How many diocese/eparchies comprise the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church? Also, how many other Indian St. Thomas Christian Catholic Churches are there? Are the Latinizations of the Portuguese being removed?
Also what is the relationship like between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Syro-Malabar Church?
Among the Catholic Churches, the Syro-Malabarese (or Syro-Malabar) and Syro-Malankarese (or Syro-Malankara) Churches fall into those ordinarily styled as St Thomas Christians.
The Syro-Malabarese have:
- 1 Major Arch-Eparchy
- 4 Metropolitan Arch-Eparchies
- 21 Eparchies
All of those jurisdictions are located in India, except for the 1 Eparchy in the US. Of the 4 Metropolitan Arch-Eparchies, 1 is that of Kottayam, which is a particular jurisdiction for the Knaniate Catholics.
If you want stats on the Syro-Malabar Church, see the data on page 5
of this document
As to the Knanya, they are Oriental Catholic and Orthodox descended from 72 families of Christian Jews, comprising about 400 persons, who emigrated to India in three ships about 345 AD under the leadership of Knaithomman or Thomas the Cananite. They are said to have been accompanied by a bishop, named in historical records as Uraha Mar Yausef (Joseph), four presbyters, and deacons.
The Knanaites are a strictly endogenous community, retain particular liturgical, devotional, and cultural practices unique to themselves and, by the Apostolic Brief
Universi Christiani, had a personal jurisdiction (now the autonomous Metropolitan Arch-Eparchy of Kottayam) erected for them within the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church by Pope Saint Pius X. (A bit of trivia - Kottayam is, I believe, the sole autonomous metropolia that is without any suffragn jurisdictions.)
In the US, the Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle of Chicago of the Syro-Malabarese has within it a Vicariate for Knanaya Catholic Community in North America, which is comprised of 10 parishes, last I checked.
Although formal Knanya jurisdictions exist only in the Syro-Malabarese Church and the Syrian Orthodox Jacobite (Indian) Church (their Oriental Orthodox counterpart), there are Knanaites within each of the Indian ecclesial communities (other than the Latin Catholic) and, officially or otherwise, provisions are made to accommodate their praxis in all of the Churches of Saint Thomas Christians. (That includes the two Saint Thomas Churches which are neither Oriental Catholic nor Orthodox; however, I believe the Knanya themselves consider those who belong to Churches outside Catholicism or Orthodoxy to have severed their relationship with the closed ethnic community that they are.)
This produces the strange consequence that the Metropolitan Arch-Eparchy of Kottayam for the Knanya includes 15 parishes that are gathered into an Episcopal Vicariate for Malankara Knanaites (by pastoral agreement with the Malankara Church
sui iuris). Those parishes canonically serve the Knanaite Usage of the Malankara Rescension of the Antiochene Rite, within a jurisdiction that is Chaldean in Rite.
My brother and friend, AJV, aptly describes the internal debate conflict within his Church as to the form that the Holy Qurbana should take. In effect, presently, there are 3 “usages” - for lack of a better term, unofficial though they are, a consequence of that debate. I’ve given them “names” the better to discuss them - but these names are strictly of my own imagination/creation:
- The Assyro-Chaldean Usage is that of antiquity, to which Rome apparently hopes the Church will return (albeit, Rome itself effectively created the situation that resulted in it being initially abandoned).
- Malabarese Usage is the term that I’ve applied to the heavily latinized Qurbana. Those who support this Usage (and resist the idea of returning to the Assyro-Chaldean Usage) deem this to be “Indianized” - rather than “Latinized”
- Mixed (Chaldean-Malabarese) Usage seeks to describe a move on the part of some hierarchs and clergy to serve the Holy Qurbana in a way that incorporates some of the more ancient praxis without abandoning all aspects of the latinized form - essentially a hybrid usage. It is debated whether this is a genuine effort to effect compromise or simply a measure hoped to placate Rome and bring an end to its concern.
AJV has better described details as to the particulars of differences in praxis among the three than I could have done. It is certainly a struggle to keep in mind that “Indianized” - to those seeking to avoid the return to an Assyrian form - is equivalent to “Latinized” - in the minds of their opponents, those who want to see that return happen.
Many years,
Neil