Current Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Is a Modernist Heretic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sacramentalist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sacramentalist

Guest
I find this very disturbing:
[Patriarch Emmanuel] Delly said that “even if a Muslim comes to me and said, ‘I want to be Christian,’ I would not accept. I would tell him to go back and try to be a good Muslim and God will accept you.” Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he added, “is not acceptable.”
Click to expand...
We Latins thought we had it bad; at least our Patriarch isn’t a Modernist!

Sad, indeed.

(Let the pitiable defense of the indefensible commence!)
 
**The Chaldean Catholic Patriarch is obviously not infallible just as many other Bishops in communion with Rome. Also, maybe that quote was misunderstood. Why not provide a source? **
 
That’s pretty ridiculous. This bishop would deny someone Christ??? Bishops should lead people to Christ, not deflect them when they are trying to find Him.

I recommend this book for this patriarch:

LIBERALISM IS A SIN
by Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany

The notion that one religion is as good as the other is one of the most dangerous heresies of our time.:nope:
 
Maybe he was misquoted. Journalists aren’t exactly known for being the most astute, detail-oriented creatures on the planet.

In any case, that doesn’t make him a Modernist. Modernist has to be the most misused term. He might be a lousy evangelist. Maybe even a boderline heretic, but the article doesn’t indicate that he’s a Modernist.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
Maybe he was misquoted. Journalists aren’t exactly known for being the most astute, detail-oriented creatures on the planet.

In any case, that doesn’t make him a Modernist. Modernist has to be the most misused term. He might be a lousy evangelist. Maybe even a boderline heretic, but the article doesn’t indicate that he’s a Modernist.
Click to expand...
Misquotes are usually attributable to subtle sneakiness on the part of the journalist and have to do with context. I don’t think there was any subtleness AT ALL in the quoting of the Patriarch! I suppose we could wait a few days for a retraction or clarification, but it was pretty baldly put. It’s very appalling.
 
Also, I would be careful… he is living in a political situation that is hostile to Christianity. I believe he is sincere though gravely mistaken (he probably feels their faith/intention will save them even if they don’t recieve baptism, which in one sense is true, but not acceptable).

Will the Vaitcan correct him?.. haha, never openly. If they do you’ll never hear about it. The moment the Holy Father publicly says “Chritians should convert Muslims,” or even if His Holiness the Patriarch said "oh yeah, we have “Muslims converting all the time!!!,” welcome to riots and outbraks of violence directed towards Chaledans and their possible converts.

It’s a different world for our Eastern brethren, keep them in your prayers.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Misquotes are usually attributable to subtle sneakiness on the part of the journalist and have to do with context. I don’t think there was any subtleness AT ALL in the quoting of the Patriarch! I suppose we could wait a few days for a retraction or clarification, but it was pretty baldly put. It’s very appalling.
Click to expand...
The agenda can be seen from the beginning of the article:
With arms outstretched, the congregation at National Evangelical Baptist Church belted out a praise hymn backed up by drums, electric guitar and keyboard. In the corner, slide images of Jesus filled a large screen. A simple white cross of wood adorned the stage, and worshipers sprinkled the pastor’s Bible-based sermon with approving shouts of “Ameen!”
National is Iraq’s first Baptist congregation and one of at least seven new Christian evangelical churches established in Baghdad in the past two years. Its Sunday afternoon service, in . . . . draws worshipers who like . . . .focus on the Bible.
Click to expand...
“I’m thirsty for this kind of church,” Suhaila Tawfik, . . .who was raised Catholic, said at a recent service. “I want to . . . the Bible.”
Click to expand...
Sometimes you need to read between the lines.
 
40.png
Ignatius:
The agenda can be seen from the beginning of the article:

Sometimes you need to read between the lines.
Click to expand...
Given that it’s the Washington Post, I’ve no doubt it has a questionable agenda, but I doubt that it has a pro-EVANGELICAL agenda. I also doubt that they would be careless enough to purport to quote the Patriarch verbatim unless he actually said what he said. I’m sure evangelicals are busting at the seams to convert Moslems (I wish we were), but I still believe the Patriarch said it.
 
Ooops… Sorry, I must’ve missed the link in the word “this.” lol, so disregard my previous post.

The guy might be ignorant of what Vatican II taught on salvation outside the visible church and ecumenism. If he knows what the Church teaches and decided to contradict it, he might be feeling intimidated by the overwhelming Muslim majority around him and the muslim extremists (or terrorists). Otherwise, he can be considered in heresy. I think someone from the Vatican should have a chat with him.
 
The Chaldean Patriarch is correct. Especially in lands with persecution, one does not accept converts quickly or on the first request. One waits, and sees if there is perseverance. One makes it very clear that there are many duties and responsibilities involved with being a Catholic Christiasn, and that it is not something one does for material advantage. Then, one catechizes slowly and watchfully, for the spiritual health and strength of the convert and to get some assurance that the convert is sincere and not just loking for a pass to the West or, even worse, a spy seeking evidence of illicit or unethical proselytization to bring down the wrath of the persecutors.

THEN, and only then, does one baptise.

Remember, before the modern times, inquiry took a very long time, and the catechumenate that followed was two or three years minimum!

karen marie
 
40.png
kmknapp:
The Chaldean Patriarch is correct. Especially in lands with persecution, one does not accept converts quickly or on the first request. One waits, and sees if there is perseverance. One makes it very clear that there are many duties and responsibilities involved with being a Catholic Christiasn, and that it is not something one does for material advantage. Then, one catechizes slowly and watchfully, for the spiritual health and strength of the convert and to get some assurance that the convert is sincere and not just loking for a pass to the West or, even worse, a spy seeking evidence of illicit or unethical proselytization to bring down the wrath of the persecutors.

THEN, and only then, does one baptise.

Remember, before the modern times, inquiry took a very long time, and the catechumenate that followed was two or three years minimum!

karen marie
Click to expand...
And perhaps this was the context we were looking for that was missing from the article.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
And perhaps this was the context we were looking for that was missing from the article.
Click to expand...
Then why would he tell him to go and just be a good Muslim? Shouldn’t he say, “not yet, let me catechize you until you are truly capable to make such a profound decision.” Telling him to go be a Muslim when the guy wants to be a Christian seems troubling no matter what the context.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Then why would he tell him to go and just be a good Muslim? Shouldn’t he say, “not yet, let me catechize you until you are truly capable to make such a profound decision.” Telling him to go be a Muslim when the guy wants to be a Christian seems troubling no matter what the context.
Click to expand...
All I said was that that was a context, I didn’t say I was thrilled with what the Patriarch said.
 
I think that it is only fair that we review all relevant evidence before deciding upon a person’s status in this regard. At most, a quote in an article is only one piece of evidence. A person can be having a bad day, or poorly express their ideas in English. The relevant section is this:
Some Iraqi Christians expressed fear that the evangelicals would undermine Christian-Muslim harmony here, which rests on a long-standing, tacit agreement not to proselytize each other. “There is an informal agreement that says we have nothing to do with your religion and faith,” said Yonadam Kanna, one of six Christians elected to Iraq’s parliament.
Click to expand...
"We are brothers but we don’t interfere in your religion."Delly said that “even if a Muslim comes to me and said, ‘I want to be Christian,’ I would not accept. I would tell him to go back and try to be a good Muslim and God will accept you.” Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he added, “is not acceptable.”
Click to expand...
Firstly, his comment exists in the context of an informal agreement that essentially avoids violence and allows everyone to practice their faith. If converting one Muslim causes violence that destroys the ability of everyone else to practice their faith, then what is gained?

Secondly, I don’t think he would really do what he is saying. It’s a hypothetical scenario and I’m sure if a Muslim did come up to him and say those things he would, when confronted with the reality of a real person, behave quite differently. He is perhaps exaggerating his point for effect.

Perhaps he is a heretic but before claiming such a thing I would want to examine the man’s writings and thoughts in detail and hear his responses before I slapped such a dramatic label on him.
 
This is a joke right. Its worth your life to convert to Catholocim in a moslom or even Hindu country.Its also worth your life to proselytise.
So lets just state the truth. This is another reason Islam has a mixed reputation.To put it politely
 
I’m sure most folks don’t even know what Chaldean Catholicism is, to say anything about the Patriarch. All that I have heard is that he is a very good man in a very difficult situation… please refrain from judging him.
 
It’s one thing to say that it may not be prudent to actively or visibly seek conversion in a given territory, due to the circumstances the Church finds herself in.

It’s another to say that you won’t even bother to facilitate a conversion when one is approached by a non-Catholic.

This is heresy, and yes, it is Modernist.

There is no excuse for the Patriarch’s views or statements in this regard. Neither does his “difficult situation” justify this. This man is a disgrace to his Office and an affront to all of the Church’s missionary martyrs, including her Assyrian martyrs who shed their blood to convert Muslims to the true faith.
 
Because of the siuation in Iraq ( thank you Mr. Bush ) The Patriarch’s election took place in Rome .I doubt that being in Rome the chaldeans would elect a heretic.Or that while not interfering, Rome would have allowed that to happen. He is a man in a diifficult position doing the best he can.He deserves our prayers,not our criticism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top