Differences and commonalities between Catholic and Baha'i cosmology

[Servant19]

We do not believe that there are any accidents in God. As St. Thomas Aquinas explained:

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article6

Furthermore we make a distinction between absolute attributes and relative attributes:

www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/cp37.htm

Ah brother, this is music to my ears

We are making progress walking this path “arm-in-arm” in unity !!

So, I find the following passage you cited greatly fascinating in that it talks about what Baha’u’llah and Islamic theology terms “essential” and “active” attributes of God. Here, the citation refers to these categories as “absolute” (equivalent to “essential”) attributes and “relative” (equivalent to “active”) attributes:

1. There are two kinds of attributes in God, absolute and relative. – Although human reason cannot comprehend God, it can, however, acquire a knowledge not only of His existence, but also of some of His attributes. These attributes are of two kinds: some belong to God considered in Himself, and these are absolute attributes; the others belong to Him as Creator of the world, and these are relative attributes.

Wonderful!!

Now, the next arena to explore is what does Catholicism say the “Word of God” is in terms of an attribute of God?

Firstly, is the Word an attribute?

If so, is it an absolute/essential attribute or a relative/active attribute?

Thankyou brother. Hope you had a great weekend

.

 

[Vouthon]

Now, the next arena to explore is what does Catholicism say the “Word of God” is in terms of an attribute of God?

Firstly, is the Word an attribute?

If so, is it an absolute/essential attribute or a relative/active attribute?

Thankyou brother. Hope you had a great weekend

.

Dear brother Servant

The Word of God according to the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church is not commensurate with an attribute. The Word, the Eternal Logos, is a Person belonging to the Godhead Itself, the Most Holy Trinity.

This is where I do feel that Catholic and Baha’i theology diverge.

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Servant

The Word of God according to the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church is not commensurate with an attribute. The Word, the Eternal Logos, is a Person belonging to the Godhead Itself, the Most Holy Trinity.

This is where I do feel that Catholic and Baha’i theology diverge.

Thankyou brother

Is there any guidance from Catholic theology on whether this attribute is, as is pointed out in your citation, an absolute attribute of God or a relative attribute of God?

I would suppose that since the Word is an agent of “action” and an “agent” of creation then it is a relative attribute, yes?

.

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Servant

The Word of God according to the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church is not commensurate with an attribute. The Word, the Eternal Logos, is a Person belonging to the Godhead Itself, the Most Holy Trinity.

This is where I do feel that Catholic and Baha’i theology diverge.

Thankyou brother

So is there any differentiation/distinction between the Word as a Person and the God which has absolute and relative attributes?

If so what is the differentiation?

.

 

[Vouthon]

Thankyou brother

So is there ANY differentiation/distinction between the Word as a Person and the God which has absolute and relative attributes?

If so what is the differentiation?

.

No

God is a communion of Three Divine Persons sharing one substance or “essence”, according to our theology. All three Persons are equally identified with the divine Essence and are therefore, equally God. Accordingly when God acts externally all three Persons are acting in concert. The God that “has absolute and relative attributes” is the Trune God: Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit.

There is no possibility in our theology for their being a “Word of God” as a Person distinct from “God” with His attributes.

There is distinction within the Godhead between the Three Persons in view of their relations although not in terms of their single nature. In God everything is One. There is only one thought, one will, one divine activity and the Divine Persons share equally in this.

ie

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22A.HTM

1. How are the three divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, one and the same God?

The three divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God because all have one and the same divine nature.

(a) Because the three divine Persons have one and the same divine nature, they have the same perfections and the same external works are produced by them.

 

[Servant19]

No

God is a communion of Three Divine Persons sharing one substance or “essence”, according to our theology. All three Persons are equally identified with the divine Essence and are therefore, equally God. Accordingly when God acts externally all three Persons are acting in concert. The God that “has absolute and relative attributes” is the Trune God: Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit.

There is no possibility in our theology for their being a “Word of God” as a Person distinct from “God” with His attributes.

There is distinction within the Godhead between the Three Persons in view of their relations although not in terms of their single nature. In God everything is One. There is only one thought, one will, one divine activity and the Divine Persons share equally in this.

ie

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22A.HTM

Thankyou again brother!

What were the theological conclusions and extrapolations made as to why John refers to the Word of God being “with” God and then following it with the Word “is” God?

Why would John reveal the sentence containing the word “with” only to follow it with the sentence containing the word “is”?

Can you share some insights into this please brother, since I assume the source of this understanding is John’s 1st chapter, correct?

.

 

[Servant19]

One other question brother, if I may?

Would you say that the absolute attributes of God can be manifested within Creation?

Take “aseity” for example which I know is a Christian theological attribute assigned to God’s essence. Can aseity be manifested in Creation at all?

…thankyou

.

 

[Vouthon]

Thankyou again brother!

What were the theological conclusions and extrapolations made as to why John refers to the Word of God being “with” God and then following it with the Word “is” God?

Why would John reveal the sentence containing the word “with” only to follow it with the sentence containing the word “is”?

Can you share some insights into this please brother, since I assume the source of this understanding is John’s 1st chapter, correct?

.

When the Prologue refers to “God”, one has to understand it in the context of what Second Temple Judaism would understand by God. For first century Jews, God was identified as a single Divine Person synonymous with God “the Father”. The fact that the Gospel of John when it refers to “God” means “the Father” is substantiated at the end of the Chapter One where we find this: “It is the Only Son who is close to the Father’s Heart who has made Him known”.

The Prologue is upsetting this Jewish model by blatantly revealing distinction of Persons by relationship within the Godhead. Eventually this evolves into the full-blown dogma of the Trinity in Catholicism.

This Son-Father relationship dominates the rest of the Gospel.

“With” indicates ‘relation’ ie one person in relation to another person whilst ‘is’ stands to represent being or essence.

So that the Word was “with” God means that he is in relation to God the Father. When it is says that He “is” God, what we have is the Word being identified with the Father. Later in the Gospel Jesus will say, “I and the Father are one” and that “My Father is in me and I in Him”.

Catholics know this as the “mutual indwelling of the Divine Persons”:

icucourses.com/pages/025-11-circumincession-and-works-ad-extra

In order to stress the divine unity the Fathers of the Church emphasized the mutual or reciprocal penetration and indwelling of the three divine Persons in one another. We note among human lovers the drive toward union. Kisses and embraces are manifestations of this drive. The impulse of love towards mutual penetration which we witness among human beings is a faint reflection of the mutual indwelling of the three divine Persons.

St. Thomas Aquinas says that by reason of the undivided divine essence, each Person is in each other Person in the Trinity. Our Lord says in this regard, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10). He also says, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30; see also 10:38). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Father and in the Son is indicated in 1 Cor. 2:10, “The Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God.”

The doctrine of mutual penetration or indwelling of the three divine Persons was officially taught by the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century. The Council Fathers declared: “Because of this unity the Father is entirely in the Son and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Son” (Denzinger 704). In theology this mutual indwelling has been called, since the eighth century, “circumincession” which comes from the Latin circumincedere and means “to move around in.” The point of the teaching is to stress that the three divine Persons are perfectly one in being, knowing and willing.

I have already mentioned the impulse of love towards union. In the Trinity each divine Person is irresistibly drawn, by the very constitution of his being, to the other two. Branded in the very depths of each one of them is a necessary outward impulse urging him to give himself fully to the other two, to pour himself out into the divine receptacle of the other two. Here we find an unceasing circulation of life and love. Thus, since each Person is necessarily in the other two, unity is achieved because of this irresistible impulse in each Person, which mightily draws them to one another.

 

[Servant19]

When the Prologue refers to “God”, one has to understand it in the context of what Second Temple Judaism would understand by God. For first century Jews, God was identified as a single Divine Person synonymous with God “the Father”. The fact that the Gospel of John when it refers to “God” means “the Father” is substantiated at the end of the Chapter One where we find this: “It is the Only Son who is close to the Father’s Heart who has made Him known”.

The Prologue is upsetting this Jewish model by blatantly revealing distinction of Persons by relationship within the Godhead. Eventually this evolves into the full-blown dogma of the Trinity in Catholicism.

This Son-Father relationship dominates the rest of the Gospel.

“With” indicates ‘relation’ ie one person in relation to another person whilst ‘is’ stands to represent being or essence.

So that the Word was “with” God means that he is in relation to God the Father. When it is says that He “is” God, what we have is the Word being identified with the Father. Later in the Gospel Jesus will say, “I and the Father are one” and that “My Father is in me and I in Him”.

Catholics know this as the “mutual indwelling of the Divine Persons”:

icucourses.com/pages/025-11-circumincession-and-works-ad-extra

Ok, there’s a lot to get my head around here. I’m off to pray and meditate

Will chat again shortly dear brother. I want you to know that I truly appreciate you, and your time accompanying me with this exploration, I really do…

While I’m in my “trance” (haha) would you mind looking at post #26 above also, and I can hopefully continue from there

.

 

[Servant19]

No

God is a communion of Three Divine Persons sharing one substance or “essence”, according to our theology. All three Persons are equally identified with the divine Essence and are therefore, equally God. Accordingly when God acts externally all three Persons are acting in concert. The God that “has absolute and relative attributes” is the Trune God: Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit.

There is no possibility in our theology for their being a “Word of God” as a Person distinct from “God” with His attributes.

There is distinction within the Godhead between the Three Persons in view of their relations although not in terms of their single nature. In God everything is One. There is only one thought, one will, one divine activity and the Divine Persons share equally in this.

ie

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22A.HTM

Dear brother,

Does Catholicism teach that, with Jesus being the Person of the “Word of God”, He was the one who gave Moses the Commandments and His Revelation, and was the one who spoke with Moses in the Burning Bush?

Thankyou again

.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear brother,

Does Catholicism teach that, with Jesus being the Person of the “Word of God”, He was the one who gave Moses the Commandments and His Revelation, and was the one who spoke with Moses in the Burning Bush?

Thankyou again

.

Dear brother Servant

Yes. Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was, I AM” in reference to the unspeakable Divine Name YHWH that was revealed to Moses out of the Burning Bush. Jews substituted the Tetragrammaton with terms such as “Adonai” and “Elohim” because it was too wholly to verbalize. The Divine Name meant, “I am who I am” or “I am that am”. In saying this, Jesus was claiming identity with the very essence and being of God

A commentary on the Greek of this verse:

“…Jesus is here claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I AM, the eternally existing One, Yahweh…”

- Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament p. 531

I am aware that Shoghi Effendi says that Baha’u’llah was the Voice in the Burning Bush.

“…Baha’u’llah is not the intermediary between other Manifestations and God. Each has His own relation to the Primal Source. But in the sense that Baha’u’llah is the greatest Manifestation to yet appear, the One who consummates the Revelation of Moses, He was the One Moses conversed with in the Burning Bush. In other words, Baha’u’llah identifies the glory of the God-Head on that occasion with Himself. No distinction can be made amongst the Prophets in the sense that They all proceed from one Source, and are of one essence. But Their stations and functions in this world are different…”

***- [Shoghi Effendi, {Unfolding Destiny}, p. 448.] ***

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Servant

Yes. Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was, I AM” in reference to the unspeakable Divine Name YHWH that was revealed to Moses out of the Burning Bush. Jews substituted the Tetragrammaton with terms such as “Adonai” and “Elohim” because it was too wholly to verbalize. The Divine Name meant, “I am who I am” or “I am that am”. In saying this, Jesus was claiming identity with the very essence and being of God

A commentary on the Greek of this verse:

I am aware that Shoghi Effendi says that Baha’u’llah was the Voice in the Burning Bush.

Thankyou brother Vouthon,

Yes, Baha’u’llah categorically claims to be the Voice of the Burning Bush and the Bab calls Him the “Revealer of the Books and the Sender of the Messengers”

I am trying to tie together the relationships between God and His creation and the Kingdom.

I think we need to start by ascertaining what Catholic theology says about the Divine Essence. Is it “manifested” within all created things? Or does it, as cited in other Catholic texts, “surround” all created things?

I think this needs to be clarified please brother, because the texts you cited seem to indicate one or the other. I saw no citations indicating that it is both manifested within and surrounded by the Divine Essence.

This also goes back to my previous post here. Does the absolute attribute of asiety manifest itself within Creation?

Thankyou brother

.

 

[Vouthon]

I think we need to start by ascertaining what Catholic theology says about the Divine Essence. Is it “manifested” within all created things? Or does it, as cited in other Catholic texts, “surround” all created things?

It is not “manifested” in the sense of being something that the human can consciously comprehend and know through created things. It is universally present and encompasses all creation, namely because God is fully present holding the essences of His creatures in existence.

This also goes back to my previous post here. Does the absolute attribute of asiety manifest itself within Creation?

All of the essential attributes of God, including his aseity or self-existence, can be known by natural reason and so are to that end “evident” from creation. For example by means of our created intellect and by considering the order in the universe we can arrive by means of natural logic unaided by revelation to deduce God’s Self-Existence as the Unmoved Mover.

So yes, revelation is not needed to ascertain God’s aseity.

Personally I think we should move on from the attributes/perfections of God. There are SO many more subjects we could focus on

I think we have exhausted this subject

 

[Vouthon]

When you get a chance brother Servant, I would ask that you read this chapter from “The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations”, published originally in the 1930s:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=IESe7m8Obe4C&pg=PA301&dq=nations+nature+universal+society+catholic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VLBCU_3SK-mM7QaM-YD4Cg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nations%20nature%20universal%20society%20catholic&f=false

If you don’t mind I would like to move too some social teachings, using the same book from the 19th century by Brother Louis de Poissy from which I took the paragraph about attributes:

www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/cp51.htm

Part III. The Common Law of Nations.

102. Nations attain the perfection proper to them only when they constitute a universal society. – Man tends naturally at all times to enlarge the circle of his social relations; the ultimate term of this tendency is the universal association of people. The collection of rights and duties resulting from this universal association constitutes the common law of nations, which, like individual and social law, has its foundation in nature itself.

…

Chapter IV. The Society of Nations.

118. The nations are destined by nature to unite under a new and more extended form of society. – The nations, finding themselves in contact with one another, are obliged to aspire to a common good, which consists in order; it is, therefore, the design of nature that they form a universal society. The same conclusion is drawn from the need which nations experience of associating for their material, intellectual, and moral development.

119. The universal society of nations, far from injuring their independence, is its surest guarantee. – As civil society is the most powerful protection of the domestic order, so the universal society of nations is destined to assure the national independence and upright government of each of the associated peoples.

120. The authority destined to rule this universal society is naturally polyarchical, but it may also be monarchical. – Nations are in themselves equal, therefore they all naturally share the authority in the person of their representatives who are united in a general assembly. Yet it depends on their will to delegate the whole power to one, as happened in the empire of the middle ages.

1. The associated nations should apply themselves to the gradual formation of a government endowed in the highest degree with unity and efficacy; and this government should have threefold power, legislative, executive, and judiciary. – The government of this universal society should possess the conditions of all government. The more it is one and efficacious, the more will harmony reign among the nations. If all international controversies and all the abuses of power by those who govern could legitimately be summoned to its tribunal, there would soon be an end of all international or civil war.

This is traditional Catholic Thomistic philosophy on the Law of Nations. Louis de Poissy published it in 1876 with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur meaning that the Church approved it as being free from doctrinal error. The text actually came with a brief from then Pope Pius IX:

To our Beloved Son, Brother Louis of Poissy, of the Congregation of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, Beziers.
PIUS IX., POPE.

BELOVED SON, HEALTH AND APOSTOLIC BENEDICTION.

If in any art or science whatever special care must be taken that principles may in no way conflict with truth, this is above all necessary in philosophy, the queen and moderatrix of the arts and sciences. But especially must we be on our guard in the great flood of errors, of which the corruption of philosophy has been the unfailing source.

We, therefore, congratulate you, Beloved Son, on the manner in which you have treated of the elements of this science. Setting aside the false systems of more recent writers, you have followed the Angelic Doctor and those who, guided by the light of the Church, the Mistress of truth, have, by their wisdom and diligent labor, wonderfully illustrated philosophy. From their works you have drawn the doctrines by which to form the minds of the young men confided to your care.

We are glad that the Elementary Course of Christian Philosophy, which you have published, has received the approbation of a Bishop so distinguished as yours; and with him we earnestly wish that it may prove beneficial to many.

In the meantime, as a presage of the divine favor and a pledge of our paternal love, we very affectionately impart to you, Beloved Son, the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, March 18, 1876

Almost 70 years later, Pope Pius XII in 1944 reiterated the call for a universal society of Nations to be created so as to abolish war in its germinal state and inaugurate international peace:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12XMAS.HTM

"…An essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression.

No one could hail this development with greater joy than he who has long upheld the principle that the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date.

No one could wish success to this common effort, to be undertaken with a seriousness of purpose never before known, with greater enthusiasm, than he who has conscientiously striven to make the Christian and religious mentality reject modern war with its monstrous means of conducting hostilities…"

***- Venerable Pope Pius XII, Democracy and a Lasting Peace, 1944 ***

 

[Vouthon]

This article explains some of the means by which Thomistic theologians, such as the 16th century Jesuits Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez, came to the conclusion of a universal society being the most perfect political order:

cooperativeindividualism.org/hutchins-robert_thomas-aquinas-and-the-world-state-1976.html

According to Saint Thomas, then, the perfect community is one that does not need the help of another, that is at peace, and that can by its own will and resources remain so. Any other community must be an accidental or inadequate organization of power. It cannot be “self-sufficing.”…

This recognition of a world community by Saint Augustine, in his intense concern for peace, has a parallel in Saint Thomas. The exigencies of peace brought him to regard the kingdom, a larger political entity than the city, as a more perfect community than the city. In his Commentary on the Sentences, Saint Thomas goes on to the whole world. He says, “… . and between a single bishop and the Pope there are other grades of dignities corresponding to the grades of unions insofar as one congregation or community includes another one, as the community of a province includes the community of the city, and the community of the kingdom includes the community of the province, and the community of the whole world includes the community of a kingdom.”…

Because of the fallen state of human nature divine law and natural law are not enough to produce the unity of peace. Political organization requires positive law. The political organization of the world community would require positive law on a world scale. It would require legislative, judicial, and executive organs to adopt, declare, and enforce the positive law of the world. This law would be necessary to regulate and control the sovereigns of extant states, who are exempt from the operation of the positive law of their states and who cannot be regulated and controlled by divine and natural law alone. These extant states, in the absence of positive law of the world, may be expected to act toward one another as individuals may be expected to act in the absence of positive law; they may be expected to break the peace…

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother, I am aware that at the end of this post you have expressed that you think we have exhausted this subject, and I respect your decision if you wish to move on, but I really believe a thorough exploration of commonalities between our “expressions” and “concepts” will provide such significant advancement in Baha’i and Catholic dialogue.

These citations that you are providing are likely little known by a large populace of the Catholic community, citations ranging from Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament to Saint Columba and Saint Bonaventure. These assist in a closer relationship between Baha’is and Catholics and may assist for a greater collaboration between its adherents.

Isn’t that something worth sifting through this subject exhaustively?

It is not “manifested” in the sense of being something that the human can consciously comprehend and know through created things. It is universally present and encompasses all creation, namely because God is fully present holding the essences of His creatures in existence.

this is an area of learning for me, and for Baha’is in general

Maybe the word “manifest” was not correct for our shared understanding. Maybe “expressed” is a better word, I don’t know, but you can help me here

Remember in Fr. Barron’s video where he talked about Contingency etc? This is a way in which God’s attributes (only His relative/active attributes) are expressed in Creation, the way in which we can “see God’s back,” as it were…

So, for example, we see one of the active attributes of God is the All-Powerful, and this is manifested or expressed in the power of the lion or the power of a volcano, the All-Loving is manifested or expressed in the way plants are “drawn” to the sun, or how a mother loves her child.

This is why I think there is a difference between Gods absolute attributes and His relative/active attributes.

The relative attributes “DO SOMETHING” within Creation, and to some degree are seen within it, whereas the absolute attributes surround Creation.

The Surrounder does not enter the realm of the surrounded. God’s essence does not become “part” of Creation, but surrounds it, embraces it, and reaps its love into it through His active/relative attributes.

All of the essential attributes of God, including his aseity or self-existence, can be known by natural reason and so are to that end “evident” from creation. For example by means of our created intellect and by considering the order in the universe we can arrive by means of natural logic unaided by revelation to deduce God’s Self-Existence as the Unmoved Mover.

Yes brother, I understand that we can know of His aseity, and can deduce it by natural reason, of course

…but can His asiety be “expressed” within Creation, like His power and love are expressed?

Personally I think we should move on from the attributes/perfections of God. There are SO many more subjects we could focus on

I think we have exhausted this subject

However you wish dear brother and loved one, I am happy to explore any and all. But I do enjoy a thorough exploration, with “precision and clarity”, two very important qualities within the Baha’i Faith.

Baha’u’llah has stated categorically that He wants His adherents to “finish what they have started with excellence” (a bit of a paraphrase) but I strive to find completion in the subjects I explore

God bless you!

.

 

[Servant19]

An interview between Hudon Maxim (the greatest miltary inventor of all time) and Abdu’l-Baha. All “60 minutes” interviews should look like this. It just oozes drama:

Hudson Maxim was the inventor of sufficient explosives as to “blow up all the navies of the earth out of the water and start them well on their way to the moon” (NY Times). He had heard that there was a man by the name of Abdu’l-Baha who was in New York in 1912 who was the “prophet of peace” and requested to meet with him to discuss the benefits of modern warfare (lol drama) (this is not the whole interview, just interesting Q&A handpicked by me):

Maxim: “I understand you are a messenger of peace to this country, what is your opinion of modern war?”

Abdu’l-Baha: “Everything that prevents war is good.”

Maxim: “Do you consider the next great national war necessary?” (WW1)

Abdu’l-Baha: “Why not try peace for awhile? If we find war is better it will not be difficult to fight again…"

Maxim: “Less men are killed in war in a year now than are killed by our industries through preventable accidents.”

Abdu’l-Baha: “War is THE most preventable accident”

And so it continued, with Maxim talking about how conflict is natural and good for human progress…basically he just DID NOT get it…

Abdu’l-Baha finished the interview thus:
"The greatest intelligence of man is being expended in the direction of killing his fellow-man. The discovery of high explosives, perfecting of death-dealing weapons of war, the science of military attack, all this is a wonderful manifestation of human intelligence; but it is in the wrong direction. You are a celebrated inventor and scientific expert whose energies and faculties are employed in the production of means for human destruction. Your name has become famous in the science of war. Now you have the opportunity of becoming doubly famous. You must practice the science of peace. You must expend your energies and intelligence in a contrary direction. You must discover the means of peace; invent guns of love which shall shake the foundations of humanity.

The guns you are now building cause the death of man; you must build guns which will be the cause of life to humanity. Henceforth your life and energy should be given to this blessed purpose. You must work and experiment along this line. This work and accomplishment will be more wonderful than all you have done heretofore. Then it will be said by the people of the world, this is Mr. Maxim, inventor of the guns of war, discoverer of high explosives, military scientist, who has also discovered and invented means for increasing the life and love of man; who has put an end to the strife of nations and uprooted the tree of war. This will be the most wonderful accomplishment of any human being. Your name will glow with mention throughout the history of ages and ages. Then will your life become pregnant and productive with really great results. Consider this: the inventor of high explosives has discovered the means of universal peace; an active worker in the science of war has become a factor in the assembly of love! Then will your name be recorded in the pages of history with a pen of gold. No man in history will equal you in fame and greatness. You will be doubly renowned. God will be pleased with you and from every standpoint of estimation you will be a perfect man."

Dear Brother Vouthon,

What do you think is the difference between the Baha’i processes to bring about a unity of nations and the Catholic citations (which are all wonderful btw ) which you have posted above?



.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Brother Vouthon,

What do you think is the difference between the Baha’i processes to bring about a unity of nations and the Catholic citations (which are all wonderful btw ) which you have posted above?

Bless you Servant, thank you for that excellent quote from Abdu’l-Baha. I am quite sure that Huron must have had much to think about after

I will reply to your comments about the attributes a little later today, I’d like to focus somewhat on social doctrine, because I think there is much here that Catholics and Baha’is - if they are both made aware of their respective teachings in their entirety - can cooperate on together. Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity with a very developed group of social teaching, so I think we should take the opportunity offered by this anomaly

The First World War is an excellent place to start, namely because resulting from it President Woodrow Wilson formulated the world’s first supranational organisation, the League of Nations.

Abdu’l-Baha predicted and tried to warn Europeans about the advent of this war. During the conflict, I believe he said this:

reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAB/sab-203.html

Ye observe how the world is divided against itself, how many a land is red with blood and its very dust is caked with human gore. The fires of conflict have blazed so high that never in early times, not in the Middle Ages, not in recent centuries hath there ever been such a hideous war, a war that is even as millstones, taking for grain the skulls of men. Nay, even worse, for flourishing countries have been reduced to rubble, cities have been levelled with the ground, and many a once prosperous village hath been turned into ruin. Fathers have lost their sons, and sons their fathers. Mothers have wept away their hearts over dead children. Children have been orphaned, women left to wander, vagrants without a home. From every aspect, humankind hath sunken low. Loud are the piercing cries of fatherless children; loud the mothers’ anguished voices, reaching to the skies.

And the breeding-ground of all these tragedies is prejudice: prejudice of race and nation, of religion, of political opinion; and the root cause of prejudice is blind imitation of the past—imitation in religion, in racial attitudes, in national bias, in politics. So long as this aping of the past persisteth, just so long will the foundations of the social order be blown to the four winds, just so long will humanity be continually exposed to direst peril.

I love that analogy with “grain”, it just hits home the reality of the slaughter of the Great War. Abdu’l-Baha draws attention firstly too the negative results of the conflict - children orphaned, families dispossessed, cities reduced to rubble, the deaths of millions of young men - before tackling the causes which he situates in the growth of “national prejudice” and “aping of the past”.

When we discuss a new international order, before we discuss institutions, we should refer to the virtues and the inner changes that must take place to decrease the advent of war.

The Pope of the First World War, Benedict XV, spoke in 1914 in a manner remarkably similar to Abdu’l-Baha in an official encyclical:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Beatissimi_Apostolorum

Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum is an encyclical of Pope Benedict XV given at St. Peter’s, Rome, on the Feast of All Saints on November 1, 1914, in the first year of his Pontificate. The first encyclical written by Pope Benedict XV coincided with the beginning of First World War, which he labelled "the Suicide of Civilized Europe".

 

[Vouthon]

Here is a link to the encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html

But as soon as we were able from the height of Apostolic dignity to survey at a glance the course of human affairs, our eyes were met by the sad conditions of human society, and we could not but be filled with bitter sorrow. For what could prevent the soul of the common Father of all being most deeply distressed by the spectacle presented by Europe, nay, by the whole world, perhaps the saddest and most mournful spectacle of which there is any record. Certainly those days would seem to have come upon us of which Christ Our Lord foretold: “You shall hear of wars and rumours of wars - for nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matt. xxiv, 6, 7). On every side the dread phantom of war holds sway: there is scarce room for another thought in the minds of men. The combatants are the greatest and wealthiest nations of the earth; what wonder, then, if, well provided with the most awful weapons modern military science has devised, they strive to destroy one another with refinements of horror. There is no limit to the measure of ruin and of slaughter; day by day the earth is drenched with newly-shed blood, and is covered with the bodies of the wounded and of the slain. Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human society? Who would recognize brothers, whose Father is in Heaven? Yet, while with numberless troops the furious battle is engaged, the sad cohorts of war, sorrow and distress swoop down upon every city and every home; day by day the mighty number of widows and orphans increases, and with the interruption of communications, trade is at a standstill; agriculture is abandoned; the arts are reduced to inactivity; the wealthy are in difficulties; the poor are reduced to abject misery; all are in distress…

But it is not the present sanguinary strife alone that distresses the nations and fills Us with anxiety and care. There is another evil raging in the very inmost heart of human society, a source of dread to all who really think, inasmuch as it has already brought, and will bring, many misfortunes upon nations, and may rightly be considered to be the root cause of the present awful war. For ever since the precepts and practices of Christian wisdom ceased to be observed in the ruling of states, it followed that, as they contained the peace and stability of institutions, the very foundations of states necessarily began to be shaken. Such, moreover, has been the change in the ideas and the morals of men, that unless God comes soon to our help, the end of civilization would seem to be at hand. Thus we see the absence from the relation of men of mutual love with their fellow men; the authority of rulers is held in contempt; injustice reigns in relations between the classes of society; the striving for transient and perishable things is so keen, that men have lost sight of the other and more worthy goods they have to obtain. It is under these four headings that may be grouped, We consider, the causes of the serious unrest pervading the whole of human society. All then must combine to get rid of them by again bringing Christian principles into honour, if We have any real desire for the peace and harmony of human society.

Our Lord Jesus Christ came down from Heaven for the very purpose of restoring amongst men the Kingdom of Peace, which the envy of the devil had destroyed, and it was His will that it should rest on no other foundation than that of brotherly love…

Far different from this is the behaviour of men today. Never perhaps was there more talking about the brotherhood of men than there is today; in fact, men do not hesitate to proclaim that striving after brotherhood is one of the greatest gifts of modern civilization, ignoring the teaching of the Gospel, and setting aside the work of Christ and of His Church. But in reality never was there less brotherly activity amongst men than at the present moment. Race hatred has reached its climax; peoples are more divided by jealousies than by frontiers; within one and the same nation, within the same city there rages the burning envy of class against class; and amongst individuals it is self-love which is the supreme law over-ruling everything.

You see, Venerable Brethren, how necessary it is to strive in every possible way that the charity of Jesus Christ should once more rule supreme amongst men. That will ever be our own aim; that will be the keynote of Our Pontificate

 

[Vouthon]

See this also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV

Between 1846 and 1903, the Catholic Church had experienced its two longest pontificates in history up to that point. Together Pius IX and Leo XIII ruled for 57 years. In 1914, the College of Cardinals chose Della Chiesa at the young age of 59, indicating their desire for another long-lasting pontificate at the outbreak of World War I, which he labeled “the suicide of civilized Europe.”[3] The war and its consequences were the main focus of Benedict XV. He declared the neutrality of the Holy See and attempted from that perspective to mediate peace in 1916 and 1917. Both sides rejected his initiatives. German Protestants rejected any “Papal Peace” as insulting. The French politician Georges Clemenceau regarded the Vatican initiative as anti-French.[4]…

Having failed with diplomatic initiatives, Benedict XV focused on humanitarian efforts to lessen the impacts of the war, such as attending prisoners of war, the exchange of wounded soldiers and food deliveries to needy populations in Europe. After the war, he repaired the difficult relations with France, which re-established relations with the Vatican in 1921. During his pontificate, relations with Italy improved as well, as Benedict XV now permitted Catholic politicians led by Don Luigi Sturzo to participate in national Italian politics…

**On 1 August 1917, Benedict issued a seven point peace plan stating that (1) “the moral force of right … be substituted for the material force of arms,” (2) there must be “simultaneous and reciprocal diminution of armaments,” (3) a mechanism for “international arbitration” must be established," (4) “true liberty and common rights over the sea” should exist, (5) there should be a “renunciation of war indemnities,” (6) occupied territories should be evacuated, and (7) there should be “an examination … of rival claims.” **Great Britain reacted favorably, but United States President Woodrow Wilson rejected the plan. Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary were also favorable, but Germany replied ambiguously.[27][28] Benedict also called for outlawing conscription,[29] a call he repeated in 1921.[30] Some of the proposals eventually were included in Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points call for peace in January 1918.[26][31]

In Europe, each side saw him as biased in favor of the other and was unwilling to accept the terms he proposed. Still, although unsuccessful, his diplomatic efforts during the war are attributed to an increase of papal prestige and served as a model in the 20th century to the peace efforts of Pius XII before and during World War II, the policies of Paul VI during the Vietnam War and the position of John Paul II before and during the War in Iraq.[26]

Humanitarian efforts

Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli delivers packages from Benedict XV to Italian POWs in 1917
Almost from the beginning of the war, November 1914, Benedict negotiated with the warring parties about an exchange of wounded and other prisoners of war who were unable to continue fighting. Tens of thousands of such prisoners were exchanged through the intervention of Benedict XV.[25] On 15 January 1915, the Pope proposed an exchange of civilians from the occupied zones, which resulted in 20,000 persons being sent to unoccupied Southern France in one month.[25] In 1916, the Pope managed to hammer out an agreement between both sides, by which 29,000 prisoners with lung disease from the gas attacks could be sent into Switzerland.[32] In May 1918, he also reached agreement that prisoners on both sides with at least 18 months of captivity and four children at home would also be sent to neutral Switzerland.[25]

He succeeded in 1915 in reaching an agreement by which the warring parties promised not to let Prisoners of War (POWs) work on Sundays and holidays. Several individuals on both sides were spared the death penalty after his intervention. Hostages were exchanged and corpses repatriated.[25] The Pope founded the Opera dei Prigionieri to assist in distributing information on prisoners. By the end of the war, some 600,000 items of correspondence were processed. Almost a third of it concerned missing persons. Some 40,000 people had asked for help in the repatriation of sick POWs and 50,000 letters were sent from families to their loved ones who were POWs.[33]

Both during and after the war, Benedict was primarily concerned about the fate of the children, about which he even issued an encyclical. In 1916 he appealed to the people and clergy of the United States to help him feed the starving children in German-occupied Belgium. His aid to children was not limited to Belgium but extended to children in Lithuania, Poland, Lebanon, Montenegro, Syria and Russia.[34] Benedict was particularly appalled at the new military invention of aerial warfare and protested several times against it to no avail.[35]

In May and June 1915, the Ottoman Empire waged a campaign against the Armenian Christian minorities, which by some contemporary accounts looked like genocide or even a holocaust in Anatolia. The Vatican attempted to get Germany and Austria–Hungary involved in protesting to its Turkish ally. The Pope himself sent a personal letter to the Sultan, who was also Caliph of Islam. It had no success, “as over a million Armenians died, either killed outright by the Turks, or as a result of maltreatment or from starvation."…

Benedict XV was unique in his humane approach to the world in 1914–1918, which starkly contrasted with that of the other great monarchs and leaders of the time. His worth is reflected in the tribute engraved at the foot of the statue that the Turks, a non-Catholic, non-Christian people, erected of him in Istanbul: “The great Pope of the world tragedy…the benefactor of all people, irrespective of nationality or religion.” This monument stands in the courtyard of the St. Esprit Cathedral.