Talk:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

31 August 2021

@Sathymeva Jayathe: your edits are unsourced and poor. Hence it will be removed. If you are trying to contribute to the article, please discuss here. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Establishment date

There are more than a couple sources presented that support the establishment of the church in 1912. Jude Didimus wishes to remove the sources because the article previously did not include that information, which is not a reason to exclude sources. The material cited is found here and here. Also, Jude Didimus has violated the 3RR (again). Unless they can substantiate rationale to excluded repeatedly cited material, I'll reinsert it tomorrow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no citations provided to support the 1912 date. None of the sources say that the church was established in 1912. Actually, all those references say that the church was already independent before 1912. Jude Didimus (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malankara_Orthodox_Syrian_Church&direction=prev&oldid=1085771455 was the version that is consistent with the sources and previous discussions. It was unilaterally changed by User:Maliakel 2001 on 2 May. Jude Didimus (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: It entered a new major stage of independence in 1912. "He was also known as the architect of the Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Syrian Church because he established the Catholicate of Malankara in 1912 at Kottayam" from the St. Mary's source, "In 1912, the Malankara Church split into the Malankara Orthodox Church and the Jacobite Syrian Church on the question of the supreme head" from the 2017 news article. That's about as clear as it can get. Previous versions can not be used as evidence to exclude cited material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: If you're interested in helping explain this, please chime in. Hate to drag you in again, but, well... ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Still it does not explicitly say that the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was established in 1912. If your version were true, there would have been explicit support from sources. The quotes given above imply that the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch tried to bring the church under his authority but Vattasseril Dionysius did not let it materialise. The sources also clearly say that the church was not under the Patriarch prior to 1912. Jude Didimus (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: The way it was presented in the article even noted that it was referring to establishment as an independent entity. Synonyms for the word "establish" have been known to exist. The sources also clearly state that the present structure and state of the church are reckoned to 1912. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Br. Ibrahim, please cite a source that contradicts that 1912 date, because frankly it's the best thing that is already there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Some sources do sometimes say that the supreme spiritual leader was the Patriarch. However even those sources clearly distinguish the Malankara Church from the Syriac Orthodox Church. They also makes it clear that the Patriarch had no temporal authority over the church. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church still has the Patriarch as the supreme spiritual leader as per the first clause of it constitution. All orthodox churches are like that. The supreme spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodoxy is the Patriarch of Constantinople but he has no temporal authority outside his own patriarchate. Jude Didimus (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Br. Ibrahim actually argues the contrary. See above section. Jude Didimus (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless and until you are able to provide a source that explicitly say that church was founded in 1912 and the founder is Vattasseril Dionysius, the article will probably continue its consistent and present version. Jude Didimus (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: You can litigate Oriental Orthodox ecclesiology all day, but it doesn't change what multiple reliable sources say. I have found two sources that say as such: "He was also known as the architect" is fairly explicit that he was the founder, and both sources cite the 1912 date as the establishment of the current hierarchy. You can't just ignore sources if you don't like them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What you are arguing is WP:OR. Architect is not a synonymn of founder. The source says so because the Catholicate of the East was established in 1912. That is, a new title was added to the Malankara Metropolitan in 1912. That does not mean an establishment of the church. Jude Didimus (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point Jude Didimus: did you read what the article said? The 1912 date is given because it established a new order for the church, one of greater autonomy that is given in multiple sources as a date to which a degree of formation is given. You can't have someone be an "architect" of something long-previously established. The reliable sources give the 1912 date as date of important separation and establishment. You have changed your argument four times now, all without providing a single source, only semantical concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources say that Pope Gregory I was the architect of the Roman Catholic Church. Do you, being a Catholic propagandist, believe that he is the founder? There is no citations provided here that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian church or the church was founded in 1912. WP:OR is unacceptable here. Jude Didimus (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: I strongly encourage you to immediately retract the accusation of my being a "Catholic propagandist." ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are not a propagandist, then why are you raising a pov original research here. First provide a source that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder and the church was established in 1912. Jude Didimus (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: I have not and absolutely will not accuse you of being a propagandist for any group, even if I think you are ignoring reliable sourcing. Giving you another chance to retract that accusation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are not a propagandist, then why are you raising a pov original research here. First provide a source that explicitly say that Vattasseril Dionysius was the founder and the church was established in 1912 Jude Didimus (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: I have given you a couple sources. I really do not want to report this. You're escalating a content dispute to a conduct dispute. Please, retract your accusation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is still a content dispute and since I wish to maintain it so, I retract that allegation. You 'may' not be a propagandist but you surely have no regard for WP:RS and you are currently advocating your original research and pov here Jude Didimus (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: not sure what POV you're accusing me of, nor am I wholly convinced of your retraction. I think you willfully misinterpret me here: I am strictly going by the reliable sources, yet that is somehow "original research." Please explain how that is the case so that I may understand your perspective. Supporting your position with sources is also helpful. We can see where this discussion goes later, as I would like to sleep some. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are adding content, you must make sure that it is explicitly backed by reliable sources. Otherwise, it is considered original research. Here, you must provide a reliable source saying that the church was established in 1912 and it was founded by Vattasseril Dionysius. Otherwise your content is original research. Jude Didimus (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: You don't seem to understand what WP:NOR means. I'd encourage you brush up on it—you’ve been gone a bit so it wouldn't be bad anyway. Using a reliable source in the manner it states (that X happened, so I cite X happened) is not original research. If the articles said "relaunched the church in 1912," we’d put it in there are such. As they are now, they support an understanding of different, significantly more independent stage beginning in 1912 that deserves signposting in the article given its weight in multiple sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That is where you must draw the line between reliably sourced content and original research. You have to provide sources that give the founder and establishment details of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to add that content. The source must support the content explicitly and not simply implicitly. A church becoming independent and a new title getting introduced is different from establishment/foundation of the church. Jude Didimus (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: which those sources do. Reread the quotes, read the full articles. They give fairly extensive detail. Reckoning a pure "establishment" date is hard from an NPOV perspective on topics like this, as members of the church might assert that there is exclusively continuity with the c. 52 AD date. However, considering that both independent reporting and a parish affiliated with the church assert 1912 as the date in which the church entered its present form, inclusion under the category "Established" is more than apt (and far, far from original research). ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me also make it clear that if you are able to provide reliable sources that explicitly say that the church was established in 1912 and the founder is Vattasseril Dionysius, you are welcome to add that content. Jude Didimus (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That is what that is called original research. You are simply misinterpreting the source. You can use that source but only to add what it explicitly say, i.e, the church entered a new phase etc. Jude Didimus (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: which is how it was. It was caveated with the word "autocephaly". You just argued for the version you deleted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Establishment of church and autocephaly are completely different. Jude Didimus (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

June reopening

@Pbritti:

• smiocbristol: "In 1912 Abdul Mesiha came from Antioch and removed the suspension that was placed"; "He was also known as the architect of the Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Syrian Church because he established the Catholicate of Malankara in 1912 at Kottayam."

----> no mention of 1912 being the date of incependence, unless the Catholicate of Malankara is the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

• scroll.in: "In 1912, the Malankara Church split into the Malankara Orthodox Church and the Jacobite Syrian Church on the question of the supreme head. The discontent had set in three years ago with the patriarch at that time excommunicating the metropolitan for refusing to acknowledge his authority. In 1912, the metropolitan got a rival patriarch to invalidate his excommunication and appoint him head of the Church."

----> 1912 is the independence (split) date given for the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Veverve (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbriti : The source does not explicitly mention St. Mar Dionsyius as the founder of the Church. It was during his time that the church formalised the Constitution, installed a Catholicos and overhauled the overall administration of the church, hence the source identifies him as the 'architect' of the Church. Zoticus777 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: Thanks for opening discussion here. The source in question as describes him as liberating the church from a "foreign church". Since he was a foundational leader in the church’s autocephality and independent governance under that new constitution, I’d say having him as "founder" is a good take. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: By your logic, Cheppaud Mar Dionsyius "liberated" the church from the influence of Anglican Missionaries and Mar Thoma I "liberated" the church from the Portuguese Roman Catholic influence and Mar Thoma V liberated the church from Dutch influence, shouldn't they all be founders? . Leaders who steer the church through troubled times are stalwarts of the church not founders. If Vattasheril Mor Dionsyius is indeed the founder of the church, then there would be multiple reliable sources explicitly mentioning the same. Could you bring a source which explicitly supports your claim, I would happily acknowledge. Zoticus777 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Could you please settle this. Zoticus777 (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: As a note: Veverve is a very good editor and one I happily defer to on most occasions based on repeated displays of sound judgement. Veverve's input is highly welcome. However, no editor "settles" things. In any case, as the numerous discussions here and in the talk page archives demonstrate, there is a severe lack of reliable sources on this church. Some sources affiliated with the church are outright contradictory (the claim of autocephality in particular), others lacking details beyond tangents into 150-year-old office politics. The other figures you mention refer church leaders who helped organize Syrian/Jacobite Christians, but only Dionysus sought the creation of an independent Catholicate for this specific. Again, in the source cited, it identifies him—no one else—as the liberator of the MOSC (and not any more comprehensive predecessor churches). This source (among those that challenges the claim of autocephality) places the MOSC's split at 1911 with its hierarchy established under a Catholicos in 1912, both actions it notes were headed by Dionysus. Arguably, this is one of the few things we have source agreement on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The source does not identify Mor Dionsyius as the "liberator" or " founder ", and the source is a private website without the details of the author. The source is an unscholarly and unacademic piece of information written by an amateur. Said that, even the amateur text does not offer validation to your arguments. If the church is indeed founded by Mor Dionsyius, then there should be multiple sources explicitly manifesting the same. Per Wiki guidelines this particular source and your personal interpretations does not permit editing a crucial piece information about the church. The church had plans to establish a "Catholicate" much before Mor Dionsyius even became a bishop, and it was not the desire of Mor Dionsyius to establish a Catholicate, but the collective church leadership. Many a thing that happened during the time of Mor Dionsyius is due to the collaborative decision making of the church. Unlike Roman Catholic Church and many other episcopal churches, the Malankara Church is not governed solely by Bishops, but a cooperative decision making body of Bishop + Priests+ Laity decides on critical issues. Already three editors (including me) have pointed about the credibility of your source. I do not want to get into further debate over "personal interpretations" , and the information would be edited out until a proper source abiding to wiki guidelines is produced. Zoticus777 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: See your talk page. Your comments here have no basis in sourcing, but merely dismiss multiple provided sources out of hand and devolve into a tangential discussion of ecclesial polity. Additionally, other editors should note Zoticus is a WP:SPA, Jude Didimus was blocked for sockpuppetry, and that Veverve concurred with me about the 1912 autocephality date. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of contention here is not my comments, but your referencing a crucial information about the church with an impermissible source. Do you have proper academic , scholarly references to prove the founder of the church is Mor Dionsyius, atleast from one decent published book? I don't think a vague citation from a private website and your personal interpretations on a critical and crucial piece of information can be the least of wikipedia standards. Not bringing proper sources and accusing other editors of Meatpuppertry and Sockpuppetry is not mature and professional. I can only edit what I know and it is unprofessional of me to to edit pages where my proficiency is limited. Ververe did not concur on the autocephaly date. 1912 is not about autocephaly, that is the year the church split into two factions. Technically the church had split into two factions in 1910. Zoticus777 (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jude Didimus is not from the Orthodox Church, and majority of his edits are critical of the Orthodox Church. However, I still do no understand why he pretended to be someone from the Orthodox Church and attacked other senior editors here. I do not want to make any assumptions about which church he belongs to , however all his initial edits on this page are pure derogation. Zoticus777 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: For the last time: you can not dismiss sources out of hand. You deleted a sourced paragraph (one further attested to in this source dating to 1909!). You have falsely accused me of vandalizing the page when confronted about your unusual editing habits. You went to an admin because you want your POV to be represented on the page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Where did I remove the source which you mentioned ? Please share the link. Your edits are not of good faith. I will have to report your edits to Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard. What source did you use when you made this deliberate attempt to tarnish the church? Which source did you refer to when you changed the wording "remains in " to "claims to be in communion with Oriental Orthodox Church" ? There is a world of difference between a church "remaining " in communion and "claiming" to be in communion with sister churches. [[1]]

What source did you refer to when you made this edit? However, the MOSC, often known as the "Orthodox party", are NOT fully recognized among Oriental Orthodox ? [[2]] . How can you accuse a church to be not in communion with sister churches without a single source? What about the rest of the edits you made without proper sources? You have made extremely critical and derogatory edits without even a single source to back your claims, that too in the lead section of the page. None of the edits you made here in the past two months are good faith edits. Zoticus777 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources that describe the excommunication of the leaders of this church, the news article that is cited at the end of that paragraph, and sources elsewhere recognize the divided opinions on the Malankara Orthodox. I can just keep providing sources, but you don't pay attention to them and accuse me of bad-faith or POV edits when I stick to the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: your baseless claims of vandalism are false and not withdrawing them—alongside your continued ignoring of sources and edit-warring—will result in an administrator likely taking action you will not favor. I suggest restoring the sources material and providing sources for your assertions here. As it stands, the claims in the article are wholly sourced from the church itself or unsourced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti You have still not answered with regard to the vandalism you have done. Which source did you refer to when you changed the wording "remains in " to "claims to be in communion with Oriental Orthodox Church" ? There is a world of difference between a church "remaining " in communion and "claiming" to be in communion with sister churches. [[3]]

What source did you refer to when you made this edit? However, the MOSC, often known as the "Orthodox party", are NOT fully recognized among Oriental Orthodox ? [[4]] . How can you accuse a church to be not in communion with sister churches without a single source?

The merits of the sources are discussed above and you couldnt bring a single credible source. I am open to inviting more editors to assess the content of the sources. Already contacted Admin User:Ad Orientem,who locked the page. Veverve also was not strongly in favour of the sources. Hence before editing critical information about a church, decent discussion is necessary. Will invite more participation as your invited Veverve and Br Ibrahim John . Zoticus777 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not wish to engage in the eternal debates that are found in the talk pages of the articles of Indian Christian denominations. My former comments here were purely concerning formalities. Veverve (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to drag you here. Certain edits of Pbritti , like MOSC is not in communion with other Oriental Orthodox Churches without a single source to back it, needed removal. This is getting frustrating and have already asked an Admin to look into this. Sorry again. Zoticus777 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: Below, I will demonstrate to you that my edits are sourced, performed in good faith, and are superior to the unsourced statements you provide. While you might disagree with the content of these sources, you are obliged to either challenge them with sources of your own, challenge the legitimacy of the sources themselves, or accept the sources as reliable and suitable for inclusion in the article.

• 1. "The MOSC is a self-declared autocephalous church in impaired communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church and are as such not in full communion with the whole Oriental Orthodox communion." This is verifiable through modern news sources on the topic, including the following: [5][6] Beyond these sources, several academic sources have addressed the matter. The World Council of Churches, in their 1991 Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, state the following: "The Orthodox church in India declared itself autocephalous in 1912, though conflicts with the Syrian patriarchate continue." Donald Attwater, over several works, provides additional detail. In his A Catholic Dictionary (1962 3rd ed.), the Syriac Orthodox "patriarch's authority over the Jacobite Chistisms [sic] is slight and variable." His earlier Dissident Eastern Churches describes in some detail the efforts of the 1930s, wherein the Syrian Patriarch refused to recognize the catholicos of the MOSC and the establishment of the "Bava (patriarch's)" and "Orthodox (katholikos)" parties (he also calls them "Northists" and "Southists"), their overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions, and their political divide. He even provides an aside regarding the catholicos of that period claiming to be the "Patriarch of Antioch" and seeking communion with the Russian Orthodox.
• 2. "Dionysius of Vattasseril is the founder of an independent MOSC, which was established during the 1909-1912 period." Necessarily, if a church is somehow independent of other entities, then it must have been established at some point in time. Modern news sources again point to the split and recognize the 1911 excommunication of Dionysius and the 1912 establishment of the catholicos as the points of separation: [7]. This, too, is supported by academic sources. The WCC dictionary, as mentioned above, reckons the establishment of the MOSC to 1912 and the self-declaration of an autocephalous church. Attwater, in Dissident, reckons the start of the "split" to 1909 and that it was Dionysius's excommunication and subsequent appeal to Ignatius Abded Mshiho II which led to the permanent division and establishment of the MOSC. An MOSC-produced history on Dionysius acknowledges the same and describes him as the "architect" of the church: [8]. The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, an academic production from one of the leading institutions on this topic, approves of the 1912 date but assigns Ignatius Abded Mshiho II responsibility for the "schism" through his consecration of Baselios Paulose I: [9]. The Gorgias dictionary describes the division as ending in 1964 but reopening formally in 1975 and continuing to the present.

While details on the history of the MOSC are scant, these facts are among the best attested. We know that not the whole of the Oriental Orthodox communion recognizes the authority that the MOSC claims, that the church was established sometime between 1909 and 1912, and that the individuals who founded the MOSC were Dionysius, Ignatius Abded Mshiho II, and arguably Baselios Paulose I. This does not mean that the MOSC's assertions of communion are errant, at least not from an Oriental Orthodox point of view. However, these claims have to be addressed as such: "claims". Unless reliable evidence can be mustered against inclusion of this material, it will be reinserted with the above sourcing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: Just to drive the point home, since about a year and a half ago you had this to say about listing Dionysius as a founder, the well-received The Christians of Kerala (1993, Oxford University Press) by Susan Visvanathan describes the two factions as those in support of the Patriarch of Antioch and those in support of the Malankara mertan–Dionysius. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't budged from what I had wrote an year ago. What I wrote is clear, Dionsyius is not the founder of the church, When he was the head of the Malankara Church, the Syrian Patriarch demanded temporal rights , which was rejected by the Managing Committee and Mar Dionsyius, those who stood with the decision of the Managing Committee and the Malankara Metropolitan came to be known as " Methran Kakshi" (Metropolitan Faction) and those who supported the Patriarch came to be known as " Bava kakshi" (Patriach Faction). This information was available in the article and will be reinstated. Zoticus777 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: I have provided numerous reliable sources. Unless you provide a reliable source or back down from your unsourced position, I will seek arbitration. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am once again reiterating, the contention here is not the sources , but you making up things which are not explicitly mentioned in the sources.

• When sources cites 1912 as the establishment date of Catholicate, you edit 1912 as the foundation of the church.
• When sources cites Mor Dionsyius as the leader of the church who steered the church though troubled times, you edit him as the founder of the church.
• When no single source mention about the communion about MOSC with Oriental Orthodox Churches, you made an edit , that MOSC is NOT in communion with Oriental Orthodox Churches.
• 1. The MOSC is a self-declared autocephalous church in impaired communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church and are as such not in full communion with the whole Oriental Orthodox communion.

This is not what your tried insert in your previous edit. You tried to insert two things 1) MOSC is NOT In communion with Oriental Orthodox Church 2) MOSC "claims to" be In Communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church. When challenged, now you have conveniently changed your wordings to The MOSC is a self-declared autocephalous church in impaired communion with the Syriac Orthodox Church and are as such not in full communion with the whole Oriental Orthodox communion. . There is a world of difference with not being in communion with one church and with the whole Oriental Orthodox churches, your early edits were clearly in bad faith. Could you please prove MOSC is NOT in communion with Coptic, Armenian , Syrian, Eritrean and Ethiopian Churches? JSOC is represented by parent church Syrian Orthodox Church, in the Oriental Orthodox Community. JSOC on its own , is not a member of the Oriental Orthodox Community.

• 2. No source you provided identifies Mar Dionsyius as the founder of the church. The establishment of the Catholicate in 1912 and the schism that occurred in the Malankara Church is well documented in the article. Mar Dionsyius was the head of the united Church, and during his time the Patriarch of the Syrian Church demanded temporal authority in writing , and this was resisted by the managing committee of the church. However, a section loyal to the Patriarch accepted the demand, causing a schism in the church. If current Pope is demanding Justin Welby to submit to him and if the Anglican church rejects the demand causing a split in the Anglican Church, does JustIn Welby become the founder of the Anglican Church ? In all the sources you have provided , there is no mention of creation of a new church or a founder, every source is clear, the one united church split into two factions , one in support of the Patriarch and another in support of the Malankara Metropolitan.

There is a very lengthy and easily understandable explanation about the church feud here.https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/feud-began-19th-century-what-happened-jacobite-orthodox-locked-horns-96295

• I did not find in WCC website any mention of 1912 as the 'establishment' date of MOSC, the website clearly states 1912 the establishment of Catholicate.
• The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, mentions 1912 as the date of schism not creation or formation of any church.

To conclude , none of the sources you provided here , mentions about a NEW church being created by Mar Dionsyius, infact all the sources are stating the issues that happened during 1909 - 1912 period, and you are using these vague sources argue, that since there was an issue during 1909- 1912 a new church was founded. Absolutely, not.

Again, none of your sources state 1912 as the establishment date of a new church and they clearly mention 1912 as the date when Catholicate was established.

If Mar Dionsyius is the founder of the church, then there would be numerous academic sources attesting the fact, but what you are engaging is a play of words and trying to cook up a story with vague sources and no sources at all to back your claim. Zoticus777 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Zoticus777: Last chance here. The WCC dictionary, the Bristol parish, the Attwater dictionary, Gorgias dictionary all reference a separation and establishment of a new hierarchy. If you're saying no new church was established, you might find the concept you reference is that of the unified Malankara Church, the legacy of which many claim. And, yes, I have at least four sources that identify Dionysius as the founder. Your diatribe about Justin Welby, besides being incoherent, actually supports my view. If you look at the Church of England article, you will see the founders listed as Augustine of Canterbury (roughly analogous among the English to Thomas the Apostle in India), Henry VIII (who broke from papal authority), and Thomas Cranmer (the first primate of the church)—with aligns perfectly with the edits I have sourced and wish to insert. As for communion with the Oriental Orthodox, my edits are sound: if one portion of the communion does not have full communion the MOSC, then the MOSC is not fully recognized by the whole Oriental Orthodox communion. Again, everything I have is sourced as listed at length above. Further squabbling and false statements will result in arbitration next. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It is obvious from a large number of reliable sources that a specific institutional church by the name Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC), with its own independent hierarchy, did not exist before 1912. The office of Catholicos created by deposed Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Abded Mshiho II was the first of its kind in India. AD 52 and 1665 are also important years for the MOSC. 52 marks the beginning of Christianity (not MOSC) and 1665 the beginning of Oriental Orthodoxy (check Malankara Church) in India, and the MOSC has the legacy of both. The MOSC, however, cannot claim succession from the historic denominations of Saint Thomas Christians, prior to the advent of Oriental Orthodoxy. They are the Catholicized Church of Saint Thomas Christians, which was under Latin hierarchy, and the Church of the East before that. Both denominations have nothing to do with Oriental Orthodoxy. Perhaps this article could be modelled after Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which mentions several founding years and founders, along with its branching and independence. These details must be mentioned in the infobox and explained in the body of the article. Additionally it is not inappropriate to call Dionysius of Vattasseril the founder of MOSC, as he was the one who fought for and secured the church's autocephaly. By the way, I can cite sources in support of my statements, if necessary.--Macinderum (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Macinderum: Somehow, your comment went unnoticed. My apologies for the late response. I agree with the multiple date idea being a potential avenue. Would you mind putting up the dates you think are relevant, the titles you want to give those dates, and your preferred sources? I think that would be a good step for acquiring new sources to use in the body of the article as well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:Pbritti, excuse me for the delay, which might happen again, I'm afraid. I have already mentioned the years of historic importance to MOSC in my previous post. However, I would like to reiterate that the St. Thomas Christian community never had a Catholicate/Patriarchate of their own in India, before 1912. So re-establishment of the once scrapped Syriac Orthodox Catholicate of Tagrit in India, by deposed Patriarch Ignatius Abded Mshiho II was an unprecedented move. Hence the year 1912 is of utmost importance to the MOSC, as the year of autocephaly/independence/establishment. Before that a self-standing church by the name MOSC, with its own hierarchy and chrism did not exist. All MOSC bishops trace their episcopal succession to the 1912 Catholicate. With respect to sources, I don't think we should be looking for specific words like founder, architect, originator etc.; however, it is important to correctly interpret the intended meaning of the text in the right context. As long as we take that approach, there can be no doubt that Dionysius of Vattasseril was the mastermind behind the scheme for autocephaly. So there is nothing wrong in mentioning him as the principal founder of MOSC, among others. Some of the sources that I relied upon is listed below. To verify, please click on the book titles.

Pages 460 to 461 of A History of Christianity in Asia, Vol. II 1500-1900 Volume 2 (2014) by Samuel H. Moffett from Orbis Books

Pages 67 to 68 of Christian Pluralism in the United States-The Indian Immigrant Experience (1996) by Raymond Brady Williams & Williams Raymond Brady from Cambridge University Press

Pages 737 to 739 of The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity (2010) by several scholars from Wiley

Pages 285 to 286 of The Encyclodedia of Christianity, Vol. 5 (2008) by Paulos Gregorios and Ronald G Roberson from William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Pages 373 to 374 of Christianity in India-From Beginnings to the Present] (2008) by Robert Eric Frykenberg from Oxford University Press

Pages 36 to 38 of The Orthodox Church in India: An Overview (1982) by Paulos Gregorios from Sophia Publications

Pages 372 to 373 of The Lesser Eastern Churches (1913) by Adrian Fortescue from Catholic Truth Society--Macinderum (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Macinderum: Thanks for this wealth of sources. Mind if I try inserting information front these and ping you or vice versa? Also, on the Fortescue source, I am somewhat hesitant. I know many of his writings were included in the Catholic Encyclopedia and Lesser was reprinted by Gorgias, but I do have minor concerns about his reliability as a source. Won't stand in your way if you insert material from him, though, as he seems well-accepted enough. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, of course, I do not own those sources. Feel free to use them as you like.--Macinderum (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Malankara Orthodox Church.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Baselius Marthoma Mathews III (MOSC).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Autocephalous identity

Following Jstalins's deletion of sourced content, I think it's important to offer a formal space for discussion of this topic. While an Indian civil court verdict held that due to nuances of the 1970s hierarchal struggle in the Indian Syrian Christian community meant that the MOSC isn't legally recognized as "autocephalous" by the Indian state, multiple reliable sources confirm that the MOSC—a body that extends well beyond India's borders—is described as "autocephalous". A 2020 primer on the MOSC from CNEWA, an independent and reliable source on Eastern Christianity, describes the church is "autocephalous" and that recent court verdicts have actually ended up supporting a description of the MOSC as such. Further reliable secondary sourcing can be mustered should the need for additional clarification arise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Hello, There should be statement added that MOSC isn't legally recognized as "autocephalous" by the Indian state.J.Stalin S ^Talk 06:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jatalins: Per the source reading It further affirmed that the autocephalous Catholicos has legal standing, no, it doesn't—the Indian state seems to have amended its view regarding the autocephalous character of the MOSC and maintains that it is indeed autocephalous (alongside the Jacobite faction). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not the one who gave the Order, I had gave quotation by the judge after a long historical verdict. How can you say the Court Judgement is not Valid but the sources which used old Wikipedia page that stated as Autocephalous? J.Stalin S ^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added the COURT REFERENCE>IF THIS IS not a reliable source THEN WHAT IS THE USE OF THE TEMPLATE WIKI COURT CITATION?

• Malankara Church is not an autocephalous church. MOST. REV. P.M.A. METROPOLITAN & ORS. v. MORAN MAR MARTHOMA & ANR., Supreme Court Reports, 20 (Supreme Court of India 1995) ("We, therefore, hold that the Malankara Church is not an autocephalous church but is a part or division of the world Orthodox Syrian Church").

J.Stalin S ^Talk 06:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jstalins: My neighbors are trying to sleep. We have three academic sources that have identified the church as autocephalous, and one that even points to the court as reaffirming this in 1995. Unfortunately, the court case is a primary source. We have the citation template for court cases primarily for usage as external links rather than to support particular claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Orthodox church in India declared itself autocephalous in 1912. as per [10]https://www.oikoumene.org/node/6097 J.Stalin S ^Talk 07:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jstalins: It did. And the courts and reliable sources have reaffirmed that the MOSC is autocephalous—a claim you called a hoax. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The church Declared itself as Autocephalous but the court rejected the same. J.Stalin S ^Talk 07:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Look: there are a ton of sources that explicitly disagree with what you're saying. If you find a reliable, secondary source that agrees with your claim about what the court did, we can add a sentence somewhere (but not in the lede, as that is undue). ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"there are a ton of sources that explicitly disagree with what you're saying". Then Please add the same as the Church Declared itself autonomous in 1912. The Primary source quotation cannot be disagreed with secondary sources. Please note that the article is tagged with Verifiability. Do what's right; don't bite. J.Stalin S ^Talk 07:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There are already sources for that: the CNEWA article and a book. Also, you're absolutely not a "newcomer"—you have over 6,000 edits over almost 10 years on English Wikipedia alone. You're expected to know better. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Please Comment on content, I am no expert, I'm asking if "The Church declared itself autocephalous in 1912" in the lead as primary sources say it is not, but the church declares the same against the order. J.Stalin S ^Talk 07:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on the Book given as reference in lead its written as "it declared itself independent".

Thomas Arthur Russell (2010). Comparative Christianity: A Student's Guide to a Religion and Its Diverse Traditions. J.Stalin S ^Talk 08:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't understand the source for you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comments (informal)

There is a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the use of a certain book as a source for the article The Poem of the Man-God. Part of the discussion involves the commendation of the book in question by a Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church. Some editors are questioning his existence, thus bringing into question the credibility of the book itself. It seems there is sufficient evidence to show this Bishop is an authentic Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church, but some disagree. This is an informal request for comments, since some of you that participate on this talk page may have additional information pertaining to that part of the discussion. For those interested, instead of reading the entire thread, you can begin reading from near the end where I summarize the three remaining issues of contention and arguments, with a paragraph for each. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024

148.252.146.158 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not an autocepalace church

 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 23:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

not a dictionary or a definitive encyclopedia

It is not the objective of a Wikipedia article to decide if the MOSC is autocephalic or not: it is the objective to say what sources say about it. Thus the article could say "most sources indicate that the Church as autocephalic, while some deny it (based on a court decision)". 142.163.195.114 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article does that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)