Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Misleading articles / Hudaya Canon

Expand Messages
  • T M Chacko
    Constructive criticisms are always good, but if someone does it just for the want of that then it�����s a sad thing. I am mentioning it here on the basis of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 27, 2004
      Constructive criticisms are always good, but if
      someone does it just for the want of that then
      it’s a sad thing. I am mentioning it here on the
      basis of some of the postings by one Thomas P in
      SOCM as well as IOIF forum where he seems to
      utilize his energy to present his manipulated points
      in a tactful way. Generally I prefer to ignore his
      postings as it is of no use except spreading hatred.
      But sometimes it has to be explained or else it may
      lead to confusion which may be the ultimate aim of
      such persons.

      In one of the recent comments in IOIF forum about
      Hudaya Canon, Thomas p wrote: "The fact that Syrian
      Orthodox church ignored the scholarship of Indian
      fathers and even today does not mention their names
      in scholarly articles of Syriac studies proves their

      This posting alone is needed to prove that there are
      a few persons in Malankara who are taking extra efforts
      to create a "Foreigner vs. Indian" impression, possibly
      to achieve their personal goals.

      I think the person who wrote the above controversial
      letter has not read any articles written by the Syrian
      fathers or, he is intentionally ignoring the facts
      inorder to create confusion. In SOR web page there
      is a mentioning about the famous book "Syriac Literature
      and Sciences" written by Patriarch Mor Aphrem which I
      have gone through recently. In that book the Holy
      Patriarch has listed the great Syriac scholar of Indian
      Church, Very Rev Konatt Mathen Corepiscopa, the Malankara
      Malpan who was the Priest Trustee of the Jacobite Syrian
      Church. There is a brief biography of this Malpan in that
      section. It will be good to read this portion before
      someone raise unrealistic criticisms such as made by
      Thomas P. (There is only very few like Konatt Mathen
      Achen who has contributed for the Church literature).
      Again in recent times I have seen some articles in Syrian
      Orthodox publications from outside, mentioning about our
      present Malankara Malpan Kaniamparambil achen and his

      In the same posting Thomas pinpoints about a Hudaya
      Canon version published in 1898 by a Roman Catholic
      named Paul Bradjaman. He then took extra tactful efforts
      in the same posting to indirectly establish that all other
      Hudaya Canon versions are based on this. This alone shows
      his tactful approach in matters related to the Church.
      Anyone who has the slightest knowledge in Church history
      knows that the Hudaya Canon published by Paul Bradjaman
      was created to establish the supremacy of Roman Catholic
      Church. In this Canon version of Bradjman which this
      fellow claimed to be written by the Syrian Orthodox
      Maphrian Bar Ebraya in the 14th century, Roman Catholic
      Pope is mentioned as the supreme head of all the churches
      in the world. Sadly it is this canon that is being followed
      by the so called Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church till this
      day. This they have done with the only aim to defeat the
      Jacobite Syrian Christians in the Court. In order to prove
      the facts Konattu Mathen Malpan has then submitted before
      the Court one of the oldest manuscripts of the Bar Ebraya’s
      Hudaya Canon which is considered as the genuine version
      and which is followed by the Jacobite Syrian Church.

      Again in one of his previous postings in IOIF forum
      Thomas P had tried to project a part of Joseph Pulikunnel’s
      demands in Church matters (He is a fellow who is highly
      critical of Roman Catholic leadership.) While trying to
      over project the demand of Pulikunel on giving the right
      for Bishop consecrations, Thomas P ignored one of the
      another most important demands of Pulikunnel which states
      that each parishes are independent bodies and bishops
      could interfere in its temporal matters only if requested
      by the parish body. As this portion is unacceptable for
      the dissident Orthodox group, Thomas seems to conveniently
      ignore this part of Pulikunnel’s demand and raise another

      So what we are seeing in all these is ‘the Politics of
      Convenience’ which will never be helpful for the unity
      of Malankara Christian community in the near future.

      T.M Chacko
      St. Mary's Church
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.