Contact With Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith

[arthra]

Ignatian Philo wrote:

“These eternal Manifestations have existed with since the beginning, so in which way could they possibly reflect the devine If they are not the cause of the divine? If God did not design them with such an intention? To say that your prophet is eternal seems to me to make him equal with God.”

One reason I suggested a source (namely Julio Savi’s “The Eternal Quest for God” earlier today was so that the concept of the Manifestation could be clearer…or at least what the Baha’i perspective is even though you may disagree with it…so I’ll post a few excerpts from the essay I suggested and you can explore the rest at your leisure…

The relation between the Essence of God and the Manifestations of God falls within the concept of emanation which has been explained in the second chapter of this book. The Essence of God is sanctified above anything else. It is Its active attributes that shine in the world of the Kingdom and appear in the human world through the Manifestations of God. Therefore, the Manifestations are not incarnations of God,[22]* nor do they manifest His Essence, from which they are far remote.*[23]

They are an emanation of God – His First Emanation. Abdu'l-Bahá explains that they … are as mirrors which have acquired illumination from the Sun of Truth, but the Sun does not descend from its high zenith and does not effect entrance within the mirror. In truth, this mirror has attained complete polish and purity until the utmost capacity of reflection has been developed in it; therefore, the Sun of Reality with its fullest effulgence and splendour is revealed therein.’[24]

*The Manifestation of God is, therefore, the visible expression of that same spirit which creates, moves and guides the entire universe and which manifests itself in a Being who ex-presses man’s material, human and divine natures in their perfection, so that mankind may freely recognize him and of his own free will submit to his laws, thus undergoing – by virtue of those spiritual forces the Manifestation bestows – such a transformation as is the essence of human spiritual growth or progress.

Though the Manifestations of God are powerful and yield absolute power over mankind, yet they are wholly submitted unto God and have no will of their own. Bahá’u’lláh refers to Himself as `but a leaf which the winds of the Will of Thy Lord… have stirred’.*[25]

bahai-library.com/books/quest/quest.06.html

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If they are eminate from God, then it seems to be they are caused by God and are not eternal and a bahai cannot believe that Jesus is the eternal logos described of in John.

It seems to be clear that the manifestaions are not of the same substance as God, thus if they are of a substance which is reflective of the substance of God then they must have been created. Since God is obviously uncreated and if hte manifestations are like mirrors it seems in hwatever state they originated in, they began to exist.

 

[smaneck]

Smaneck are you telling me the bahai faith does not deny Jesus is God?

I don’t recall saying anything about that. I believe Jesus, like all the Manifestations, is everything we can know about God humanly speaking.

That you accept Jesus Christ as the eternal Logos of God

Yes Jesus, like all the Manifestations is the Logos of God.

the father who created the world and is due worship?

Why do you insist on adding words I didn’t say?

These eternal Manifestations have existed with since the beginning, so in which way could they possibly reflect the devine If they are not the cause of the divine?

The Divine Logos is the first emanation of God, but that emanation occurs outside of time.

To say that your prophet is eternal seems to me to make him equal with God.

That is what Christians have done with the concept, but it is not what Baha’is do. It does not make the Manifestation equal to God but it does make him through whom the rest of creation is made. As our Long Obligatory Prayer puts it, the Manifestation is “He through whom the letters “B” and “E” (lit. Kaf and Nun”) are joined and knit together.

Now as for the quran I argue indirectly from several passages that the bahai and the Muslims must consider the Nicene church or one of the churches in the tradition of the Nicene church to be the true Christians.

Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” S. 3:55

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the Disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Now the implication is clear, there would be a group of followers of Jesus who would prevail to the end of days.

That implies Christians will prevail over those who reject Christ. I don’t think it much matters whether they are Nicene Christians or not.

No such group other than the Nicene Christians prevailed or became prominent. This is a problem for bahai and Muslims.

That maybe a problem for you, but I can assure you it is not a problem for Baha’is or for Muslims as far as I know.

Also a problem for Bahai I might add is the day of resurrection mentioned, since bahai do not believe in a day of resurrection even in the metaphorical sense

Oh, we most definitely do believe in the Day of Resurrection. We are living in that day!

There will also be a need for eternal manifestations and we will never all experience what the apostles experienced.

Sorry, that statement makes no sense to me.

As for me not understanding the quran I think that fits on the Bahai foot, just much as the Islamic foot. You cannot deny the random way in which the quran is composed.

I don’t see it as random at all.

It jumps from context to context

No, it doesn’t.

and you are reliant on the hadith traditions to explain certain things.

Certainly hadith can sometimes provide context, but that is another issue entirely.

Like the verse of abrogation, that Allah reveals certain things and then abrogates them with something similar or better.

That’s a pretty straight-forward verse.

This is in the context according to the traditions of the prophet talking to some Christians who questioned him on the word of God and Muhammad quite frankly did not have an answer and thus we have this verse coming down.

Where did you get that idea? So far as I know none of the verses of the Qur’an were revealed in response to questions by Christians. This has to do with things like changing the qiblih and the law regarding wine-drinking, which was once permitted.

Now Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and liars, but did he demean their inherent value by calling them the worst of all creatures?

I think they would consider names like serpents, vipers, and ‘sons of hell’ rather demeaning.

No he didn’t and even so you must also dismiss Christ for calling men sons of Satan.

Actually, I don’t dismiss him, anymore than I dismiss the Qur’an for suggesting that the ungrateful (that is the correct translation of Kafaroon) are the worst of creatures.

Now in terms of the verse you have posted it seems you have a contradiction which can only be solved by the above mention of abrogation and Im willing to bet that Surah 98 came later after unsuccessful efforts to convert Jews and Christians.

Actually a number of scholars have argued it is a Meccan surah. It length would suggest this.

Either way we have a contradiction nd a contradiction cannot be true.

If you understand that the word Kafaroon means ungrateful there is no contradiction.

 

[smaneck]

If they are eminate from God, then it seems to be they are caused by God and are not eternal and a bahai cannot believe that Jesus is the eternal logos described of in John.

If it is an emnation it most certainly can be eternal. The rays of the sun are caused by the sun yet they are co-eternal with it.

Don’t you think it time you stop telling us what we can’t believe?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If it is an emnation it most certainly can be eternal. The rays of the sun are caused by the sun yet they are co-eternal with it.

Don’t you think it time you stop telling us what we can’t believe?

Im sorry when was it illegal to criticise the beliefs of others? You can’t silence your opponent simply because you don’t like what they are saying. At least in a civil world.

But it seems that if the manifestations are not of the same substance as God, they came after God. Did God intentionally create them? Or where they natural outgrowths from him? God didn’t have control in them? Now it seems to be because they are of a different substance and are a perfect mirror image, they are an outgrowth from God. Was it controlled? Did this happen with God’s direct action? Could he have not had manifesations? Some questions need to be answered.

 

[smaneck]

Im sorry when was it illegal to criticise the beliefs of others?

You can criticize what we believe all you want but saying we can’t believe what we say we believe is just ludicrous. They is no sense in even talking to someone who does that.

You can’t silence your opponent simply because you don’t like what they are saying.At least in a civil world.

Sorry, but telling someone they can’t believe what they do believe is to leave civility in the gutter. When you can be civil I’ll consider answering your questions.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Believe it or not I can criticise a belief I find to be ludicrous. You can do the same with the bible when Samson drank water which was produced by a miracle of God from the jawbone of an *** if you want to as well, it is up to me to respond and defend that. Not complain about it.

That being said why are you not addressing my criticisms? Why do bahai make excuses for themselves, the other side is being so mean?

 

[Vouthon]

Are you saying that only the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and related dogmas are considered infallible?

No that is not what I’m saying at all. Any of the dogmas defined at ecumenical councils are obviously infallible. I am speaking not of the collective magisterial authority of the bishops, they too posses infallibility in this sense, nor am I speaking of the ordinary magisterium but rather what we know as the extraordinary magisterium in terms of singular, ex cathedra papal infallibility.

In terms of this particular extraordinary form of the exercise of infallibility, the only unanimity among Catholic theologians and scholars is concerning the two Marian dogmas defined by Pius IX (the Immaculate Conception) in 1854 and Pius XII in 1950.

Some consider past statements as being infallible too, whereas others - given that the doctrine was defined under the reign of Pius IX - do not think it prudent to retrospectively searh for infallible statements from the past and/or do not believe that any past statements meet the criteria laid down by Vatican I.

Such papal infallibility is not the norm, it is an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium when the pope speaks ex cathedra such that we should not be surprised that there may be few examples of it.

The only ones we all agree on are the two marian dogmas I referred too.

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.

Obviously since Muhammad was not a baptised Christian the church has no direct jurisdiction over him anyway, so I would agree with you that it is a strange criticism. My own interpretation is that he was genuinely sincere in his beliefs but somewhat misinformed as to orthodox doctrine (ie referring to the Trinity as the Father, Virgin Mary and Jesus seemingly in reflection of Collyridian belief, that is a sect that worshipped the Virgin Mary as Goddess rather than mainstream Christianity). He clearly taught certain things in accord with Catholic teaching - the oneness of God (tawhid), charity, the recognition of Abraham etc. - such that I would say the Holy Spirit may have enlightened his mind in this respect. In other words, he seems to me to possibly have been a figure who received some form of inspiration, which is open to anyone with a pure heart and conscience, and taught the Arabs spiritual truths thereto.

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

Not really. The only part of that bull which could have been binding on Catholic conscience are the parts defined as “heretical”, which would have been a denial of revealed truth. Other than that the pope did not exercise any solemn authority and so irrespective of his personal, prudential judgement on the matter those clauses are no more binding on any person than the actions taken by Pope Clement XIV in the brief Dominus ac Redemptor to suppress the Jesuit Order ie

From brief of Clement XIV, Dominus ac Redemptor noster:

"We declare this aforesaid society to be dissolved, suppressed, disbanded, and abolished for all eternity… We declare all their offices, authorities, and functions to be null and void… "

Now, how long did that last for Susan? For “all eternity”? I think not. In 1814 Pope Pius VII restored the order to its full possession. He thus nullified the brief (which was a more modern, simpler form of the bull which had fell out of favour by that time. It is encyclicals that popes have used since the 19th century) with another one, which highlights the key issue here: Just because something is stated in a papal bull does not make it authoritative or give it lasting effect. He applied excommunication to those clauses, which again is something mutable that can be lifted - ie it is not set in stone.

The pope may be addressing a genuine heresy or issue but how he frames that teaching can be erroneous, without having any direct effect on the sanctity of the deposit of faith, per Vatican II document I cited earlier.

An even better example was the clear condemnation by John XXII of Meister Eckhart as teaching heresy in the papal Bull, *In agro dominico *. It condemns 28 articles from Eckhart’s teaching as either outright heretical or “suspected of being so”.

Not long afterwards his most well-known follower Henry Suso’s writings were approved by the church, Suso was beatified and yet Suso in his writings claimed that Eckhart was the “Master”, was in heaven and had been falsely condemned as did his other follower Johanes Tauler. Eckhart’s writings influenced many orthodox mystics after that such as Cardinal Cusa and through his recognised followers the entire church.

In the mid-20th century Catholic theologians fully redeemed Eckhart, agreeing with his followers that the Pope had misinterpreted his writings and taken them out of context. Ratzinger even weighed in with a letter to the Dominican Order explaining that Eckhart was a “sound Catholic thinker” and that condemnation held no validity.

Finally, Blessed Pope John Paul II referred to Eckhart officially:

28 September 1987: Pope John Paul II:

‘I think of the marvellous history of Rheno-Flemish mysticism of the thirteenth and especially of the fourteenth centuries… Did not Eckhart teach his disciples: “All that God asks you most pressingly is to go out of yourself … and let God be God in you” [cf Walshe Sermon 13b]? One could think that in separating himself from creatures the mystic leaves his brother humanity behind. The same Eckhart affirms that on the contrary the mystic is marvellously present to them on the only level where he can truly reach them, that is, in God.’

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

And Eckhart is even fully endorsed by this website and encouraged. See this answer from a CAF apologist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80878

Apologist: Meister Eckhart was a Dominican like me and is no heretic.

And elsewhere in the apologetics section he is actively encouraged for evangelization:

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-do-you-recommend-when-evangelizing-a-taoist

Perhaps you could whet his appetite with the writings of some of our Catholic mystics. I would recommend the work of Meister Eckhart whose work develops themes that are congruent with Taoism but also thoroughly Christian.

Therefore I really think that you are putting too much stock into this single line from a papal bull that we do not even know if the pope himself considered to be heretical, like Pope John clearly did with propisitions of Eckhart he outright condemned as heretical - and yet even with that much greater precision, he was still ultimately wrong!

Later on today I’m also going to provide some badly needed context to that propisition about “burning heretics”. When I get the time - I have to hand in an essay today!

 

[MartinJordan]

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

 

[Razanir]

Sorry lol I didn’t intend to start the Spanish Inquisition

That’s okay. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

That aside, I’m mostly staying out of this debate. My main issue though is the phrase “false religion” that’s been brought up. To me that’s first off, far too inflammatory of language. Also, “false” contains a certain connotation to me that they get nothing right and exist solely to lead people away from the Truth. If I understand Nostra Aetate correctly, the Church rejects nothing that is actually true in other religions. So if a religion teaches for example “Thou shalt not murder” then we respect them for getting that much correct, even if everything else they believe goes against Church teachings.

I dislike the term even more when people we applying it to Islam and Judaism. “False” also bears a connotation that they worship a false god, which we know is not the case with Judaism and Islam.

Just my :twocents: in this whole discussion

 

[Vouthon]

That’s okay. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

That aside, I’m mostly staying out of this debate. My main issue though is the phrase “false religion” that’s been brought up. To me that’s first off, far too inflammatory of language. Also, “false” contains a certain connotation to me that they get nothing right and exist solely to lead people away from the Truth. If I understand Nostra Aetate correctly, the Church rejects nothing that is actually true in other religions. So if a religion teaches for example “Thou shalt not murder” then we respect them for getting that much correct, even if everything else they believe goes against Church teachings.

I dislike the term even more when people we applying it to Islam and Judaism. “False” also bears a connotation that they worship a false god, which we know is not the case with Judaism and Islam.

Just my :twocents: in this whole discussion

Amen to that

Baha’is likewise do not worship a false god. They worship the God of Abraham along with Muslims, Jews and Christians. I agree wholeheartedly with your words regarding “false”.

 

[arthra]

Vouthon;10342843:

That was not what I said in the criticism of Mohammed. I was pointing that he didn’t know that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church’s Teaching Office.

Infact Mohammed told Christians to refer to their Book/Injil but later retracted it by informing his followers that it was corrupted. It is only Today’s Muslim scholars

who state that the Bible came 300 years after Jesus thus cannot be trusted so “corrupted”.

Can someone can show me where Mohammed knew how the Bible (especially the NT) came about?

MJ

You may be interested in how Baha’u’llah addressed the issue of corruption in the Kitab-i-Iqan:

*This is one of the instances that have been referred to. Verily by “perverting” the text is not meant that which these foolish and abject souls have fancied, even as some maintain that Jewish and Christian divines have effaced from the Book such verses as extol and magnify the countenance of Muhammad, and instead thereof have inserted the contrary. How utterly vain and false are these words! Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it? Moreover, the Pentateuch had been spread over the surface of the earth, and was not confined to Mecca and Medina, so that they could privily corrupt and pervert its text. *

Nay, rather, by corruption of the text is meant that in which all Muslim divines are engaged today, that is the interpretation of God’s holy Book in accordance with their idle imaginings and vain desires. And as the Jews, in the time of Muhammad, interpreted those verses of the Pentateuch, that referred to His Manifestation, after their own fancy, and refused to be satisfied with His holy utterance, the charge of “perverting” the text was therefore pronounced against them. Likewise, it is clear, how in this day, the people of the Qur’án have perverted the text of God’s holy Book, concerning the signs of the expected Manifestation, and interpreted it according to their inclination and desires.

~ Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 85-87

 

[Razanir]

Baha’is likewise do not worship a false god. They worship the God of Abraham along with Muslims, Jews and Christians. I agree wholeheartedly with your words regarding “false”.

Really? I’d never heard that before, although it would make sense if they stemmed from Islam.

And one more comment about the word “false.” The ONLY religion I would ever call false is if there’s an Antichrist and he starts one like in the Book of Revelation. That is the only religion I personally would EVER call false

 

[PRmerger]

Really? I’d never heard that before, although it would make sense if they stemmed from Islam.

And one more comment about the word “false.” The ONLY religion I would ever call false is if there’s an Antichrist and he starts one like in the Book of Revelation. That is the only religion I personally would EVER call false

Well, I think the same standard ought to be offered:

We don’t say any other religion is false, to the degree that they proclaim truths consonant with the One True Faith.

But we also don’t say any other religion is true, to the degree that they proclaim truths that are divorced from the One True Faith.

 

[Vouthon]

Well, I think the same standard ought to be offered:

We don’t say any other religion is false, to the degree that they proclaim truths consonant with the One True Faith.

But we also don’t say any other religion is true, to the degree that they proclaim truths that are divorced from the One True Faith.

Amen

I think that is the best balance one can make.

 

[smaneck]

Believe it or not I can criticise a belief I find to be ludicrous.

Sure you can but if I tell you you can’t believe in Transsubstanitation because it is ludicrous then I am either being ludicrous or a liar because if you are Catholic you do believe in Transsubstantiation whether it is ludicrous or not.

That being said why are you not addressing my criticisms

Because someone who is so rude as to suggest I am lying about what I believe is not worth answering.

 

[smaneck]

No that is not what I’m saying at all. Any of the dogmas defined at ecumenical councils are obviously infallible. I am speaking not of the collective magisterial authority of the bishops, they too posses infallibility in this sense, nor am I speaking of the ordinary magisterium but rather what we know as the extraordinary magisterium in terms of singular, ex cathedra papal infallibility.

Yeah, okay. I was thinking in terms of papal infallibility.

In terms of this particular extraordinary form of the exercise of infallibility, the only unanimity among Catholic theologians and scholars is concerning the two Marian dogmas defined by Pius IX (the Immaculate Conception) in 1854 and Pius XII in 1950.

So I was right about the Immaculate Conception part. Is there another Marian dogma which is important or is they were just affirmed twice?

Some consider past statements as being infallible too, whereas others - given that the doctrine was defined under the reign of Pius IX - do not think it prudent to retrospectively searh for infallible statements from the past and/or do not believe that any past statements meet the criteria laid down by Vatican I.

Okay, but there were certainly Popes before Pius IX who laid claim to infallibility. It comes up a lot in the controversies regarding the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Obviously since Muhammad was not a baptised Christian the church has no direct jurisdiction over him anyway, so I would agree with you that it is a strange criticism. My own interpretation is that he was genuinely sincere in his beliefs but somewhat misinformed as to orthodox doctrine (ie referring to the Trinity as the Father, Virgin Mary and Jesus seemingly in reflection of Collyridian belief, that is a sect that worshipped the Virgin Mary as Goddess rather than mainstream Christianity).

Muhammad, of course, could only speak of the Christians he saw around him and it does seem that these were influenced by the Collyrdians. I don’t think defining orthodoxy would have even been an issue for him. The Qur’an addresses those Christian and Jewish beliefs which were creating controversy in the Muslim community.

An even better example was the clear condemnation by John XXII of Meister Eckhart as teaching heresy in the papal Bull, *In agro dominico *. It condemns 28 articles from Eckhart’s teaching as either outright heretical or “suspected of being so”.

Not long afterwards his most well-known follower Henry Suso’s writings were approved by the church, Suso was beatified and yet Suso in his writings claimed that Eckhart was the “Master”, was in heaven and had been falsely condemned as did his other follower Johanes Tauler. Eckhart’s writings influenced many orthodox mystics after that such as Cardinal Cusa and through his recognised followers the entire church.

In the mid-20th century Catholic theologians fully redeemed Eckhart, agreeing with his followers that the Pope had misinterpreted his writings and taken them out of context. Ratzinger even weighed in with a letter to the Dominican Order explaining that Eckhart was a “sound Catholic thinker” and that condemnation held no validity.

Interesting. I always thought of Meister Eckhart as somewhat heretical myself, but maybe that is the Protestant in me. I have always been fascinated with Nicholas Cusa, however.

 

[Vouthon]

Hi Susan

So I was right about the Immaculate Conception part. Is there another Marian dogma which is important or is they were just affirmed twice?

There are two Marian dogmas - The Immaculate Conception, defined infallibly by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary defined infallibly by Pius XII in 1950. The latter dogma simply means that the Blessed Mother Mary shared the same fate as her son, “assumption” into heaven (which Benedict understands as a state within “God” Himself rather than a place). Benedict spoke about this latter infallible dogma last August. An excerpt:

On November 1, 1950, the Venerable Pope Pius XII proclaimed as dogma that the Virgin Mary “having ended the course of earthly life, was assumed into heavenly glory in soul and body.” This truth of faith was known by the Tradition, affirmed by the Fathers of the Church, and it was above all relevant to the veneration that the Church offered the Mother of Christ. Precisely this element of veneration was the moving force, so to speak, that determined the formulation of this dogma: the dogma appears as an act of praise and exaltation with respect to the Holy Virgin…we now ask ourselves: what does Mary’s Assumption do for our journey, our life? The first answer is: in the Assumption we see that in God there is space for man, God himself is the mansion with many rooms of which Jesus speaks (cf. John 14:2); God is the house of man; in God there is the space of God. And Mary, uniting herself to God, and united with him, does not distance herself from us, she does not enter an unknown galaxy. Those who go to God come near to us because God is near to us, and Mary, united to God, participates in God’s presence, which is so close to us, to each one of us. There is a beautiful line that St. Gregory the Great says of St. Benedict but that we can also apply to Mary: St. Gregory the Great says that heart of St. Benedict became so large that the whole of creation was able to enter into this heart. This is even more true of Mary: Mary, completely united to God, has a heart that is so immense that the whole of creation can enter into this heart, and the ex-votos that are in every part of the world show this. Mary is near, she can hear, she can help, she is near to all of us. There is space for man in God, and God is near, and Mary, united to God, is very near, she has a heart that is great like the heart of God.

But there is another aspect: not only is there space for man in God; in man there is space for God. We also see this in Mary, the Holy Ark that bears the presence of God…

Okay, but there were certainly Popes before Pius IX who laid claim to infallibility. It comes up a lot in the controversies regarding the Great Schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches.

Undoubtedly, popes have long claimed for themselves a final word in doctrinal disputes, universal jurisdiction and indeed freedom from error when finalizing doctrine. We even have evidence of popes in the second century dictating too other churches what date to celebrate Easter on, imposing uniformity, serving almost as a court of final appeal. Leo’s Tome, is another case in point. The high-water mark of this development of what historians call a “papal monarchy” in the middle ages was reached by Pope innocent III and his successor Pope Boniface, probably. According to the historian Backmann:

“…During the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216), the medieval papacy reached the high point of its political power and international prestige. Innocent was by far the single most powerful pope of the Middle Ages; perhaps only Pope John Paul II in our own day has wielded comparable influence on the international scene…” – Backmann

However while infallibility, or at the very least a “last word” in doctrine, has been long claimed by popes before Pius IX, the specific criteria of that singular, extraordinary exercise of infallibility was never spelled out. As late as the 19th century we have evidence of an Irish catechism denying that the pope is infallible and claiming that it is just a “protestant slander”. Theologians and scholars thus often judge that it is not proper retrospectively to ascertain whether infallibility was exercised ex cathedra by a pope before Pius IX when the very criteria upon which an ex cathedra statement was made did not yet exist or wasn’t agreed upon.

Also, the conciliar movement was strong. Just look at the Council of Constance. Things were much more fluid back then than they are now, hence why it is debated whether it is good to retrospectively apply criteria that did not exist hundreds of years ago.

Interesting. I always thought of Meister Eckhart as somewhat heretical myself, but maybe that is the Protestant in me. I have always been fascinated with Nicholas Cusa, however

His own order, the Dominicans, never regarded him as a heretic. Neither did his followers, two of whom were beatified and one much later one - that is Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who read Eckhart’s works - was of course the most powerful cardinal in the catholic church during the 14th century. That’s quite high advocacy of someone, so of course many people did not accept Pope John’s condemnations.

 

[smaneck]

There are two Marian dogmas - The Immaculate Conception, defined infallibly by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary defined infallibly by Pius XII in 1950. The latter dogma simply means that the Blessed Mother Mary shared the same fate as her son, “assumption” into heaven. Benedict spoke about this latter infallible dogma last August.

Ah, I forgot all about. But then I’m just an ignorant ex-Protestant who grew up thinking the Immaculate Conception referred to the Virgin Birth.

The high-water mark of this development of what historians call a “papal monarchy” in the middle ages was reached by Pope Boniface,

Yeah, well we know what happened to him. Pope Boniface may have talked big with Unam Sanctum, but he couldn’t pull it off in the end.

As late as the 19th century we have Irish catechism denying that the pope is infallible and claiming that it is just a “protestant slander”.

Really? I did not know that.

His own order, the Dominicans, never regarded him as a heretic. Neither did his followers, two of whom were beatified and one much later one - that is Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who read Eckhart’s works - was of course the most powerful cardinal in the catholic church during the 14th century. That’s quite high advocacy of someone, so of course many people did not accept Pope John’s condemnations.

I guess my problem with Eckhart is that his Eucharistic mysticism seems to veer dangerously close to monism. I have a similar problem with Ibn Arabi.

I prefer the bridal mysticism of the Franciscans myself.