala syrian churches, in their attempt to play vote bank politics bargaining with numbers, there should be atleast 12 million christians in kerala forming 38% of the total population.

That is certainly preposterous and funny as it would be to anyone who lived in that indian state.

The population figure mentioned is atleast double the original. Thomachan1986 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Population figure given here(4 million) doesnt correspond with the kerala government census stats. It doesnt correspond with the stats given in Malayala Manorama Year book either(the most widely circulated yearbook in India). This denomination has a total membership of only 2.2 million. The total kerala christian population is 19% of the total (32 million), which comes to 6.1 million. Roman Catholics in three rites together(Latin, syro-malabar and syro-malankara) come to only 3.7 million! Then how can one rite alone claim 4 million?

The official church figures given in most websites run by churches are hyped. Indian Orthodox claim 2.5 million believers, Marthoma Church claims 1 million believers, Pentecostals also claim 1 million believers in Kerala. If we add up all these official claims of the various churches given in their websites or in books written by religious authors, the total christian population in the indian state of Kerala would be more than the total population of the state itself and we have to assume there are no hindus or muslims here.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the numbers for the Syro-Malabar Church: I think the number of 3.6 Million includes those living outside Kerala and India. Gugganij (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaldean connection controversial

It is mentioned in the page that st. Thomas christians were ruled by chaldean catholic prelates before latin rule started in 1599 with the Synod of Diamper.

However Blessed Mar Ivanios, the founder of the Syro-Malankara catholic rite writes in his book titled "Were Syrian Christians Nestorians?" that all st thomas christians of kerala were under Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch prior to 1599 AD.

Most dioceses of Syro-malabar rite are also rejecting any relation with chaldean rite historically. Chaldean catholic uniate/rite was formed only in 16th century from Iraqi Assyrian(Nestorian) converts to the Roman Catholic church.

Chaldean connection is the history version of only one rebel diocese- changanacherry. Other syro-malabar dioceses accuse changanacherry diocese of trying to 'chaldeanise' their church.

Note that most other dioceses conduct eucharist with priest facing laity like in the latin rite. Only some priests in changanacherry diocese celebrate the mass facing the east like chaldeans or syrian orthodox.

Chaldean connection is a hotly disputed issue in the syro malabar catholic church. And outright rejected by many syro- malankara catholic and latin rite historians.

217.69.181.44 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems from the 19th century appear to be covered in Chaldean_Catholic_Church#Expansion_and_disaster. All well after the 16th/17th century issues you mentioned. Will the material from that article help here? Student7 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Two different liturgies in one eastern rite

I think the most interesting and peculiar feature of syro-malabar catholic church is the fact that differentdioceses of this eastern catholic rite uses differentliturgies.

This is probably the ONLY cath uniate that does so.

The ernakulam diocese uses a latin style liturgy with priest facing laity. . The changanacherry diocese has a more chaldean style liturgy with priest facing east. No mention is made of this very important info.

Thomachan1986 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


The first sentence of the article mentions it as an East Syrian rite. Since only few dioceses of this church uses a liturgy akin to the old east syriac one used by the Assyrian Church of East, i think we should change this reference to Syro-Malabar as an East Syrian Rite and just use Eastern Rite.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Split of 1874

This article does not mention the split of 1874 which divided the Syro-malabar church to cause the ancient Assyrian Church of the East to re-arrive in Kerala after centuries.

Mathenkozhencherry (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Canon law quote

Are we sure about canon 122? The reference I found about 122 http://canonlaw.wikispot.org/CCEO seemed to have to do with finance officer! Might be better to point to canon law directly if you can find it online in English, rather than quoting an indirect source (by itself). Student7 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect information

I removed two names (Eparchy of Kodungallur and Eparchy of Jerusalem ! from the list for eparchies as these two do not exist.--Jcvalayam (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

St Thomas in Kerala a myth ?

It has always been a policy of the Church of the West to slander about the rich ancestry of the Eastern Church particularly that of the Syro Malabar Church. The tirade against our faith is in consonance with age old repressive ideology of Vatican to keep the eastern churches subdued to the West. Raising doubts over St Thomas and his missionary activities in Kerala even by the Holy father himself is one such appalling act which is no less an act compared to the inquisition. It is painful to see that Vatican's mindset has not changed from the medieval ages. That St. Thomas is the father of our church is one of our core beliefs which we Syro Malabar Christians hold close to our hearts, several of our practices like the Dukaranais centered around St Thomas. No other Christian community/ rite other than the St Thomas christians of kerala celebrate this feast. St Thomas and the stories of his visit to our land is the centre piece of most of our cultural forms like Margam kali pattu and Ramban Songs and several others.

Western theologians with half baked knowledge are quick to write off our ancestry, off course it was the west that persecuted our community and destroyed our holy books and brought down our places of worship in the name of fighting Nestorianism and now they claim they do not have enough evidence. If they feel they do not have enough evidence, its because they destroyed it and never bothered to verify the large volumes that was saved from the marauders. Devasuran (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


If you are so much oppressed with Catholic Chuch, what is th point of continuing in Catholic Church, How can you question the credibility of Holy Father? First you should understand onething? Pope is father of all, As St. Peter is prince all the appostles, even St. Thomas don't doubt the suppremacy of St. Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savelan (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


I did not question the credibility of the Holy Father, I just disputed his stance over a core issue that concerns Syro Malabar Catholics, the pope himself later ate his own words and said St Thomas came to Kerala. Papal infallibility extends only to spiritual matters and not historical accounts. St. Peter may be the prince of all apostles but St Thomas is the father of Syro Malabar Church.Devasuran (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:George Alencherry February 2012.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:George Alencherry February 2012.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:George Alencherry February 2012.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Heretical"

This word implies a value judgment. On Wikipedia we must abide by WP:NPOV and so we can at most state that some group was "regarded as heretical by X", e.g. Rome.

The history section in particular could do with an objective rewrite which makes clear when these churches *effectively* became in communion with Rome. I realize they claim to have always been so, but even believers must acknowledge there was a long period of no communication. --Saforrest (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed Saint Thomas the Apostle from the infobox after it was pointed out to me at an RfD by AngusWOOF. This is a Saint Thomas Christian community, but the current infobox read as if Saint Thomas the Apostle founded the sui iuris particular church, which would be a very contentious claim. The best solution if people feel Saint Thomas should be mentioned would be for the history of Christianity in India to be explained before the early modern era, and then discuss the evolution of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church as it evolved from the 17th-19th centuries and until today. An infobox doesn't leave room for the nuance that is inherent in assessing any claims by a Church to an apostolic founder. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church)#RfC: should this page be made a naming convention that may be of interest. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Possessions?

It is not clear what is meant by the term possessions in the infobox. Does that mean the whole European union is having SyroMalabar christians. Is there any data to backup the same. Also many countries in the middle east where there is a significant presence of Syro Malabar Christians is not even mentioned. If there is no clarity in this info, it would rather be removed than introduce misconceptions. Rejoice talk 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me either: this field in the {{Infobox Orthodox Church}} template has no explanation in the documentation. However, judging from its usage in other articles about autocephalous Churches, it appears to cover the territories in diaspora and exarchate status, that is, possessions of territory outside its canonical traditional territory. As the Syro-Malabar Church has an eparchy in Chicago and one in Melbourne, I have cut this list down to USA, Canada and Australia. There is no canonical eparchy in the EU or in UAE. I hope this helps. Elizium23 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Still unsure why you had to include Canada which is not having any eparchy at present? Rejoice talk 06:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jyrejoice:Canada is an eparchy. Yes, I am from the future.Manabimasu (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

What are the thoughts on starting to archive this talk page?Manabimasu (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Update: This talk page is slow. So the archiving has been done.Manabimasu (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Archdeacon

The meaning of the term "Archdeacon", especially in the infobox where the leader of the church is already mentioned, is unclear, even after reading [[1]], which seems more historical than current. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on founded date, Theology, Native/Other Name of the church

It has been noted that some IPs as well as one/some registered user(s) are continuously adding false data and their Point of views (POVs) to this article. These users never add any references or bothered to provide any remarks in edit summary. Below are the 3 topics where wrong or partially true information is repeatedly pushing in to this article:

1.Founded date

All St.Thomas christian churches including Syro-Malabar Catholic church, consider the founded date as AD-52, based on the traditional belief that St.Thomas arrived in Kerala, India in AD 52. Refer to Syro-Malabar Church website: http://www.syromalabarchurch.in/syro-malabar-church.php. But one/some user(s) trying to make it as AD-50 without any supporting evidence/reference in this article. Requesting to discuss here (in this talk page) before making such changes in this article.

2.Theology

As all other Catholic Church rites, Syro-Malabar church also follows "Catholic Theology". For some reason, the same user/users changing this to "East Syriac Theology" (??!!!). Not sure, wt is their intention. The funny thing is that there is no theology exist as "East Syriac Theology" . East Syriac is language, liturgy or a rite, but NOT a theology. Please discuss here before making any changes.

3.Other Names, Native Name

In this article some users adding the native name of Syro-Malabar Church as "Marthoma Nasrani Church" and "Malankara Nasrani" . This type of edits are called as POV edits. That is, its just the point of view of the editor/user. NOT the fact. In this topic also, the fact is: all St. Thomas Christian denominations (Malankara Orthodox, Malankara Jacobite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Marthoma Syrian , Malabar Independent, St.Thomas Evangelical etc.) are commonly referred as "Marthoma Nasrani" or "Malankara Nasrani". Not just Syro-Malabar Church. Removing/correcting this POV statements, if any one has any difference, please discuss here. - 122.171.212.149 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Census

The number of Syro-Malabar Catholics is inaccurate because this only accounts for those living in Kerala. There are Syro-Malabar Catholics in various other countries and states of India.Manabimasu (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ouseph1997: Did not St. Thomas land in India in AD 52? I refer to this source- http://www.syromalabarchurch.in/syro-malabar-church.php. Thoughts? Comments?Manabimasu (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Update- I looked at the pdf [1] and it does say St. Thomas landed in India in 50 AD, but does not have a superscript specifying what source. Looking into this.Manabimasu (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nasranifoundation.org/books/pdf/ElementsOfSMCHistory.pdf

Flag

Anyone know if the Syro-Malabar Flag is official? The authors are purporting that it is official? See here-https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Flag_of_Syro_Malabar_Church.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syro_Malabar_Church_Official_Flag.jpg. The French wiki[1] has renamed the local file to “unofficial” should English Wikipedia follow suite as well? Anyone find sites supporting this? Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Église_catholique_syro-malabare

Third Opinion

The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and discussion through edit comments will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Archdeacon

Anyone point me to sources in the Archdeacon of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church?Manabimasu (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Assessment request for Syro-Malabar Catholic Church--Almost a high B

@Manabimasu: I found your request at WP:BIO and I regret that I could not bump this article up to a B. There is plenty of content, and much of the quality seems ready to go. However, there were some citation issues that need to be addressed. If those get dealt with, and the citation needed tags can be removed, this article would be on the higher end of B-class in my opinion, and ready for GA-nomination with a little more work after that. I have no further interest in this article but I wish you and everyone else who edits this article the best of luck. Feel free to set the article to B yourself if you can fairly remove all the citation tags. Good work so far! Prometheus720 (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Headquarters

PPEMES I am not sure that the cathedral is the "headquarters". Although the Cardinal is also the archbishop of the diocese and so the Cathedral is true in one sense. Administration of the particular church would occur at Mount St. Thomas(http://www.mountstthomas.com/) not to be confused with St. Thomas Mount Where St. Thomas’ death thought to have traditionally occurred.Manabimasu (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. Doesn't it depend on whether headquarters equate mother church, though? PPEMES (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to be careful with semantics but you are also right. Do you think "headquarters" could change to "Episcopal See"? This would require broader consensus though. I am fine with your edit. I just wanted to inform you.Manabimasu (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I am sceptical to that solution. While headquarters may not be perfect in all aspects - simplier arguably on behalf of precision - I can't think of a better solution. PPEMES (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved - nom blocked as a sock, only other editor opposed -> consensus against. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


Syro-Malabar Catholic Church → Syro-Malabar Church – 1-Ngram Preference for Syro-Malabar Church and not Syro-Malabar Catholic Church 2-It is a more common name and is already the name used in some Wikipedias: de:Syro-malabarische Kirche ml:സിറോ മലബാർ സഭ 3-more WP:CONCISE, and Recently the Syriac Maronite Church was moved to Maronite Church. Note:I would like to see arguments for and against. Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • 'Oppose. Maronite Church is an outlier, in that it does not contain the term "Catholic" (it appears that there has been a minor battle over whether to include "Syriac" in its title, too.) All the other Eastern Catholic Churches follow a regular naming convention with the Church name and "Catholic" in the article title. There is no good reason to move away from this convention, especially not one-at-a-time. Elizium23 (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

In the section Saints, Blesseds, Venerables and Servants of God the newly canonized Saint mariam thresia is still listed as a beatified person. Can this be updated so she is properly described as a saint? 2601:248:105:C5C8:C428:BDE9:C3BB:B25B (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Translations challenged

I have challenged the translations and transliterations in the lede sentence. Citations are needed for these to comply with our verifiability policy. Please provide a reliable secondary source containing the translations and transliterations so that outside editors can prove to our satisfaction that they are correct. There is an ongoing problem with WP:Sock puppetry and conflicts of interest regarding this topic. Your cooperation is appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved to Syro-Malabar Church

I moved due to WP:CommonName(https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?smoothing=3&year_end=2019&year_start=1800&corpus=26&content=Syro-Malabar+Church%2CSyro-Malabar+Catholic+Church&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSyro%20-%20Malabar%20Church%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSyro%20-%20Malabar%20Catholic%20Church%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CSyro%20-%20Malabar%20Church%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSyro%20-%20Malabar%20Catholic%20Church%3B%2Cc0) and the website has the name here http://www.syromalabarchurch.in. There are exceptions depending on the eparchy.Manabimasu (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) OOPs, I moved back did not see the consensus??Manabimasu (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

good start

good start of an article, now needs revision by native English speaker who is member of Church. Apart from style, various inconsistancies. Eg. is Nestorian rite used or not? is Shliha in Mar Thoma Shliha the same as in Mar Bartholomeo Sleeha? etc --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Plus, I'm looking through Major Feasts. Pentecost is not on a fixed date. Neither is the Ascension, and why use Syriac Iso' Misiha instead of Jesus Christ? etc--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Because the community uses Iso' Misiha and not the wester rite English name Jesus. There is no native English speaking members as this is not a Western rite church. Sleeha means apostolate and Thoma is the syriac Malayalam for Thomas which. Bartholomew and Thomas are different apostolate --User:amalfra (talk) Saturday, September 5, 2020 (IST) —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I recommend talking to clergy for references.Manabimasu (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

Scripture Peshitta 49.207.220.61 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy «Talk» 21:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


Syro-Malabar Catholic Church → Syro-Malabar Church – The term is WP:Concise,WP:COMMONhere, and the website contains the naming too http://www.syromalabarchurch.in/, so the name is official . There is no naming convention so any naming should be based on Wikipedia policy. Manabimasu (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC);Manabimasu (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uniform spelling

I do not know the regional/dialect difference between e.g. "Catholicose" and "Catholicos" but Wikipedia uniformly uses the latter spelling. Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Former name of the church

Br Ibrahim john, You added 2 references as the evidence of "Syro-Malabar Church" is "Malankara Chaldean Syriac Church". But where is that mentioned in those references, can you quote those sentences? -John C. (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Check into the sites. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john I couldnt find that in both references, if its there , what is the problem in pointing them? - John C. (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Check out. The book doesn't contain the title of Syro Malabar Church. The book refers to the Catholic Saint Thomas Christians and calls them Malankara Church only. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Br Ibrahim john, The question is very specific, Where is the mention "Malankara Chaldean Syriac Church" ?? - John C. (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Show some official documents where Syro-Malabar church is referred as Malankara Chaldean Syriac Church --John C. (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just get into the site and read the book. Or else read the reviews. Don't come up with MOSC sunday school blamegames Br Ibrahim john (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Br Ibrahim john I am OK to read the book. I have a hard copy also which is from OIRSI publications, Vadavathoor not from MOSC Sunday school. Where is that mentioned Church name as "Malankara Chaldean Syriac Church", Which chapter?? or in which page?? -John C. (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Article name

This got way too off-topic. Let's start fresh. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I suggest getting new consensus on article name since you think it is official name but did not cite the sources. Can you list such sources on "official"? You reverted a recent vatican document which had the name "Syro-Malabar". I have multiple recent Vatican documents which have this name. https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/10/10/171010d.html https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2011/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20111017_syro-malabar-church.html https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/papa-francesco_20210703_lettera-siromalabarese.html

69.47.47.12 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@69.47.47.12: The material is already sourced, using the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church's own website (viewable here) as well as myriad other official and extra-ecclesial sources. The Annuario Pontificio, which is more official than press releases or statements when dealing with official lexicon, states the name is the "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" (viewable here). The Catholic Near East Welfare Association, a major organization that should be considered one of the foremost sources on this topic, presently refers to the body as the "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" (viewable here). Major Catholic news agencies, including Catholic News Agency, also refer to the body as the "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" (viewable here, here, and here). The Encyclopædia Britannica, in typical fashion, gives an absurdly erroneous name but retains "Catholic" in the title, offering the commonly accepted alternative "Syro-Malabar Church" as another title (viewable here). In short, it would appear that while "Syro-Malabar Church" is a perfectly acceptable name for regular speech and writing, the official title of the ecclesial body is "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church". As such, at first mention in the article, the official terminology will be used. Further named reference to the body as "Syro-Malabar Church" is perfectly acceptable, but also not the full official name.
Additionally, the source you inserted into the article is a dead link. I'll remove that link, because it produces an error message when you click it. If you are the same fellow who has recently been speaking with me, I encourage you to consider that the source I provided is that of the Syro-Malabar themselves, rather than those Latins you seem so displeased with but cite yourself. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@69.47.47.12: Also, thank you for the EWTN reference link on the Epiclesis article. I have removed a dead link and reformatted the working link and copy-edited the associate material for verbiage and capitalization. It should be noted that the body in question was not speaking with the full authority of the Catholic Church, but did establish a precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
@Qaumrambista: If you’re not going to engage in the conversation on the talk page, delete information that is properly sourced, and insert citation with improper formatting, I’ll ask for an admin to get involved once more. You’re not engaging with the editing process and are blatantly ignoring evidence contrary to your point. Please reconsider and engage in fruitful dialogue here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti Actually it is only you who is engaging with the editing process and are blatantly ignoring evidence contrary to your point. The term "Syro-Malabar Church" is the most notable and official term. Clearly evident from Google search results and official documents. Qaumrambista (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: As demonstrated with multiple sources in the above comments, I disproved this statement and made it clear that, while "Syro-Malabar Church" is accepted and popular nomenclature, it is not official nor exclusively popular. You can't simply dismiss information when it's presented to you as clearly as this. If you won't engage in fruitful dialogue, such as explaining why you dismiss those sources in favor of press releases from a pope you called a "dictator", I will request intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti you seem to very keen on lecturing others on Wikipedia here. At the same time you work as if it is not applicable to you. Wikipedia article titles are based on notable titles. Here, "Syro-Malabar Church" is the most notable and official one. Qaumrambista (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: I see you have recently added both names as an option to the top of the page. This seems out of pace with the standards demonstrated elsewhere, for example the Melkite Greek Catholic and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Both typically go by "Melkite" and "Ukrainian Catholic" in common parlance and even occasionally in ecclesial documents. However, we give preference to the most official name, which in this case appears to be "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church". ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles titles are usually based on notability. The Syro-Malabar Church has more search results than Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in google. And the former is the official title. Qaumrambista (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: Google search results are not citable. Common name standards are more frequently applied when there are synonymous terms for a single thing, or when the official name is so marginal that nobody would recognize it by that name. Again, I've demonstrated "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" is the most official term, appearing in the annual Catholic yearbook from which we derive much of the nomenclature on this site. "Syro-Malabar Church" is accepted nomenclature, but again is not exclusively popular. This is the same debate had between "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church". ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Syro-Malabar Church is concise, recognisable, official, natural, precise and consistent with other usages like the Latin Church, Maronite Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Qaumrambista (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: We use "Latin Church" and "Maronite Church" because they are not only popular, but official. In fact, you're one of the few people to use "Latin Catholic Church". ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: what do you mean by "you"?? And //We use "Latin Church" and "Maronite Church" because they are not only popular, but official.// is more applicable to the Syro-Malabar Church. Qaumrambista (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: the basic fact is that there is no point in discussing with you anyway. You are not going to agree with anything. I have made my point very clear: //Syro-Malabar Church is concise, recognisable, official, natural, precise and consistent with other usages like the Latin Church, Maronite Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church. // Qaumrambista (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: I cited the edit where you used the phrase (also viewable here). Again, using the official church documents that we derive these things from, these entities are "Latin Church" and "Maronite Church", which "Syro-Malabar Catholic Church" is used. Those are official and common names. Please, research this topic further than the Google search page. I showed why you were wrong, you ignored it. If you consider editing maliciously, I’ll seek mediation ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The best evidence for notability is google search count. And let me repeat: //Syro-Malabar Church is concise, recognisable, official, natural, precise and consistent with other usages like the Latin Church, Maronite Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church. // Qaumrambista (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What on earth are you trying to prove!! Why are you continuously adding links to which I have no connection at all? Those edits are not mine. And for this suggestion: //I’ll seek mediation//, it is always welcomed. Qaumrambista (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: To be clear, you're claiming you are not the same editor who started this conversation and edited Epiclesis? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I'm not the one arguing here, you are. And I haven't edited that article ever. So think before making an allegation. Qaumrambista (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: Wait, are you the one who first started this conversation here on this talk page? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop this non sense @Pbritti: Qaumrambista (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

request for comment: 1663 vs 1923

When did the modern day church hierarchy get established: 1663 or 1923? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous discussions

Survey

Place your !votes here with your reasoning.
  • 1923 My understanding, which is somewhat limited, is 1923 was when the Syro-Malabar Church became a church Sui iuris which came with major restructuring and autonomy per Tisserant 1957, pp. 134–135. While it gained communion with Rome in 1663 (and thus became a recognised church), I think the 1923 date is the more meaningful of the two since that is when it became recognised as a church Sui iuris. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I asked a friend whose thesis covered this topic and here's what he replied: "In 1653, a Chaldean bishop was sent by the Vatican to allow people in India to maintain the East Syrian Rite, but the Portuguese Latin Papists killed him. A second attempt was made in 1874 which lasted until 1882. In 1887, the Latin Archdiocese of Goa allowed a Vicariate within its own jurisdiction for those of the East Syriac tradition. 1896 is when they were formally granted sui juris status as the Syro-Malabar. 1923 isn’t mentioned in my paper but it looks like what happened is the permission was granted in 1896 and it took until 1923 to fully establish its own particular hierarchy like allowing certain Latin dioceses to switch to being Syro-Malabar/East Syriac, and things like that." Xenophore; talk 22:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm amenable to using that 1896 date as establishment of particular church status, since this seems to be an expert. Perhaps we lead with that date in this infobox and Eastern Catholic Churches box and include a note with all the various dates discussed here, specifically the date of first intercommunion (we should hash that out?), 1663, 1923. Leaves the matter of the name used in the lede up for discussion, of course. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 1663 or 1896 for establishment, preferably trailed by explanatory note. @Xenophore:, if you could provide sourcing, I will defer to your date, as 1923 is a reorganization (which is still important). 50 AD is right out and mid-1550s is too broad. I won't be adding any more to this discussion unless the naming in lede is discussed. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Origin: AD 50 per tradition
    Catholic Communion: Mid 1500s (probably 1552, 1555 or 1558)
    Hierarchy recognised and formally established: 1923.
[The Schism in the Church of the East, by which the Catholic faction was established, occured in 1552. Per g Catholic website Archdiocese of Angamále of the Syro-Malabars was established in 1555. Joseph Sulaqa, the first Catholic East Syriac bishop of India and brother of Catholic Patriarch John Sulaqa took possession of the see in 1558.] Qaumrambista (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 1923 - seems to be the date for formal establishment. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the section to reply to points raised above.

Honestly, for the purposes of this list, we might just want to say something like 1663, present hierarchy 1923. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I can dig it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: 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) 03:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ref: https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Malabar-Catholic-Church This sui juris Catholic Church of the E.-Syr. liturgical tradition represents... (extended quote removed) ...1995 two further metropolitan sees were created (Tellichery and Trichur).Qaumrambista (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

had to remove the extended quote as copyvio. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • [4] origin: AD 50
    Catholic Communion: 16th century
    hierarchy 1923 December 21

Establishment of the Syro-Malabar Hierarchy with Ernakulam as the Metropolitan See and Mar Augustine Kandathil as the first Head and Archbishop of the Church (Romani Pontifices, Pope Pius XI).Qaumrambista (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL:, the bishop, Parambil Chandy aka Alexander de Campo consecrated in 1663 was actually a Roman Catholic latin bishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Verapoly. [5] Qaumrambista (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: So, you would agree that the Syro-Malabar Christians have been in communion with the Catholic Church consecutively since 1663–if not independently but as a recognized party–following the Jesuit-induced 1653 schism? This arrangement has been referred to as the "dual administration" period since at least the 1980s (my historiography on this gets spotty post-1965). Additionally, Kariattil Iousep's consecration, while a notable update, was not a representative moment in reconciliation between the Malabar and Latin parties, but rather the reintroduction of a native Malabar bishop (similar stretches of lacking an episcopal representative not being a contingent factor in identifying communion). I would contend then that communion was broken in 1653 (as per Attwater) and restore in 1662/3 (per your sourcing and Attwater). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, @Qaumrambista: you reverted my introduction of a note into the lede to tighten it up. It's awful long already and afforded space to include more explanatory information. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti: //So, you would agree that the Syro-Malabar Christians have been in communion with the Catholic Church consecutively since 1663–if not independently but as a recognized party–following the Jesuit-induced 1653 schism?//

Where did I say so! I said the Syro-Malabar Church has been in communion with Roman Catholic Church since the sixteenth century, ie, 1500s, and not seventeenth century. 1663 does not carry any importance because of following reasons:

  • The Syro-Malabar Christians have been in communion with Roman catholic Church since the sixteenth century.
  • The reunion after the schism of 1653 had already been materialised before 1663.
  • Bishop Palliveettil Chandy consecrated in 1663 was not a Syro-Malabar bishop but a Roman Catholic bishop of the Archdiocese of Verapoly. Qaumrambista (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti: any modifications in the lead section must be done only after consensus.Qaumrambista (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, Qaumrambista, you inserted an immense amount into the lede without a consensus (several times). We all have to play by the same rules, and if we are not altering the lede without a consensus, I can revert it back to its appearance here. If you are saying that the Syro-Malabar were in communion with the Catholic Church since the 1500s, then there's really no relevancy to whether he was a Latin bishop or not, as the modern sui iuris particular church ecclesiology did not exist at that point and autonomy within the Catholic Church was not full preceding 1653 (hence the schism). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Do some reading @Pbritti: your arguments are utterly contradictory.

  1. //autonomy within the Catholic Church was not full preceding 1653 (hence the schism)// That is correct and also incorrect:
    Autonomy within the Catholic Church was full preceding 1599 Synod of Diamper. Then it was restored only in 1923.
  2. //If you are saying that the Syro-Malabar were in communion with the Catholic Church since the 1500s, then there's really no relevancy to whether he was a Latin bishop or not// no there is relevance:
    The Syro-Malabar Church was recognised as an Eastern Catholic hierarchy before 1599. It only regained that status in 1923. Palliveettil Chandy was a bishop of Latin Archdiocese of Verapoly but others that preceded him, such as: Joseph Sulaqa, Abraham of Angamaly and Giwargis of Christ and those who became bishops after 1923 were part of Eastern Rite hierarchy. But Palliveettil Chandy was not.
  3. //you inserted an immense amount into the lede without a consensus (several times). We all have to play by the same rules, and if we are not altering the lede without a consensus, I can revert it back to its appearance// then you must explain why you are removing sourced content. I don't think that it is an immense amount of content in the lead, for the article itself is large. Giving alternative names with inline citations is a general practice elsewhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Palliveettil Chandy consecrated in 1663 was Saint Thomas Christian by ethnicity but Latin Catholic bishop by hierarchy. The bishops those who succeeded him were Latin Catholics both by ethnicity and hierarchy. They had jurisdiction over both Saint Thomas Christians and Latin Catholics. The Syro-Malabar hierarchy was de-established in 1599 and was re-established only in 1923. Qaumrambista (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: We've said our bits, you just ask me to repeat the same things over and over. However, since you seem willing to accept edits to the lede, I'll reintroduce my edit, since explanatory edits are a good general practice. Also, since your edits tamped with a precedence over 18 years old, deference is given to that until an alternate consensus is reached. If others wish to comment on the dating matter, please chime in; we've been at an impasse here and need additional votes to secure any resolution! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Qaumrambista: We've been through this. We don't say things like "utterly contradictory." If you wouldn't say it in polite conversation, refrain from using it here. You still haven't sought to resolve your previous ill-treatment of me, and repeating it won't improve things. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Qaumrambista: Alright, that last reversion was the last straw, man. I'm sorry, but this just isn't working. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I have illustrated the contradictions in your argument. Despite having numerous sources backing the 1923 date of hierarchy establishment, you are just keen on arguing that your previous edit was correct. If precedence of years are to be considered, then 1923 satisfies it more. Qaumrambista (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: you are the one who's actually creating illogical arguments here. I would prefer status quo ante, ie, hierarchy established in 1923.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL:, @Qaumrambista:, and @Pbritti:, there seems to be a very interesting history here -- and the Wikipedia article should tell all of it. If the Syro-Malabar Christians first came into full communion of the Catholic Church in 1623 and the present hierarchical structure came into being in 1923, the article should give both dates -- and it also should discuss all the turmoil and disruption of the intervening years that your comments in this thread seem to reflect. Also, the info box should include both years, with clear indication of their significance, even if that's not the standard practice. I'm not exactly an expert on the history of this sui juris ritual church, so I'll leave it to those of you who apparently know more than I do to hash out the actual history. Norm1979 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Norm1979: you have got that wrong. It is:

  • Origin: AD 50
  • Catholic Communion : mid 1500s
  • Hierarchy : 1923

And please don't drag this 1663 date here. It has no other significance. Qaumrambista (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: the user actually didn't mention 1663 (unless 1623 is a typo). I'm a tad confused by his edits like you. Not sure what Norm1979 meant by 1623 and think elaboration would help. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: it doesn't really make any difference. Be it 1663 or 1623, both are equally wrong. Qaumrambista (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: and @Pbritti:, the point I was trying to make is that the article about a sui juris ritual church should give its whole history -- and your posts earlier in this thread indicate that the history of the Syro-Malabar Church is quite a story! And yes, the body came into being in some form -- but not in its present form -- c. 50 AD when the apostle Thomas and his collaborators, Addai and Mari, reached evangelized India. I'm not an expert in the history of this body, but there clearly have been transformational events including the restoration of full communion with the Catholic Church (apparently in 1623 AD) and the establishment of the present hierarchy (apparently in 1923) that made this body what it is today. The article on the Syro-Malabar Church should tell the whole chronology of events. Incidentally, this is not the only Catholic entity that has multiple dates tied to its formation. The Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney originally came into being as the Sacerdotal Society of St. John Marie Vianney in a schism in the Diocese of Campos (in Brazil) in 1981, and subsequently returned to Catholic communion, taking on its current title, on 18 January 2022. Which is the correct founding date? The answer really is both. Norm1979 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Origin: AD 50
Catholic Communion: Mid 1500s
Hierarchy: 1923 Now let me explain. The Syro-Malabar Church is the continuation of the East Syriac Saint Thomas Christian community in South India. It came into Catholic Communion in the mid 1500s (sixteenth century) following schism of 1552. The hierarchy was abolished in 1599 by the Synod of Diamper. From 1599 they were under latin bishops, with the exception of only two bishops. In 1887, the Syriacs were finally separated from the latins and separate vicariates were established. In 1896, native bishops were appointed and the hierarchy was formally recognised in 1923. Ref: Sebastian Brock: [6] This sui juris Catholic Church of the E.-Syr. liturgical tradition represents the continuity of the Catholic ecclesial tradition in South India that came into being in the 16th cent. (see Thomas Christians). Under Portuguese and other European missionary influence in the late 16th and early 17th cent. the local Church became heavily Romanized, especially after the Synod of Diamper (1599)....it was only in 1896 that three native Indian bishops were again appointed, thus marking the beginnings of an indigenous hierarchy, which was only able to develop again in the 20th cent. In 1923 Ernakulam was made a metropolitan see, with seven suffragan eparchiesQaumrambista (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Norm1979: we cannot add all these insignificant dates in the infobox. But you can find it in the lead and the body of the article well explained.Qaumrambista (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@MJL:, @Qaumrambista:, and @Pbritti:, there is a middle ground between just one date and a ridiculous number od dates in a situation like this where two or three dates are truly significant. IIRC, you can use HTML "break" (<br>) tags to split an entry in the info box into two (or more) lines, but test this to be sure that it displays correctly. Why not enter "50 AD - Initial Formation; 1923 AD - Present Canonical Structure" (no line break) or "50 AD - Initial Formation<br>1923 AD - Present Canonical Structure" (with line break) in the info box? Norm1979 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sequence break

@Norm1979, Qaumrambista, and Pbritti: I'm going to need y'all to focus here. Go to § Survey post either '''1923''' or '''1663''' (or '''Other''' if you are Norm) followed by a relatively short (like a paragraph at most) statement of why you think that is the right date and your signature. Then, if you want to respond to each other's points do so in this section.
If you want to be persuasive, I recommend you focus on why your year is right followed by why the other date is incorrect. Avoid arguments like "this was the status quo" because that is unrelated to what reliable sources about this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: Qaumrambista was a sock of Jude Didimus. Discussion should continue with inclusion and consideration towards information they provided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Towards a conclusion

No discussion here in nearly a month, during which time I discovered a relevant source. Citing Attwater, the academically-vetted The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church from OUP in 1957 (my copy is the 1958 reprint, if relevant) in its entry for "Malabar Christian" describes the Syro-Malabar Catholics as the "Catholics of 1662". Additionally, here is a quote that affirms 1662–rather than 1663, which was my original derivation from the Attwater source–as the date of later re-communion as an entity: "in 1662 many returned to communion with Rome." In preference for this tertiary and more academic source, I will insert the 1662 date with citation referring to the dictionary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: an IP has inserted a date of the "16th Century" for founding date, despite there being an interrupting schism prior to reunion in 1662. The sourcing provided was a Gorgias Press encyclopedia (a reputable academic source). Since other sources concur that full continuity among Saint Thomas Christians in Malabr and Rome was initiated in 1662, I propose that date remain. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@2402:8100:3902:E3A0:A55F:5A2:FD96:35AD: You were asked to discuss on talk page but have instead edit-warred while improperly using a source (and deleting information that concurs with your source for the name of the church). Please discuss here. ~ 04:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1093954358 this clearly shows that it is only you who has started controversy here by adding disputed statement. The source by prof Brock clearly says that the Syro-Malabar Church originates in the sixteenth century. The way you connect a bishop consecration or schism with establishment of a church is blatant pro romen katholik papal bias. If so one must also add establishment date 1054 on Romen Katholik papal church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3902:E3A0:A55F:5A2:FD96:35AD (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3902:E3A0:A55F:5A2:FD96:35AD: I have provided two academic sources for my assertion. You have provided a single one that does not claim what you say. Look, I can also tell you're intentionally misspelling "Roman Catholic". The only POV being spread here is yours, and it is in violation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please, try to actually discuss the merits of your source, which references initial communion with some Indian Christians and Rome in the 1500s. Two sources, on the other hand, provide an explicit date, one you deleted despite being aware of discussion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually it does not provide an explicit date. The 1662 date actually is wrong in every way. Alexander de Campo was ordained in 1663. But the reunion happened much before, starting from 1656. But the origin of the East Syriac liturgical and Eastern Katholik ecclesial tradition is dated to Sixteenth century. Searching for a sharp date and adding it incorrectly is nothing but blantant pov based on usual Romen Katholik papal pov which insists on it. Tit for tat, we must add 1054 as origin of Romen Katholik papal church. That ain't so wise. 1663 can be seen as a date of schism between independent Puthenkoor and Romo-Syrian pazhayakoor only. That is community division, not ecclesial division. Sebastian Brock is the reliable scholar here. Even if agree or not, the date provided by him is the correct one. Your accreditation does not make a change in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3902:E3A0:A55F:5A2:FD96:35AD (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@2402:8100:3902:E3A0:A55F:5A2:FD96:35AD: this comment does not really carry any meaning. Besides just deviating from every consensus view of other topics, there are two sources with even more accreditation than yours that concur that 1662 is the correct date. The Brock source does not make the claim you think it does, simply giving the 16th Century as the start of exchange between Indian Christians and Rome. You claim your source is better, but it is more vague and in the minority. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
So said Pbritti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3924:2900:271B:740B:1D06:1982 (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
For those unaware, above IP editor has been traced as likely to possilikely as a sock of the blocked editor Qaumrambista/Jude Didimus (see here for details). This does not negate their input as wholly irrelevant, but contextualizes their perspective as a single individual in this discussion and an editor with an established POV issue. Please consider the weight of the sources the editor provided if you want to help establish a conclusion in this discussion. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Syro-Malabar_Church/Archive_1"