Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches

message: Currently the lead completely contradicts the article. The lead presents six churches it claims to be the largest Eastern Catholic Churches. The article presents a list of each church and how many adherents it has. These two list show strong divergences; for example, the lead gives the Armenian Catholic Church as one of the six largest, while according to the article it's nowhere near being among the six largest. I'm not sure whether it's the lead, the article, or both that are wrong - but it is impossible for both to be right.Jeppiz (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you, for helping get that tag removed! I appreciate the work! Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead contradicts the article 

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

message: There has been a lot of back and forth on this topic over the last couple weeks and I would rather we laid out a plain discussion of the matter here. Per the cited Attwater source, the Syro-Malabar ecclesial community returned to the Catholic Church in 1662 following a brief schism, a reunion formalized in 1663 with the appointment of a bishop. This reunion is the best date I can find for saying the modern Syro-Malabar became part of the Catholic Church (there are multiple dates given to the establishment of what became Syro-Malabar Christianity more generally, usually between the late First Century and mid Third Century). There was a restructuring of the Syro-Malabar Church in 1923 that granted additional autonomy, elevating its autonomy to the degree we now refer to as sui iuris church on par with other major archiepiscopal particular churches like the UGCC. This is also viewable in the cited Attwater source. While this latter date is very important, I would suggest that it does not reflect the establishment of the church within the Catholic Church, as some degree of self-governance in communion with Rome was maintained before and after the schism with Rome in the 1600s. The 1923 date might be best understood as the date that any claims of Chaldean patriarchal authority were dismissed rather than the establishment of a new church. I intend to insert the First Century and 1663 dates with an explanatory note into the page. If any find deficiencies with this proposal, please comment here (rather than my talk page). I'll make the additions sometime after Latin Easter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: please see conversation here before editing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Their are a lot of misconceptions here. The Syro-Malabar Church became part of the Catholic Church in the mid sixteenth century. The bishops were Joseph Sulaqa and Abraham of Angamaly. The Synod of Diamper and the Second Synod of Angamaly take place in the same Church. The schism occurred (schism between padroado and saint Thomas Christians) in 1653. Vicariate of Malabar was established in late 1650s. In 1663, a native bishop was the consecrated as the latin apostolic vicar of Malabar and auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Cranganore. It was followed by nearly 300 years of Latin Church administration. The Syro-Malabar Church was separated from the Latin Archdiocese of Verapoly in late 1800s and the Syro-Malabar Church hierarchy was established in 1923. Hence 1663 doesn't carry any significance other than that of the consecration of native bishop, which by no means was the birth of a new eastern Catholic Church or an establishment of its hierarchy.  Qaumrambista (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  As mentioned previously, the 1663 date is the date during which the Syro-Malabars in India were formally received as a reunited group. It was not the conventional manner of reunion that we consider today (a far more bureaucratic matter as best exemplified by the establishment a separate church for the Eritreans in 2015). It was also the date that a bishop was assigned for their ministry. The 1923 date was a formalization of the arrangement that had been evolving since 1923, and the granting of the archepiscopal title. The 1663 date can rightly be seen as the date of union and establishment (something that was discussed in a text about the peculiar arrangement that I sadly no longer have access to at my new educational institution but may be available to you via inter-library loan: Thomas Pallipurathkunnel's A double regime in the Malabar Church, 1663-1716). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The reunion of the Syro-Malabar Church was in the mid sixteenth century. As already mentioned there were Catholic bishops continuously. And Coonan Cross Oath was not a schism with Catholics. Hence 1663 dies not carry any significance. The establishment of hierarchy was in 1923.  Qaumrambista (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in many sources, the schism in the Seventeenth Century was a significant proportion of the Syro-Malabar, necessitating efforts to reunite them and receive notice of formal reunion. This was accomplished from 1661 and finalized in 1663. This is visible in the Attwater source on the page I have previously cited. I am also confused and think for the sake of ensuring others can help a consensus occur: do you propose your original 50 AD date or the 1923 date (or both, or neither)? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Syro-Malabar dating

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

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

message: * On one hand, as of the Annuario Pontificio for 2020, the Albanian Byzantine Church is no longer listed as sui-iuris. Due to the reduction of faithful, the Apostolic Administration for Southern Albania is no longer listed as dependent neither on the Congregation for Oriental Churches nor as subject to the Holy See, but only as sufragan of Archdiocese of Tiranë–Durrës, encompassing both Latin and Byzantine faithful.
* On the other hand, as of the same Annuario Pontificio for 2020, the newly created Apostolic Administration of Kazakhstan and Central Asia is listed now listed as a sui-iuris Church. The 2022 Annuario kept it also as such. I had the annuario on hand and can confirm it. Curiously enough, looking at wikis in other languages, only the Italian wiki has made such clarification.
I'll wait on confirmation before doing any changes to the table or the narrative.
Having an official sui-iuris Church unlisted would merits IMHO a section on the body of the article on extinct (??) churches. We know that Estonia had a few parishes that were never a jurisdiction. We know about the Church of Georgia, never officially listed, but with ambiguous history. Now, we have the Albanian Church.
~~---- Coquidragon (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Coquidragon, that's interesting stuff, and I thank you for keeping us abreast of the developments. That is surely unprecedented in the case of Albania. I understand that the Russian Catholic Church is constantly on the verge, having no hierarchy of its own and a tenuous existence within Russian territory. Elizium23 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazakhstan and Albania