This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: India / Syriac C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Top-importance). This article is within the scope of the Syriac Christianity work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. India: Kerala C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Catholicism C‑class Top‑importance Syro-Malabar Church is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see Draft articles Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page) Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Show some official documents where Syro-Malabar church is referred as Malankara Chaldean Syriac Church --John C. (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Previous discussions

• Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches § Syro-Malabar dating
• § Article name
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Repeat violations Qaumrambista

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 1923 - seems to be the date for formal establishment. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

had to remove the extended quote as copyvio. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [3] 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)[reply]

@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. [4] Qaumrambista (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Pbritti: any modifications in the lead section must be done only after consensus.Qaumrambista (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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: [5] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.