The Bahai Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewsTheMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(continued from above…)

I feel therefore that what you really meant to ask was: **Why do Catholics not accept Baha’u’llah as what he claimed to be, the Second Coming of Christ? **

Well there are many points of diversion between Catholics and Baha’is - as well as a lot of commonality - and I have found in my life that many people are simultaenously attracted to both religions because of their similarities, however to express it simply I will refer to another Vatican II document:

“The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Verbum Dei, n.4).

Catholics should seek harmony with the people of Bahá and it is my sincere hope that we work together to promote religious tolerance, human rights and a better future for our planet.

However Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah has brought a new revelation to mankind, which abrogates and progressively “updates” that of Christ’s, which is not compatible with Catholic dogma. The fullness and completion of Divine revelation, for us Catholics, came through the Incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God when he came into the world as man to redeem us, and to bring to completion the divine plan of salvation and revelation. The message that Christ brought to mankind brings an end to public revelation - that is scripture-bearing, new, religion-forming revelation. Private revelation still continues and since the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was poured out upon all of humankind, “all flesh” as the Bible says and so cannot be said to be limited to Christians, it is possible that Baha’u’llah or Abdu’l-Baha or the Bab could have received some measure of inspiration from God by private means such that the Baha’i Faith does have much in it that is true and of God. Nonetheless we cannot accept these men as bearers of revelations which supersede that of Christ Jesus’ and therefore we cannot accept them as Prophets in the biblical sense, although they may have been inspired by God or by their Guardian Angel to a lesser or greater extent in certain areas. The Holy Spirit no longer speaks through one man as he did in biblical times - since Pentecost we are all Temples of the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ was the last and true Temple “where all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” in the words of the Holy apostle Paul.
 
To conclude…

Although Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha or the Bab may or may not have been inspired by God to a lesser or greater extent in certain areas - any private inspiration which these men might have experienced, no matter how truthful, Godly, noble and worthy of respect and even admiation from Catholics does not count for us as a new public revelation from God because the fullness of revelation was already made manifest in Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father. It could be consider, if so determined, as being helpful in illuminating certain aspects of the Christian dispensation preserved in the Bible and Sacred Tradition but it does not in anyway abrogate, superscede or further augment the eternal, unalterable Revelation of the Church which is definitive and for all time.

Once God himself has become man in Christ, what need is there for any new, progressive revelations?

Finally, it should be noted - as already above - that the Holy Spirit no longer speaks through one man as he did in biblical times - since Pentecost we are all Temples of the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ was the last and true Temple “where all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” in the words of the Holy apostle Paul.

Thus Baha’u’llah’s claim to be a Manifestation of God, to have received a unique revelation from the Holy Spirit which cannot be received by any other human being, is not compatible with Catholic dogma.

In conclusion we Catholics love, cherish and respect everything that is compatible in the Baha’i Faith with Christianity and we understand and respect the differences between our two faiths.

May Christ be with you all! 👍
 
Vouthon wrote:

Although Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha or the Bab may or may not have been inspired by God to a lesser or greater extent in certain areas - any private inspiration which these men might have experienced, no matter how truthful, Godly, noble and worthy of respect and even admiation from Catholics does not count for us as a new public revelation from God because the fullness of revelation was already made manifest in Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father.

My comment:

Thanks for your comments and of course I respect that this is a Catholic Forum and in no way am I here to proselytize my Faith… I appreciate your willingness to recognize that Baha’u’llah and the Bab “…may or may not have been inspired by God to a lesser or greater extent in certain areas”.

Both the Bab and Baha’u’llah are viewed by us as Manifestations of God and made public what was revealed to Them so in that since there was “public revelation”. Baha’u’llah Himself addressed Tablets to the rulers between 1868 and 1871 while imprisoned by the Ottoman Sultan in Akka.

Also probably a unique feature of the Baha’i Faith is the recognition of the Gospels and that passages are accepted as a scripture in our Faith as is the Qur’an.

Abdul-Baha was not a Manifestation of God but was the recognized Successor of His Father and the authorized Interpreter of the Baha’i Writings.

The anniversary of the Martyrdom of the Bab is this coming Saturday July the Ninth at noon. Baha’is around the world gather for prayers on this solemn occasion.
 
We do not regard other religions as false, we simply diverge with them on certain principles and beliefs. We respect their differences and hope that they will likewise respect ours, but no Pope of the last two centuries has ever to my mind called another religion false.
Click to expand...
This makes absolutely no sense. If another religion isn’t*** false***, then it is true, and if*** that ***religion is true, then why be Catholic? I’m all for interfaith dialogue, co-operation and world peace, but we better be cautious that we don’t compromise our belief in the only way to God and salvation through Jesus Christ and The Church He founded. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Holy Father speak about this, clarifying what authentic interfaith dialogue is? When I find it, I’ll post a link to it. Thanks.

-Chris
 
Amen I agree completely! 🙂

Because ALL world religions and cultures contain truth, I do believe that we can call any “false”. All religions contain a part of the “ray of light”, they contain elements of revealed truth and according to Holy Mother Church we cannot reject anything good or true in them but should embrace them.

This is a “grey” issue, not “black or white”.

Read what Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa said on this in the 1400s:

"…Mystic, theologian and cardinal, Nicholas found that the insane war between Christians and Muslim were caused by prejudices and misconceptions about each other and the tendencies to assert one’s own religion as the absolute norm for all others…For Nicholas, the Divine is “absolute mystery, incomprehensibly intelligible and named without names.” Hence, no religion is absolute in the sense that it could claim to have comprehended the Divine fully; every religion contains elements of revelation and hence each religion has to be understood in relation with the others. Each is in everything. As finite beings we have access to the Divine not through “proud pursuit of the reason” but in humility and intuitive perception in which a “learned ignorance (docta ignorantia) enlightens our mind. “One is more learned the more one has become aware that one is ignorant.” Then we realise that we cannot comprehend God in our logical categories, but we can only become aware of God’s all pervasive presence through a mystical insight into the deep “harmony of all things”: the entire creation is the “mirror of God” (speculum Dei). Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God. (explicatio Dei). God is therefore “the radical unity of the opposites” (coincidentia oppositorum). “In God, absolute unity is absolute multiplicity, absolute identity is absolute diversity; absolute actuality is absolute potentiality” (Docta Ignorantia, 1932, pp. 1,5,21,50,74). With this mystical vision Nicholas wanted to open the perspectives of Christian theology to the universality of God’s plan of salvation and help the Christians be more tolerant of the believers of other religions. He prayed: “It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious rites.” (De Pace, 1956, p. 15)…"
 
Before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In this role, he issued, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, a document called Dominus Iesus. This document asserts the supremacy of the Catholic Church, while reiterating the Catholic Church’s acceptance of “anonymous Christianity”:

**"…Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors’.” Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain (I, 8).

Theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God’s salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “The unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source” (III, 14)…"**
 
As yet the only official document realeased by any section of the Catholic Church on the Baha’i Faith specifically, has been a leaflet produced by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in which Baha’is are highly praised and the Faith held up as an example of, “a higher loyalty to humankind”. The holy man called by Baha’is “Abdu’l-Baha”, is given particular praise in this document, which says “he continues to be a light to all”, or something along those lines. So we appear, as Catholics, to have a very positive view of this religion.

No official stance has been taken on “Baha’u’llah” to quote and paraphrase Pope Benedict, so as to determine, “**if and in what way the historical figure [Baha’u’llah] and positive elements of the [Baha’i] religion may fall within the divine plan of salvation”. **

It is for this reason that I said above, “Baha’u’llah and the Bab may or may not have been inspired by God to a lesser or greater extent in certain areas”.

Certainly Christ has implanted some seeds of Truth in this religion, and given my understanding of it, a substantial amount pariticularly in terms of “moral truth”.

Islam has already been mentioned in the context of “positive elements” in Nostra Aetate, as has Buddhism and Hinduism and the Baha’i Faith indirectly when the Church refers to “religions everywhere”. However no clear statements have as yet been made on Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna/Rama, Baha’u’llah etc. Ovbviously Pope Benedict XVI anticipates a day when Holy Mother Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, will definetly declare how Baha’u’llah or any other religious founder “falls within the divine plan of salvation”. We can conclude that the Baha’i Faith has much in it that is “divinely inspired” from the “Mystery of christ” himself, as Nostra Aetate and Dominus tells us, and so to this end Baha’u’llah and the Bab must have been “inspired” in certain areas. I would certainly posit that the religion they helped found has certainly increased the rights of many people within Islamic Iran. A particularly notable Babi woman, named Tahirih, became a martyr for the “Babi” Faith in the 19th century, calling for the emancipation of woman. This clearly must be inspired by God, I would suggest.

Somehow the “Baha’i Faith”, despite theological errors and untruths, must be part of God’s plan of salvation - I expect most significantly for people in Islamic countries where the religion was born. It is up to Holy Mother Church to determine God’s plan in allowing the Baha’i Faith to flourish and in “planting” divinely inspired seeds of Truth in it which bring joy to millions of human beings.

The Church is still to rule on these matters and Catholics are free to speculate where these men lie in the “divine plan”. What is a revealed truth: Is that ALL religions, including the Baha’i Faith, have a measure of divine inspiration implanted by Christ himself, and teach many good and holy things which Catholics are told not to reject but to embrace in a spirit of goodwill.

Unlike most Evangelical Protestants, we Catholics are told not to simply condemn and call the founders of other religions “false”. 😉

Elements of these religions, the parts not compatible with Catholicism, are NOT inspired. But the elements that ARE, MUST be inspired.

We should also remember that this religion was born in Islamic Iran. Its founders probably did not have much direct interaction with Christian theology. To this end, it is to be expected that God might use them - without them becoming Christians because they obviously probably could not in the context have known much about Christianity - to advance his cause in the Islamic world.
 
Vouthon, the problem with everything in your response is that it makes us Catholics look as if we are religious relativists, as if we condone the misguided notion that all religions, since true, or containing elements of truth, lead to God and salvation, and if that were true, then why did Jesus sacrifice Himself on the cross? And why did He found The Church? And why did He tell His disciples to go preach to and baptize all nations, if the religions already practiced in those nations are just fine?

I do believe that other religions contain elements of truth, but some of those “truths” have been plagiarized from Judaism and christianity, and even if the “truths” they contain are original and maybe (and that’s a big maybe) revealed for some reason by God, the over-all religion is still false. This is not to sow seeds of discourse or hatred: I am sure that there are followers of other religions who believe that Catholicism is false (in fact I know some personally), and I am fine with that. That does not offend me. On the contrary, I admire their zeal and guts for defending their deeply-held beliefs.

We need to be careful that our religious tolerance doesn’t turn into religious relativism and realize that our ultimate goal in any interfaith dialogue is to fulfill the mandate and mission, no, command, given by Jesus to preach the Gospel to all nations and attempt to bring those people to Him and salvation through The Church He founded… We should never say, “All religions are true.” As Christians, we are suppose to know that they are not. Remember in Revelation where Jesus says the Church in Pergamum resides where the throne of satan was? From history and archaeology (and from notes in the Catholic Bible I have) we know He was talking about Zeus who had a temple there, and thus the Greek religion of that time (what we now call “mythology”) was definitely considered*** false ***by God. Satan is translated as adversary, thus any system that is opposed to the truth of God and the Gospel is the adversary, satan, not of God. That is not to say they are evil or contain only falsehoods, because again, the word satan literally means adversary, the term in and of itself does not denote anything immoral or evil. It just means in opposition to or competition with God. Other religions may have some “truths,” but over-all they are still false and in opposition to and in competition with God and the full truth of Christianity.

We should never compromise our beliefs, even for so-called “world peace,” (which can never be achieved without Jesus anyways). And, in the same way, I don’t expect followers and leaders of other religions to compromise*** their ***beliefs, though I do pray that the Holy Spirit eventually leads them to Christ and Catholicism.

-Chris
 
Dear Comforte 🙂

I well understand your concern, dear brother. At a time when Pope Benedict XVI, in his role as teacher of Christians and pastor of the Universal Church, is warning against “the dictatorship of relativism” as the most troublesome enemy that the Church will have to face in the 21st century, I am certainly not advocating - in ANY way - religious relativism, even if it appears so. Interfaith dialogue cannot go, “too” far - and I am aware of this, I have the Catholic Church to tell me where the voundaries lie and if I have transgressed too far.

That said, I affirm the SUPERIORITY of Christianity in every way over every other religion, and in particular the Catholic Church. We posses the “fullest” truth out of all the religions in the world, because we have God incarnate in the flesh. However even we have not FULLY COMPREHENDED God, and so in this way we are not to think of ourselves as “above” other religions, although we do posses the “fullness of Truth” that God has revealed to humanity. But even our own faith does not contain all possible truth but rather all those truths revealed to us by God.

Nevertheless, I still refuse to call other religions “false”. Mystically, they are part of God’s ultimate plan to bring all to Christ and to his Church in heaven. They do not constitute “another” way. There is only one way to God - THROUGH Christ but God is not limited to “saving” people. Somehow the “mystery” of Christ, according to Pope Benedict XVI, is present in these other religions - even in their Sacred Books! - and so THROUGH Christ they may also take part in salvation, through a means we can not understand because it is known only to God.

This does not mean we should not try and teach people the truth of Christ - it gives us more impetus! Christ fulfils - FILLS FULL - and completes all that is good and true in any religion.

See my post in this thread, where I quote from the Book of Acts and other sources to demonstrate this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=565477&page=46

Pope Benedict XVI said (once more as Cardinal Ratzinger and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith):

“With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.” (VI, 21)

We do not know how God does this, but he does and somehow it is linked to the seeds of truth and the divinely inspired things that these religions have received directly from the “Mystery of Christ” himself. The Bible tells us that since Pentecost the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon, “ALL flesh”. Not just Christians!

Thus in the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, it is stated:

“Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.”
 
I think I got you, Vouthon. And thank you. And I love that quote by St. Augustine at the bottum of your post. I believe the same thing. However, I believe, as St. Augustine did, that christianity is the fulfillment of the truth that was only partially revealed by God to “the ancients” who probably misunderstood it, thus any religion that developed after the advent of christianity is, to me, suspect of being influenced by it and/or by other already existing belief systems, which is why some of its teachings are similar to Catholicism.

However, believing that non-christians before the advent of christianity were exposed to God’s truth in a partial way and/or misunderstood it does contradict Scripture, both OT and NT, which insinuates that Satan was behind those faiths, using its similarities or “elements of truth” as a way to confuse people and dupe them into those religions, and therfore rejecting God and His full truth. Jesus certainly did not think that the worship of Zeus contained an “element of truth,” or was part of his revelation and slavific plan, on the contrary, He called Zeus “satan” (adversary). Yet, as pointed out above, I do believe as you, and more importantly, as the Pope and Magisterium does on this matter, but I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two opinions. I know we Catholics don’t believe in Bible alone, yet I also know that both Tradition and Scripture ***compliments each other ***and does not contradict each other, and I also know that many early Church Fathers and Doctors (like Justin Martyr) have aslo held the same differing views on the matter. How to reconcile this?

-Chris
 
Please disreguard the post I accidentally made before this one.

I think I got you, Vouthon. And thank you. And I love that quote by St. Augustine at the bottum of your post. I believe the same thing. However, I believe, as St. Augustine did, that christianity is the fulfillment of the truth that was only partially revealed by God to “the ancients” who probably misunderstood it, thus any religion that developed after the advent of christianity is, to me, suspect of being influenced by it and/or by other already existing belief systems, which is why some of its teachings are similar to Catholicism.

However, believing that non-christians before the advent of christianity were exposed to God’s truth in a partial way and/or misunderstood it does contradict Scripture, both OT and NT, which insinuates that Satan was behind those faiths, using its similarities or “elements of truth” as a way to confuse people and dupe them into those religions, and therefore rejecting God and His full truth. Jesus certainly did not think that the worship of Zeus contained an “element of truth,” or was part of his revelation and slavific plan, on the contrary, He called Zeus “satan” (adversary). Yet, as pointed out above, I do believe as you, and more importantly, as the Pope and Magisterium does on this matter, but I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two opinions. I know we Catholics don’t believe in Bible alone, yet I also know that both Tradition and Scripture ***compliments each other ***and does not contradict each other, and I also know that many early Church Fathers and Doctors (like Justin Martyr) have aslo held the same differing views on the matter. How to reconcile this?

But you did allay my concerns that The Church was becoming* relativist.* I should know that that could never happen, as Jesus promised The Church would never teach error and would never fail. I just fear that even religious tolerance, when taken too far or just misunderstood, could lead to The Church and/or its members losing our evangelical zeal and getting lazy about trying to spread the Gospel. But again, I should know that, on the part of our Church leaders anyways, that can’t happen. Thanks again.

-Chris
 
I know I am going a little off topic, so I’ll start a new thread.
 
WTSherman said:
Catholic faith does not go out of its way to offend other religions.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. You don’t, and many of the modern clerics don’t, but the Church has always condemned (to some or large degree) any faith contrary to Catholicism.

Read the life of St. Francis Xavier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top