Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Administration

Baha'i Administration Baha'i administrative order


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2011, 05:04 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
No I am afraid not and you do not understand infallibility as it is used in Bahai. Not even Bahai councils have it it is a very specific bounty from God. Most of Christs apostles probably didnt have it as it usually is possessed only by prophets. In any case the only Bahai institution which Baha'u'llah says has it is the universal house of Justice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Why would God ever allow someone to fall into error? Does God like to have his people fall away from him? No of course not. God loves all humanity. But the council is to be regarded I believe as infallible because it was committed by all of Christian leadership The bishops and they had direct apostolic succession. the Authority of the Bishop is discussed time and time again in the writings of the fathers, but I might point to the example of the council of Jeruselum whose commands had to be followed. Might we rule this council as infallible? Remember the apostles were not only kept to gether but they had the authority to bind and loose.
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 01-19-2011, 05:07 PM   #42
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
You have shown no such thing from a philosophical logical perspective the trinity is flawed. I could not defend it philosophically as the thomist could, but I believe I have done it justice. And lord you ignore all the argumentation I have made in order to just dismiss it. If your bahai councils or whatever you might call them can be called fallable, if the authority of the Bishop can be found as true within Christainity and we find a basis for a council in Christianity (council of Jeruselum) then you must submit that such a council if infallible and must be believed.

I would reccomend this youtuber's Account when it comes to talking of the philosophy of logic.

YouTube - Theologica37's Channel
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:09 PM   #43
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Infallibility has a definition Lord of Goblins, absolute and unchangable. If the rulings of the Bahai council of universal justice are anything but this, then it is improper to call it infallible and I will dismiss my argument.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:15 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
There is no succession because Jesus never left a successor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
You have shown no such thing from a philosophical logical perspective the trinity is flawed. I could not defend it philosophically as the thomist could, but I believe I have done it justice. And lord you ignore all the argumentation I have made in order to just dismiss it. If your bahai councils or whatever you might call them can be called fallable, if the authority of the Bishop can be found as true within Christainity and we find a basis for a council in Christianity (council of Jeruselum) then you must submit that such a council if infallible and must be believed.

I would reccomend this youtuber's Account when it comes to talking of the philosophy of logic.

YouTube - Theologica37's Channel
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:17 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
You are incorrect. Moses laws were infallible and yet Jesus changed the Sabath day. Please acknowledge you are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Infallibility has a definition Lord of Goblins, absolute and unchangable. If the rulings of the Bahai council of universal justice are anything but this, then it is improper to call it infallible and I will dismiss my argument.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:24 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
whine of astonsihment's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 378
I'm sure ralph who started this thread about 'women and the Universal House of Justice' is really appreciating the way orthodox is continually and repeatedly allowed to hijack this and any other threads he chooses to his "same-old same-old" handful of faves like 'authenticity via historicity' and visa versa, the trinity, the resurrection, general insults of Baha'u'llah and the faith, etc. over and over again. I'm sure ralph can hardly wait to participate again....
While I suppose it's just my own personal deficiency in the virtue of 'long suffering patience' that is to blame for this feeling more like the drip ... drip ... drip of Chinese water torture and impending death by boredom, I can't help but speak up now and again to ask "WHY?"
As I woman I have learned the hard way that failure to set proper 'boundaries' and reinforce their observance, whether it's the terms of reference of a discussion, or a relationship, social, personal or professional, usually results in a 'violation' of one kind or another.
So what is the problem here folks and can we expect a resolution before the advent of the next Manifestation of God?
Is there a magic # of orthodox posts after which we can say 'enough already' without being accused of (God forbid!) "intolerance" and simply quote Abdul-Baha's "You try your way and I'll try mine."?
Or is their some weird kind of 'codependent need to debate' that I somehow fail to appreciate - being that I'm only a woman of course!
Just a thought....
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:27 PM   #47
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Jesus did Not change teh sabbath, he fulfilled it. the Law still stands. Now please define Infallible. Because typically it means, unchangable, absolute. I dunno you might wanna use a different word.

And your right Jesus left no successor but he did leave us apostles whom he gave authority. Please read all my posts.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:30 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
Clearly you have learnt nothing of my explanations on relative truth then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Jesus did Not change teh sabbath, he fulfilled it. the Law still stands. Now please define Infallible. Because typically it means, unchangable, absolute. I dunno you might wanna use a different word.

And your right Jesus left no successor but he did leave us apostles whom he gave authority. Please read all my posts.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:32 PM   #49
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
I have learnt, I merely dissagree with it as relativism is not logically coherrent. But that is another discussion for another day.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:32 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
Lol think about what your saying. Was the Sabath day changed or not? How can it be if the church is infallible? Was moses Infallible why was the day changed?
Ok yes so Abdul'Baha fulfilled the trinity too by getting rid of your flawed understandings of Gods dividedeness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Jesus did Not change teh sabbath, he fulfilled it. the Law still stands. Now please define Infallible. Because typically it means, unchangable, absolute. I dunno you might wanna use a different word.

And your right Jesus left no successor but he did leave us apostles whom he gave authority. Please read all my posts.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:36 PM   #51
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Not at all. It was rather replaced with the Lord's day, which was the day Christians have historically gathered. The sabbath was not the primary day of Christian worship, but instead the sunday was. It was not changed.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:38 PM   #52
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Now Abdul did not fulfill the trinity he completely threw it out of the water and rewrote to suite his own views. That being said you obviously don't understand infallibility within the orthodox framework. Moses was infallible so long as what he said came from God. The Bishops are infallible so much as that gather in council and their will is of God (which we are assured of in scripture).
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:39 PM   #53
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
I would argue the sabbath is still the same, however it has become irrelevent with the new covanent and does not apply to Christians, since we have the Lord' day. Much like St Ignatius said.

Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:41 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
It is an unacceptable definition. The reason is because clearly they made that definition so your priests can make their councils and claim their religion cannot be superceded. Nowhere however did Jesus claim they posses that power or station. It is a divine bounty from God I have already explained usually is only possessed by prophets..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Now Abdul did not fulfill the trinity he completely threw it out of the water and rewrote to suite his own views. That being said you obviously don't understand infallibility within the orthodox framework. Moses was infallible so long as what he said came from God. The Bishops are infallible so much as that gather in council and their will is of God (which we are assured of in scripture).
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:44 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
Indeed he did throw it out cos its wrong. I was merely showing you how you are saying you fulfilled the Sabath and did not change it. Now you are using the language of progressive revelation. This is the same as what Bahais use to show that any new prophet has the power to change the laws of any old one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Now Abdul did not fulfill the trinity he completely threw it out of the water and rewrote to suite his own views. That being said you obviously don't understand infallibility within the orthodox framework. Moses was infallible so long as what he said came from God. The Bishops are infallible so much as that gather in council and their will is of God (which we are assured of in scripture).
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:45 PM   #56
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Uh no it is the most proper definition that is widely accepted in the english language. If you want to say its infallible then do so if it matches the defintion if it does not find another word. it is not hard.

And Sigh Lord, I dont want to have to repeat myself but I will do so. The Priest holds apostolic succession, he receives this from the Bishop before him who can trace his succession to the apostles. It is clear when we look at the NT we see the role of the apostles as leaders and those in authority. It can also be seen by the next generation those who knew and were taught by the apostles that the Bishops had that same authority or even if you dont by that an authority above the layman.

“ Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:46 PM   #57
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
I am using the language of the New covenant which is found in scripture and has yet to be erased or replaced. I dont consider bahai a valid authority.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:49 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
You do not understand succession. It has to be in the form of a will.
Islam also has two lines of succession both claiming their are correct. Muhammad said all should turn to ali but another confusion made people turn to abu bakr. Dont you get it? Jesus left no successor. The disciples were successors only in the leanest sense of the words. They are not infallible successors with each possessing the authority of prophets. It must be ordained by the mouth of Jesus to stipulate such a power or aruthority. On the other Hand Abul'Baha Baha'u'llahs son HAD the power to interpret Baha'u'llahs laws. Your disciples had no such power...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Uh no it is the most proper definition that is widely accepted in the english language. If you want to say its infallible then do so if it matches the defintion if it does not find another word. it is not hard.

And Sigh Lord, I dont want to have to repeat myself but I will do so. The Priest holds apostolic succession, he receives this from the Bishop before him who can trace his succession to the apostles. It is clear when we look at the NT we see the role of the apostles as leaders and those in authority. It can also be seen by the next generation those who knew and were taught by the apostles that the Bishops had that same authority or even if you dont by that an authority above the layman.

“ Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:53 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
Well that is incorrect as applied to religion as I have now showed you many times. Each prophet has the power to change the law of the previous one. They have to have this power or no new laws can be made. Call it fulfilment call it whatever you want ok??? IT is the power to change past laws. And each new law is infallible as was the old ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Uh no it is the most proper definition that is widely accepted in the english language. If you want to say its infallible then do so if it matches the defintion if it does not find another word. it is not hard.

And Sigh Lord, I dont want to have to repeat myself but I will do so. The Priest holds apostolic succession, he receives this from the Bishop before him who can trace his succession to the apostles. It is clear when we look at the NT we see the role of the apostles as leaders and those in authority. It can also be seen by the next generation those who knew and were taught by the apostles that the Bishops had that same authority or even if you dont by that an authority above the layman.

“ Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,

Last edited by LordOfGoblins; 01-19-2011 at 05:55 PM.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:54 PM   #60
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Lord so you stipulate the apostles lied when they excersised authority?

ALso note, that not all things are recorded in the four gospels, Paul and John make this clear. But we can be certain that the apostles gave authority to later generations. And actually the Apostles did have the authority. Jesus promised the apostles that the comforter wwho was the Holy spirit would come to them and this is confirmed in the acts of the apostles in which we see Holy spirit influencing the apostles giving them the gift of tongues. Does that mean they were perfect? No, there is always a human element. WOuld you say your council members are absolutely perfect? no of course not.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:55 PM   #61
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Fulfillment =/= change

Fulfill doesnt mean to change something to contradiction. Such as Trinity and not trinity.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:56 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
Its not a matter of lying or not lying. It is a matter of wether you posses infallibility or you dont.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Lord so you stipulate the apostles lied when they excersised authority?

ALso note, that not all things are recorded in the four gospels, Paul and John make this clear. But we can be certain that the apostles gave authority to later generations. And actually the Apostles did have the authority. Jesus promised the apostles that the comforter wwho was the Holy spirit would come to them and this is confirmed in the acts of the apostles in which we see Holy spirit influencing the apostles giving them the gift of tongues. Does that mean they were perfect? No, there is always a human element. WOuld you say your council members are absolutely perfect? no of course not.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:58 PM   #63
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Sigh, do the individual members of the bahai council have infallibility? is everything they say or do infallible? Btw you still haven't defined your version of Infallibility.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:04 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
"And when the days of Moses were ended, and the light of Jesus, shining forth from the dayspring of the Spirit, encompassed the world, all the people of Israel arose in protest against Him. They clamoured that He Whose advent the Bible had foretold must needs promulgate and fulfil the laws of Moses, whereas this youthful Nazarene, who laid claim to the station of the divine Messiah, had annulled the law of divorce and of the sabbath day—the most weighty of all the laws of Moses. Moreover, what of the signs of the Manifestation yet to come? These people of Israel are even unto the present day still expecting that Manifestation which the Bible hath foretold! How many Manifestations of Holiness, how many Revealers of the light everlasting, have appeared since the time of Moses, and yet Israel, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived!"

-Kitabe Iqan
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:05 PM   #65
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
And?
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:18 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: USA
Posts: 190
Anyway... I looked it up. The last person the Catholic Church excommunicated was a Brazilian bishop... Or priest. He tried to make an independent Catholic Church thing.


Yeah...

And Orthodox, if one apostle can lie they all can. They weren't flawless like Jesus.


....women and the UHJ... Turned into this... :/
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:19 PM   #67
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Who said they were flawless? Does someone need to be flawless in order to proclaim something infallible? If this is the criteria surely your universal house of justice could not be considered infallible?
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:23 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: USA
Posts: 190
I didn't say that was the case.
You need to stop assuming.

You know what they say about the word "assume." ;D lol
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:26 PM   #69
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
And Orthodox, if one apostle can lie they all can. They weren't flawless like Jesus.

With this statement you are trying to imply the apostls are unrealiable. Yet I find it strange that if the apostles are unrealiable, you still trust the texts they wrote and preserved, Ie the gospels.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:40 PM   #70
Kitab-i-hearsay
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Richmond, Indiana
Posts: 252
THey didnt write the gospels, they were compiled from word of mouth three hundred years after the death of jesus, except for the letters of Paul i believe.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:44 PM   #71
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
I do not think they were unreliable. Indeed if the holy-spirit entered them they were made infallible in their ability to describe historical events and the sayings of Jesus. That is confined to them only though...
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:30 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
No the church is not just a matter of belief but being born into the church through baptism, this is how one enters the church. That concept of the church you described is of the protestant ilk, not the ancient church ilk whom knew the apostles. There is a line of apostolic succession that assures the church unity but how can the church encompass people who utterly contradict each other? How can a calvanist and a orthodox be a part of the same church? They cannot, for they contradict each other so much, this is no Theologumia, but fundamental doctrine.

Unity is not the most important thing. Do we go to teh crowd if it tells us we are to burn children alive? No. God is the most important thing. However the protestants misunderstood that and have ignored unity altogether branching into thousands of contradictory groups. So my original position is clear. The council must be infallible if the same standard of Bahai is to be placed on it, with patriarchal tradition and the apostles.
Baptism is more than the ritual Christians practice, indeed, there are many Godless people that have been baptized. Baptism in its truest form is the acceptance of God, and a commitment to his Cause.

Can you please explain to me why you are so adamant about disputing everything on these forums? Do you honestly believe this is proving your religious strength or something? I honestly do not understand what you hope to gain from this. I do not see how you can justify this as something God would want you to do? Show me where Orthodoxy justifies causing strife, and I'll show you what is wrong with your faith.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:39 PM   #73
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Fulfillment =/= change

Fulfill doesnt mean to change something to contradiction. Such as Trinity and not trinity.
It isn't a contradiction, it is an extension.

You yourself have said indeed Christ was less than God while on Earth. There are countless quotes in the Bible that confirm he was not equal with God while on Earth, he even states he does not know everything God knows, thus it is clear he was not God - at least while on Earth.

For Baha'is, Christ's actions on Earth came from God, he perfectly mirrored Gods virtues on Earth. The Holy Spirit is Christs station in heaven, he is exalted by every Manifestation since him - clearly assigning his station as more important than theirs. Every apostle warns us against missing the signs like the Jews did.

Simply research a little about things such as time prophecies, and you will see why we believe so strongly.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:40 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Livindesert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Delmarva
Posts: 430
Who wrote the Gospels and when while interesting dose not matter. What matters is that the second coming has happened and we need to spread the good news : ) (in a non proselytizing way of course)
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:44 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Livindesert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Delmarva
Posts: 430
Orthodox each dispensation is given more knowledge than the last. Because of this you must learn the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity from Abdu'l Baha.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 08:47 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Based on the irrefutable evidences of Baha'u'llah, for me, you are choosing the "Church Fathers" over God. If you are comfortable with this, more power to you. Refuting Baha'is based on assertions made by those men without even attempting to refute the proofs of Baha'u'llah is ridiculous.

I have provided you with a detailed chronology based on the Baha'i view of Revelation, feel free to pick it apart and report back. Positioning men over God is not going to get you anywhere. Note, however, that time prophecies alone can be confirmed by at least 4 entirely independent religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. For me, the fact they all point to the exact same year - the year the Bab dispensation began, 1844 on your calendar - is enough on its own for me to confirm Baha'u'llah (unless, of course, you know of another prophet claimant that began in this year).

Last edited by Lunitik; 01-19-2011 at 08:53 PM.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:34 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
Can I make one small correct Lunitik

The last known time that anybody was condemned as a heretic in the Catholic Church was in 1826. The term has never be used since then and today's post Vatican-II Church would certainly never call another human being a heretic. The term heresy however was used intermittingly throughout the 19th century and is still a concept in Catholic theology, although as I say I have never heard it used in my lifetime, my parents or grandparents lifetimes etc.. Remember though that only a Catholic can commit a heresy (and incur the penalty which is excommunication)- not that any have been been condemned as such that I know of in the last century, but in that way it is similar to Covenant-breaking in the Baha'i Faith, except that a heretic can still come to Mass and be involved in the community. He/she would only, hypothetically, be barred from communion. Also, the Church may not be popular with modern, materialistic society in its stance on abortion, alcoholism, drug-use etc. but it doesn't seek popularity, rather it seeks to be a "voice crying in the wilderness".

The last high profile Catholic who I think was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated was Napoloeon Bonaparte, who kidnapped the Pope and declared himself "Emperor of the Church".

That's all my friend You know me
Yeshua,

Well it's interesting you raise this issue.. now I would rather not bring it up because this is after all a Baha'i Forum not a Catholic forum..as far as I can tell... but since you brought it up I did recall a case in my local newspaper about a heresy trial and it was in 2005...

A Roman Catholic diocese in Southern California has put a former priest on trial on charges of heresy. The San Bernardino Diocese says Father Ned Reidy is leading Catholics astray with his breakaway parish near Palm Springs. While a secret diocese tribunal deliberates on a verdict,


Catholic Church Tries Ex-Priest for Heresy : NPR

From the same site:

Heresy trials can occur at the Vatican or in a diocesan court. The last time the Vatican itself formally excommunicated a priest for heretical views was in 1997. The Sri Lankan priest involved -- whose split with the church had involved his views on original sin -- later reconciled with the Vatican.

Last edited by arthra; 01-19-2011 at 09:43 PM.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:36 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
Somehow the thread has gotten off topic again.. I wonder why?

Last edited by arthra; 01-19-2011 at 09:45 PM.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:15 PM   #79
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Uh Sboyce, the aposltes did write the gospels. If they didn't why would bahai even trust them? Do you seriously contest the authenticity? I would like to know.

Lunitik I have said that Jesus gave up his divine perogative, not that he was ever lesser than God. BUt while on earth he was subject to the Father and willingly obeyed him. So Verses emphasising his humanity of humbled state do not refute my doctrine nor that of the churfch. Now I think the difference between me and you Lunatik, is that i consider the church fathers doing God's will since the apostles and remaining firm to that practice.

Now Lord, You cannot simply say that the Holy spirit was confined only to the apostles. For the next generation who the apostles taught affirms an apostolic authority given to them and Christ promises to protect his church. And giving the power to bind and loose, i would assume means they have the power to transfer that authority to those they deem fit.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:29 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
So do we just ignore Orthodox then in the interest of keeping the thread relevent?
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Administration

Tags
house, justice, universal, women



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2018 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.