Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Eastern / Syriac (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
This article is supported by Syriac Christianity work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Assyria (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Archives (permanent link form):

Eastern Catholic Martyrs?[edit]

I don't understand why this section is here, and if it ought to be here why there is only one listed, and this fairly recently. It seems very odd to have it here the way it is. Orpheus42 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. The section should be developed or removed. In its present form it's not suitable for inclusion. Majoreditor 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with it? I found it in the history, and wonder why it didn't include Blessed Klymentiy Sheptytsky, who was beatified as a martyr well before this exchange and deletion. Should we reconsider a list of Eastern Catholic martyrs? Or have a list of Eastern Catholic Saints and Blesseds?Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Modern Reforms[edit]

I think that a section on the Vatican II and post-Vatican II reforms as applied to the Eastern Catholic Churches would be quite useful. We are actually living in very heady times. In order to avoid unseemly fights, I'm starting a sandbox for the page and invite the community that visits here to stop by and contribute. TMLutas 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Majoreditor 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't seem to be getting much contribution over there. What's a reasonable time to leave this stuff in the sandbox before moving it to the article if there's no correcting edits? TMLutas 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some comments. Sorry that I am too sluggish today to do any more. Majoreditor 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that 11/1 would be a reasonable day to take this out of the sandbox. TMLutas 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I just moved it out of the sandbox, sorry for the delay TMLutas (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

% comment[edit]

The statement that refers to the number of Eastern Christians that are Eastern Rite Catholics seems very out of place, POV and insulting. Maybe you think that I am being too thin skinned here but there has to be a better way of putting it. The statement only holds true if you count all the different protestants who live in the East as Eastern Christians. If this were not bad enough, it also seems as if your numbers are based on Latin Rite Catholics who live in the East as well, which seem wrong; using Catholic numbers to make a seemingly derogatory statement against Eastern Catholics. On top of that, we must consider the huge population of Russia, and the fact that all Russians are said to belong to the Church of Russia, even if they are not baptized and never go to Liturgy!

What would be a much fairer way to handle this, besides just not making the insulting statement AT ALL, would be to separate it out by rite or location or even by local church. It certainly is true that Byzantine Catholics are vastly out numbered by Byzantine non Catholics. It is also true that Coptic as well as Ethiopian Catholics are aswell vastly outnumbered. The same could be said for Armenian Catholics but then our definition of what an Armenian Catholic is must be clarified. Outside of the country of Armenia, there are more Armenian Catholics then Armenian Rite non Catholics. So it depends on how you want to define your groups. If we refer to Syrian Rite Catholics, we all have to admit that they outnumber the Syrian Rite non Catholics. If we speak of Byzantine Rite in the Middle East but not in Europe, Catholics again are in the majority. If we talk about Byzantine Rite in Italy, again, the Catholics are the majority. Now, it is true that there are more Non Catholic Christians in India then Catholic Christians, and that is without counting the protestants who most Indian Christians do not count as Christians. However, just one of the Catholic Catholic Churches in Idia is larger then any other when compared church to church.

These kind of remarks, stating that ONLY 10% of Easter Christians are Catholic, is the kind of double standard of discrimination that is always heeped on Catholics. You want to make Eastern Catholics seem like the small, weak and out of place group. Considering that most of this number is hugely affected by the population of Russia and the trumped up number of Church enrollment there, I really feel like the statement needs to be said a different way or excluded from the article all together. This kind of statement is only really used, not for informational purposes but to try to discredit the validity of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

On this last point we could also point out a number of different things. In the cases of the Ukrainian Catholics Church, Melkite Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Syro-Malabar Catholic Churc, Chaldean Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic ChurchIt, Italo-Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Greek Catholic Church was the Church leadership of these churches that established communion with the Catholic Church and thus these Churches are the true legitimate continuation of the original deposit of faith in the area for these churches. The other Churches in the area that do not have communion with the Catholic Church but have communion with other churches represent a schism from the original Church. This status could also be said to exist in several other of the Catholic Churches but not all of course. In some cases the information is very hazy as to exactly how certain elections came about but the Belerusian Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church are certainly in the grey area. Now it is true that the Coptic Catholic, Byzantine Greek Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, and Russian Catholic Churches represent certain bishops, priest and lay faithful that went into schism with their local Church leadership in order to establish communion with Rome. I find it interesting that in all of the articles about the churches listed on this site, great pains were made to point out that they are just in schism with the original Church leadership but no mention is made of the cases where the original church leadership joined into communion with Rome and the mirror Churches of `orthodoxy` are the ones in schism, leaving the church in protest of the rightful decision of the true church leadership. I suspect a sutle conspiracy is involved in this.

I see a lot non factual Anti-East, anti-Catholic information on this site and I am not the only one to complain about it. I understand that writers get things wrong and that this site is limited to the knowledge of its apperantly amatuer, non professional staff but still, if you did not know that this was an issue before, please take this into consideration now and make some changes to be fair and respectful to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Defunct Easten Catholic Churches[edit]

What's about Slavonic Eastern Catholic Church or Catholic Church of Eastern Slavonic rite (pol. Kośćioł Katolicki obrzędku wschodniosłowianskiego. ukr. Католицька церква східнословянського обряду), so called Neouniates? In Kostomloty one parish is exists and today.Anyway, we need a chapter about defunct churches (Byzantine Catholic CHurch of Constantinople, Grek Catholic church of Cyprus (in Kingdom of Cyprus)etc). Another question: Armenian Catholic Church in Eastern Europe (under archbishop of Leopolis) is part of common Armenian Catholic Church or separate church of Armenian rite like there are many churches of Byzantine rite. And where are offical names of these churches used by Vatican? For example, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is called Catholic Church of Byzantine-Ukrainian rite (Ecclesia Catholica Ritu Byzantino-Ukrainensis)/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As for my understanding all of the Armenian Rite in the Catholic Church are part of the Armenian Catholic Church, although in Europe they are often cared for by priest of another Rite (Byzantine or Latin) depending on which jurisdiction they live in. Members of the Armenian Apostolic Church or either see that convert to Catholicism are usually encouraged to join the Armenian Catholic Church but there is no provision requiring this.
Official names for different Churches will depend on the name for that Church as adopted for a specific language. In English the official name for the Ukranian Church is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. In French this name is different and in Latin it is different. They aren't that much different but the "official" ness of it depends on if a name is adopted and used in a specific language. For instance, Greek Orthodox who opperate churches in Syria usually call themselves the "Roman Orthodox Church". This would of course sound very odd in English and especially odd in Latin and any Western European language.
As to defunct Eastern Catholic Churches, I can imagine that this would be a very heated question that would reveal someone's theological bend. As some Eastern Catholic Churches have come into and then out of communion again some within the Catholic church might consider them defunct Catholic Churches. St. Aquinas even taught that Churches in schism even while retaining valid orders and sacrements did not recieve the graces that went along with them because of the sin of schism. I understant what you mean to ask, in that have there been Eastern Catholic Churches that have died out, but even this is not really able to be answered as if there were any, it would have been a very long time ago before the idea that we have today of the Latin and Byzantine Rites being completely separate developed. It has happened in the past that certain Eastern Catholic Churches went without priest or bishops for some time but the faithful usually remained and eventually this problem of clergy was resolved. Some now say that many Catholics in Russia are now without priest and are barred from going to the Church of Russia for sacrements by the Russian authorities so they gather to pray the psalms. Even now within each church outside of communion with Rome there is at least some in the minority who are Pro-reunion, often called the papist party.
anyway I hope that helps you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


This term redirects here but is not found in the article. Can this be rectified, either by expansion or by stubbing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the redirect to point to the section of this article that does speak of the term "Uniate". Lima (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church[edit]

The anonymous editor at IP claims that the date of union or foundation of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is 1663, the date of the ordination of Bishop Chandy. The Church itself disagrees, claiming to have maintained its identity since the first century (see About Syro-Malabar Church) and that not all of the Thomas Christians participated in the break from Rome by "most" of them in 1653 (The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church). (See also History of the Syro-Malabar Church.) Stephen Neill's A History of Christianity in India (Cambridge University Press, 2004 ISBN 0521548853, 9780521548854), which recounts on p. 325 the episcopal ordination of Bishop Chandy, certainly does not present it as an act of union of a formerly separated Church with that of Rome nor as the foundation of a new Church (since Chandy was consecrated to carry on the work of Bishop Sebastiani, who was being expelled by the new Dutch masters of Cochin). I have therefore put "date disputed" as an indication of the date of union or foundation of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. This neither affirms nor denies the anonymous editor's point of view, and only makes a neutral statement on the question. Lima (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


I came to this page in search of a quick answer as to whether Eastern Catholics include the Filioque. The article states that this was a reason for the Great Schism (duh) and, a few lines later, that Eastern churches wishing to restore Communion with Rome were welcomed back without "question of requiring them to adopt the customs of the Latin Church." I'm sure there's some WP: bit about wikipedia not being a cheat sheet, and it is entirely possible that the answer to my question is somewhere buried in the article, but I think it's reasonable to ask that a point as important as this be addressed clearly and in a position of some prominence within the article.

Do Eastern Catholics believe in the filioque? Does it vary from particular church to particular church? Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a complex question. My understanding is that all Catholic churches - both Latin and Western - hold in common dogmatic matters. That said, some of the Eastern Catholic churches ommit the filioque in when they recite the Creed. Not including the words "and the Son" does not signfy disagreement with the Roman doctrine, but merely keeps to the traditional Eastern practice and formula.
At least that's how I've heard some describe how it works.
In practice, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches no lomger include the Filioque, although some do. In my parish (Melkite) it was dropped some years ago. Some of the more Latinized churches such as the Maronite retain it.
There are many Eastern Catholics who would have no problem with flushing the Filioque. On that note, I expect that some of the nihil obstat crowd may wish to offer an opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The 14 Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite (at least those of which I have certain knowledge) do not include "Filioque". Of the 8 other Eastern Catholic Churches, at least the Ethiopic (Ethiopia and Eritrea) Catholic Church and the [Maronite do include it.
The Armenian Catholic Church (one of the 8 non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches) naturally uses the Armenian Nicene Creed with its many additions to the original text. These additions do not include "Filioque".
Even Latin Catholics do not include "Filioque" when reciting the Nicene Creed in Greek, since the exact meaning of the word translated into English as "who proceeds" is different in Latin and in Greek. This will explain the omission of "Filioque" in the liturgy of Churches that use the Byzantine Rite, which was originally composed in Greek. Lima (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The dogmatic issue between Rome and Constantinople was always that the latter denounced the "filioque" as heretical, while Rome merely demanded that Constantinople accept the orthodoxy of the creed with or without the addition. Hence, reciting the filioque was not imposed on any Eastern Catholic Church. Str1977 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As a complete outsider to Catholicism I came to this page with a similar question which I expected to be simple: How did the Eastern Catholic Churches come to be, and when? What is the story? Were they once affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy but then later re-established communion with Rome, or are they churches which never split with Rome when the Eastern Orthodox churches did? I never found a clear answer to either of these questions in this article. I would think that information as basic and important as this should be prominently discussed in an article like this, and easy to find.Spiritquest (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
As is at least hinted by the above, the Eastern Catholic Churches are of quite different origins. Some can and do boast of never having broken communion with Rome. So when did these Churches come to be? With the arrival of Christianity in their areas is the short answer. Others have a much more recent origin. In the case of the Ruthenian Church, for example, the (re)union with Rome came with the Union of Brest. To give an account for each and every one of the Eastern Catholic Churches of when they were constituted as Church in full communion with Rome (and when, for some of them, the break of communion first occurred) would take far too much space in this general article about them. The information on this matter for each of them must be sought in the article on the Church in question. Esoglou (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible workgroup[edit]

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with the Eastern Catholic Churches, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rant in "terminology" section[edit]

It is quite evident that the initial paragraph in this section is merely a rant in the continued terminology issue. The individuals on the "Roman.." side are simply cherry picking the very few documents which mention the "Roman" prefix. This is inappropriate and unnecessary unless it also mentions the fact that for the GRAND majority of Church documents it refers to itself as simply "The Catholic Church" or just "The Church".

Sourced documentation of this is so overwhelming, beginning with the latest version of Church beliefs: the Catechism of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Providing a sources for every time the Church refers to itself as such could take most of this article. I'd say the Catechism more than suffices to make the point.

But to present merely the "Roman-" terminologic POV without the entire picture is quite insincere to the topic and certainly not from a Neutral point of view. Micael (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


I have removed the epithet 'Greek' from these names: Albanian Greek Catholic Church, Belarusian Greek Catholic Church, Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, Macedonian Greek Catholic Church, Slovak Greek Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. I removed the epithet 'Byzantine' from Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci and Greek Byzantine Catholic Church. In the cases of these churches, the terms 'Greek' and 'Byzantine' have no official and historical value. You should not use a vague interpretation of these terms and apply them against official and historical usage. I mean by official and historical usage the official and historical usage at the Vatican. Those who used a Constantinopolitan rite were never called Greeks unless they were Greeks. Please provide official and historical documents to support the use of the terms 'Greek' and 'Byzantine'. Nestorius Auranites (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish Slavonic Rite[edit]

I have read that in prewar Poland there were some Byzantine Slavonic rite churches created on the iniative of the Latin Church in Poland that were subject to the local Latin bishop unaffiliated with any established Ritual Church like the UGCC or other Union of Brest product. These chuches many due to persecutions from the 2nd Republic government, left Catholicism to join the Polish Orthodox Church and the rest were lost during World War 2. However, 1 parish fulltime and 2 other parish on a semi basis still celebrate this variety. Shouldnt it be mentioned? Here is a link with some reading of it Nova2488 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are not recognized by the Holy See as a sui iuris Church, I think they are not such a Church, any more than the few Anglican Use parishes in the United States constitute a sui iuris Church. Esoglou (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks, that makes a lot of sense Nova2488 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
These churches were part of the Catholic Church. The Eastern liturgical rite priests ministered to their faithful and were persecuted by the Communists. The first Ukrainian Redemptorist bishop, Nicholas Charnetsky, was Apostolic Visitor for the Ukrainian Catholics in the Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–39) and Polesie Voivodeship in the Second Polish Republic.[1] He was beatified in 2001 as a martyr.[2]

Blatant Bias[edit]

This paragraph:

"Within each Church, no longer in communion with the Church of Rome, there arose a group that considered it important to restore that communion. The See of Rome accepted them as they were, without any requirement to adopt the customs of the Latin Church."

And the one that follows it shows blatant pro-Rome bias and is inappropriate cheerleading for an encyclopedia article. TheCormac (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is Churches capitalized?[edit]

There is no reason why the word "Churches" is repeatedly Capitalized. I understand the word Church in "Eastern Orthodox Chuch" should be capitilized because it is part of a proper name. However, the word "churches" in "Eastern Catholic churches" is not a proper name for any thing, person, or organization. It does not qualify under MOS:PN. It is a general descriptive noun for these group of chuches. For example: American people and List of Orthodox churches are not capitalized correctly. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Janwed64 et al. I completely agree. Regardless of how often "churches" is mistakenly capitalised in the media and even in church documents the word should not be capitalised in the name of this article and it should be changed to "Eastern Catholic churches". Afterwriting (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion or objections I intend to move this article to "Eastern Catholic churches" within a few days. Afterwriting (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Its the proper name of a defined aggregation which is generally used with definite article the. It should be capitalized, see basic Google Ngram for comparison of cases, and American English Ngram vs British English Ngram for obvious difference in capitalization. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how these ngrams indicate anything about whether capitalisation should be used or not. We need much better reasons than this to retain the capitalisation of "Churches" in this article's name as it still appears to be contrary to Wikipedia's own capitalisation style. We shouldn't, for instance, write "Anglican Churches" or "Methodist Churches" even though these may be commonly used in publications. Afterwriting (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Afterwriting: how about Three Great Gardens of Japan which is an example in MOS:NAMECAPS. The example is an aggregation that is a proper name with Gardens capitalized. Other examples include the aggregation of British colonies called the Thirteen Colonies. But style guides agree with you on "Eastern Catholic churches".[3][4] Other than self identification that capitalizes and the two examples, I have nothing. I also found that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops uses both "Eastern Catholic churches" (looks like members of the set) and an entry titled "Eastern Catholic Churches" (the set) in a glossary.[5]BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to have "church" capitalized. Eastern Catholic Churches are unlike Anglican or Methodist churches. There is an official list that says what churches are in and out of the group, unlike Anglican or Methodists. This makes it more like the Three Great Gardens of Japan. I also note that Reuters in their style guide that User:BoBoMisiu links to says "Eastern Rite Churches" in this sentence fragment, "Eastern Rite Churches returned to communion with Rome ...." but another place it says "Eastern Catholic churches: Eastern Rite churches, the ancient Middle Eastern churches in communion with the Roman Catholic Church." [6] I prefer the capitalization because capitalization makes it clear that this grouping is not like Anglican or Methodist groupings. This is a formal, distinct, clearly defined group with a proper name like the Anglican Communion or even the Anglican Continuum. It's a tough call. It could go either way. I prefer the clarity that capitalization brings – this is a distinct, formal, proper group as indicated by its fully capitalized proper name. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

List merges?[edit]

The two separate lists under the current sections "Membership" and "Eastern Catholic Churches" could probably merged, for convenience by better overview. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Since no objection, merge done. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Only some Eastern Catholic Churches were Uniate Churches. From what I have read, the term usually described the metropolitanate in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – after the Metropolitanate of Kiev (1458–1596) bishops formally entered into ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church in the Union of Brest. See Josaphat Kuntsevych § Historical and religious background, pl:Kościół unicki w I Rzeczypospolitej (translation), and uk:Руська унійна церква (translation).

Was "Uniate Church" the actual name of the Metropolitanate of Kiev in ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church?

Is Uniat or Uniate used as a pejorative term by anyone other than Russian Orthodox? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably not RS-worthy, but this might be a helpful starting point. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The word "Uniate" is defined (Merriam-Webster) as "a Christian of a church adhering to an Eastern rite and discipline but submitting to papal authority", with "Uniate" also as a derived adjective. Oxford defines it (as an adj.) as "Relating to any community of Christians in eastern Europe or the Near East that acknowledges papal supremacy but retains its own liturgy". Historical origins aside, the word is defined as meaning "Eastern Catholic". I think this settles it and warrants removal of the discussion tag in the article. Anyone can feel free to put it back if they disagree. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: I reverted your removal of {{discuss}}. The term Uniate in article is not just about the current usage but the historical – there are entries Uniate churches with definitions of:
"are the eastern churches in communion with the Catholic Church but nonetheless retaining their own ecclesiastical languages, rites, and canon law. The term 'uniate' (latin unio, Polish unia) was first used by opponents of the Union of Brest-Litovsk (1596), which brought the Ruthenian Church of Poland into communion with the Church of Rome." (2003, The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance)
"More properly Eastern Catholic or Eastern-rite Catholic Churches. Churches in union with Rome, but retaining their own language, customs, and canon law [...] The name 'Uniates' is a disparaging term used by the Orthodox Church [...] the Maronite Church has a history distinct from Orthodoxy. [...] In fact, far from reinforcing local tradition, all of these unions led to a process of Latinization, which demonstrated to Orthodoxy at large that this was a process of proselytization, not of seeking a union of equals. The Eastern Catholic Churches rapidly became an obstacle to union, rather than a step towards it." (2000, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)
I think understanding these distinctions over time is important but little is found online in English. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is detail that would best be included in the Terminology section. It does not, however, call into question whether Uniate is synonymous with Eastern Catholic; even the definitions you've just cited support that. Being used first for the Ruthenian Catholics does not exclude its use for the other 22 ECCs. Both of your cited definitions identify Uniate churches as Eastern and sui iuris but in communion with Rome. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It will be best to move the "Terminology" section to later in the article and begin with the History section, as do most of Wikipedia articles on religious organizations. Thoughts/discussion? Majoreditor (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Majoreditor: Is that the convention? I thought that Terminology usually preceded Background/History sections. Is this laid out in the MOS somewhere for us to refer to? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Jujutsuan. I looked through MoS; it offers no set guidance other than stating that each Wikiproject can set guidelines for ordering sections. Few of them do; of those that do, some put terminology first and some place history first. I didn'd find specific guidance in Wikiproject:Religion.
I looked through Featured Articles and Good Articles on religious organizations and churches. Most of them don't begin the body of the article with a terminology section; for example, see Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Churches of God, Raelism, or Opus Dei. I found just a couple which start with a Terminology section, such as Catholic Church. I think the article on the Catholic Church has it as a first section due to the intense debate among Wikipedia editors over the past 10 years over the article's name (Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church). There just doesn't seem to be much reason to spend a lot of time at the beginning of the article on the archaic term "Uniate" - isn't it more valuable to readers to start with either history or an overview of the bodies comprising the Eastern Catholic Churches? Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Majoreditor. I'm personally partial to starting with terminology in this article, since it not only covers "Uniate" but also the rite–particular church distinction, which is something that should be understood early on as readers go through the article. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)