Contact With Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith

[Vouthon]

One final snippet, a little bit from the *Jewish Virtual Library *on Sicut Judaeis, explaining generally about bulls and then about how this specific bull is based upon a papal encyclical (letter) by Pope St. Gregory the Great condeming forced conversions of Jews and denial of their liberties:

BULLS, PAPAL, generally official statements by the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Although the term “Bull” (from the Latin bullum, “seal”) was sometimes applied to imperial documents as well, its use has been limited as defined above. Bulls bearing the seal of the reigning pope and dealing with matters of Jewish interest were fairly numerous in the Middle Ages, though they constituted a small fraction of the vast papal correspondence; in recent centuries their number has decreased. Earlier they took the form of letters addressed to prelates, to secular rulers, to the Christian faithful in general, and in rare instances directly to Jews. Later, they increasingly took the form of memoranda (briefs outlining policy), headed by the phrase Ad futuram rei memoriam (“A reminder for the future”). Either type of document usually began with a statement of general attitude, proceeded to a discussion of the specific problem involved, continued with the pope’s decision on the resolution of the problem, and concluded with a statement of the penalties for disobedience. The statement of attitude frequently cited scriptural verses or referred back to the authority of the incumbent’s predecessors…

Sicut Judaeis. First issued by *Calixtus II around 1120, it was a general Bull of Protection for the Jews, who had suffered at the hands of participants in the First Crusade (1095–96) and were being maltreated by their Christian neighbors. It forbade killing them, using force to convert them, and otherwise molesting them, their synagogues, and cemeteries. The bull was modeled on a letter, which began with the same phrase, sent to the bishop of Palermo by Pope *Gregory I in 598, objecting to the use of force as a conversionary method. Calixtus’ formulation was repeated by most of the popes from the 12th to the 15th centuries. They often added references to problems current in their day. Several of them condemned the accusation of ritual murder (see *blood libel).

 

[smaneck]

Sounds like it is a matter of personal opinion.

 

[smaneck]

Hello PR and Smaneck

A bull is an ecclesiastical document promulgated by a pope. The range of subjects it can address is typically quite broad such as: dispensations, excommunications, apostolic constitutions, canonizations. Nevertheless they are very limited, usually in scope, that is they are generally limited to specific ideas in a defined context. Papal bulls are never in themselves solemn definitions. They are part of mutable canon law. However they can quite often contain solemn condemnations of points judged to be detrimental to Catholic truth. Such would be authoritative - even very authoritative - for their time and in relation to the very specific heresy or such addressed, until a subsequent canon law abrogated it unless of course an infallible statement was defined (generally though the church on]ly accepts the Marian dogmas as occassions of singular papal infallibility).

Do I understand you correctly, Vouthon? Are you saying that only the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and related dogmas are considered infallible?

Of course, it is not really infallibility which is at question here. A criticism was made against Muhammad because he does not follow the Teaching Office of the Magesterium. That strikes me as quite odd since there seems to be so much debate as to what documents reflect that Magesterium.

There is not any solemn definition of dogma here. All it tells us is that the propisition in question, the condemnation of Martin Luther’s sentence about burning heretics being against the will of the Spirit, is among a loose set of other articles whose identity is either ‘heretical’, or ‘scandalous’, or ‘false’, or ‘offensive’ or ‘seductive of simple minds’ and for all of these reasons the pope considers the statements as a whole contrary to sound Catholic truth.

But doesn’t that imply that burning heretics is something not contrary to the Spirit?

The language does not tell us explicitly whether the propisition in question is “heretical”, “offensive” or simply “seductive of simple minds”

.

Okay, so let’s go with the ‘simply.’ We can’t have people seduced into thinking there is something wrong with burning heretics at the stake.

Clearly there are certain propisitions that the pope thought were heretical, others simply capable of wayleading Catholics and some he thought were simply offensive in nature. Obviously what is “offensive to pious ears” is a very specific, time-bound condemnation that has no authority or meaning for us today.

Since the pope only has jurisdiction in matters concerning “faith or morals” he cannot tell a secular authority authoritatively how to deal with a religious offense. He can condemn certain things as heresies, however the papacy has never had any authority over criminal jurisdiction. Even in the inquisition people were tried for heresy, condemned and then handed over to the state.

Yes, I’m familiar with the phrase ‘relaxing the secular arm’ but the fact that a statement saying burning heretics is contrary to the Spirit should be regarded as either heretical, offensive or seductive’ certainly suggests that the church approved of the practice and didn’t want anybody criticizing it.

Indeed in the early middle ages, before the Cathar heresy which was viewed by both popes and kings as a threat to the social order, bishops often defended the very heretics they had just condemned.

Yes, as I recall the first Inquisition was aimed at them.

 

[TEPO]

It is not a Christian religion, since Bahais do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, which He was. Bahais believe Jesus was “just a messenger”, not God.

Therefore, it is a false religion, not teaching the fullness of truth.

My son had to attend a Bahai gathering (“service”) for his comparative religion class. He came home from that just shaking his head.

Hahahahaha… Banned!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well Muhammad was told to ask the Christians and Jews.

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers. Surah 10 94

 

[smaneck]

he simply wants to do everything in his power to get people to stop reading Luther’s writings and to get Luther to recant his views.

Uh, this is his order of excommunication. He is not trying to get Luther to recant, he is trying to get him killed!

It is no accident this bull begins with the words “Rise up O Lord.”

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like it is a matter of personal opinion.

Well, as long as it’s educated, what’s wrong with that?

 

[PRmerger]

Uh, this is his order of excommunication. He is not trying to get Luther to recant, he is trying to get him killed!

It is no accident this bull begins with the words “Rise up O Lord.”

I am curious why you equate excommunication with “trying to get him killed”?

 

[smaneck]

Well, as long as it’s educated, what’s wrong with that?

Nothing, unless you are going to judge the founder of another religions because they don’t share your personal interpretation of what constitutes Jesus’ teachings.

 

[Vouthon]

Uh, this is his order of excommunication. He is not trying to get Luther to recant, he is trying to get him killed!

It is no accident this bull begins with the words “Rise up O Lord.”

I am not aware of there being efforts to have him killed at this stage. Although his life was in danger later on. I have read that it was at this stage simply recantation that was desired. Excommunication is simply a canonical penalty that means one cannot partake of the sacraments for a hoped for temporary period. It doesnt equal death.

 

[smaneck]

I am curious why you equate excommunication with “trying to get him killed”?

Because excommunication in the 16th century involved ‘relaxing the secular arm’ and it was understood that Frederick the Wise was suppose to arrest and execute Luther. That’s why he had to kidnap him instead.

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing, unless you are going to judge the founder of another religions because they don’t share your personal interpretation of what constitutes Jesus’ teachings.

Oh, just to be clear: there are no “personal interpretations” about what constitutes Jesus’ teachings. Those are quite clear and are documented in the Catechism as the sure norm for the faith.

What is a matter of educated opinion is how authoritative papal bulls et al are.

 

[PRmerger]

Because excommunication in the 16th century involved ‘relaxing the secular arm’ and it was understood that Frederick the Wise was suppose to arrest and execute Luther. That’s why he had to kidnap him instead.

Source, please? Something that documents those who were excommunicated with being executed.

 

[smaneck]

I am not aware of there being efforts to have him killed at this stage. Although his life was in danger later on. I have read that it was at this stage simply recantation that was desired. Excommunication is simply a canonical penalty that means one cannot partake of the sacraments for a hoped for temporary period. It doesnt equal death.

Well, he was given sixty days to recant, if that is what you mean. But all real efforts to persuade Luther he was wrong were exhausted after the Papal Legate Cardinal Cajetan’s meeting in 1518.

 

[smaneck]

Source, please? Something that documents those who were excommunicated with being executed.

How about Pope Alexander excommunication of Savonarola which threatens Florence with interdict if they don’t deal with him? Do you really need things like this documented?

 

[PRmerger]

How about Pope Alexander excommunication of Savonarola which threatens Florence with interdict if they don’t deal with him? Do you really need things like this documented?

Yes, I do. I’ve never heard of this. Could you please provide your source? Thanks.

Savonarola was executed, then? Yes?

 

[smaneck]

Yes, I do. I’ve never heard of this. Could you please provide your source? Thanks.

^ Brief of Pope Alexander VI excommunicating Savonarola: The History of Girolamo Savonarola and of His Times, Pasquale Villari, Leonard Horner, trans., London, Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1863, Volume 2, pp.392-394.

Savonarola was executed, then? Yes?

Yes.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

Again, source, please!

 

[smaneck]

Again, source, please!

Of what? His execution?

An eyewitness account by the Piagnone Luca Landucci in A Florentine Diary from 1460 to 1516 trans. Alice De Rosen Jervis (London, 1927) pp.142-143.

 

[PRmerger]

Of what? His execution?

An eyewitness account by the Piagnone Luca Landucci in A Florentine Diary from 1460 to 1516 trans. Alice De Rosen Jervis (London, 1927) pp.142-143.

No. Documentation that the excommunication resulted in this guy’s execution.