Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

[ohio jones]

In addition, the thread is not about generic "catholics" or even "Catholics" but about "Plain Catholics", a particular subset of Roman Catholics.

[Neto]

Neto,

I’m going to disagree with your ontology above.

Catholics, by definition, practice infant baptism and do not practice baptism after confession of faith.

Anabaptists, by definition, practice baptism after confession of faith.

A “Plain Catholic” that practiced baptism in confession of faith isn’t Catholic. They would be a Plain Anabaptist, a very well defined term.

Anabaptists are not Catholics. Catholics are not Anabaptists.

“Catholic” is also a well defined term. It no longer means “universal”; it refers to a particular sect of Christianity. The best definition of it would be “a sect of Christianity that recognises its pope as its highest office”.

No Anabaptists recognise the pope as the “head of the church”.

There is no reasonable analysis that consider Catholics to be Anabaptists. It is sort of like asking if Catholics are Protestant, or if tigers are wolves.

I think you missed the main point I was attempting to make - that the terms must first be defined. Immersionists, for instance, commonly appeal to the etymological definition of the Greek work transliterated as 'baptize' ( that is, not translated) to 'prove' their INTERPRETATION and in turn their TRANSLATION of the Greek. I was merely illustrating the same difficulty when the question is asked if "Plain Catholics" are Anabaptists, and also the difficulty presented by the English practice of distinguishing or determining the meaning of some words based on capitalization. (And I see people here extending that to the word 'Plain' vs 'plain'. But in that case, only an insider would catch that. I do not tend to follow this English use of capitalization. I often hear sermons that are based on the presence or absence of a capital letter, which is an interpretation, and this is often in dispute exegetically. A direct case should be made from the context, or for example, simply say that "The Scripture translators interpreted this occurrence of the word 'Spirit' as referring to the Holy Spirit, because they capitalized it. Other translations do not capitalize the word 'spirit' revealing a different interpretation.")

Since the topic title is the question, another difficulty is introduced: The distinction of capitalized vs lower case is not communicated in a phrase written as a title, because another established English practice is to capitalize each word in a title, excepting words like 'to', 'the', etc.

That is, as a non-title, the question could have been written as any of the following: "Are plain catholics anabaptists?; Are plain catholics Anabaptists?; Are Plain catholics anabaptists"; Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?; or etc. And the meaning of the question would be different in each case. The word 'catholic' also originates from a Greek transliteration, and 'anabaptist' from the transliterated Latin 'ana' plus the transliterated Greek word baptidzo (or however it is normally transcribed using the non-Greek alphabet). (As a Bible translator, I avoided transliteration of all but proper names, because the resulting word carries ZERO meaning. And I didn't really like transliterating proper names, either.)

[ken_sylvania]

Neto,

I’m going to disagree with your ontology above.

Catholics, by definition, practice infant baptism and do not practice baptism after confession of faith.

Anabaptists, by definition, practice baptism after confession of faith.

A “Plain Catholic” that practiced baptism in confession of faith isn’t Catholic. They would be a Plain Anabaptist, a very well defined term.

Anabaptists are not Catholics. Catholics are not Anabaptists.

“Catholic” is also a well defined term. It no longer means “universal”; it refers to a particular sect of Christianity. The best definition of it would be “a sect of Christianity that recognises its pope as its highest office”.

No Anabaptists recognise the pope as the “head of the church”.

There is no reasonable analysis that consider Catholics to be Anabaptists. It is sort of like asking if Catholics are Protestant, or if tigers are wolves.

I think you missed the main point I was attempting to make - that the terms must first be defined. Immersionists, for instance, commonly appeal to the etymological definition of the Greek work transliterated as 'baptize' ( that is, not translated) to 'prove' their INTERPRETATION and in turn their TRANSLATION of the Greek. I was merely illustrating the same difficulty when the question is asked if "Plain Catholics" are Anabaptists, and also the difficulty presented by the English practice of distinguishing or determining the meaning of some words based on capitalization. (And I see people here extending that to the word 'Plain' vs 'plain'. But in that case, only an insider would catch that. I do not tend to follow this English use of capitalization. I often hear sermons that are based on the presence or absence of a capital letter, which is an interpretation, and this is often in dispute exegetically. A direct case should be made from the context, or for example, simply say that "The Scripture translators interpreted this occurrence of the word 'Spirit' as referring to the Holy Spirit, because they capitalized it. Other translations do not capitalize the word 'spirit' revealing a different interpretation.")

Since the topic title is the question, another difficulty is introduced: The distinction of capitalized vs lower case is not communicated in a phrase written as a title, because another established English practice is to capitalize each word in a title, excepting words like 'to', 'the', etc.

That is, as a non-title, the question could have been written as any of the following: "Are plain catholics anabaptists?; Are plain catholics Anabaptists?; Are Plain catholics anabaptists"; Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?; or etc. And the meaning of the question would be different in each case. The word 'catholic' also originates from a Greek transliteration, and 'anabaptist' from the transliterated Latin 'ana' plus the transliterated Greek word baptidzo (or however it is normally transcribed using the non-Greek alphabet). (As a Bible translator, I avoided transliteration of all but proper names, because the resulting word carries ZERO meaning. And I didn't really like transliterating proper names, either.)

It is true that terms must be defined, but using the dictionary meaning of a word that is actually a proper name, and assuming that all individuals described by that dictionary definition are therefore a part of the group carrying that name will get you inaccurate results. Where it is apparent from context and textual history that a specific capitalization carries meaning, one would be remiss to ignore the capitalization.

In the context of this forum and the discussions that have been had, as well as the OP of this thread, it's abundantly clear that "Plain Catholics" is being used as a proper name of a claimed movement within the Roman Catholic Church, and that "Anabaptists" is being used as a proper name to refer to those holding (in general) to the Dortrecht and Schleitheim confessions.

[Neto]

Neto,

I’m going to disagree with your ontology above.

Catholics, by definition, practice infant baptism and do not practice baptism after confession of faith.

Anabaptists, by definition, practice baptism after confession of faith.

A “Plain Catholic” that practiced baptism in confession of faith isn’t Catholic. They would be a Plain Anabaptist, a very well defined term.

Anabaptists are not Catholics. Catholics are not Anabaptists.

“Catholic” is also a well defined term. It no longer means “universal”; it refers to a particular sect of Christianity. The best definition of it would be “a sect of Christianity that recognises its pope as its highest office”.

No Anabaptists recognise the pope as the “head of the church”.

There is no reasonable analysis that consider Catholics to be Anabaptists. It is sort of like asking if Catholics are Protestant, or if tigers are wolves.

I think you missed the main point I was attempting to make - that the terms must first be defined. Immersionists, for instance, commonly appeal to the etymological definition of the Greek work transliterated as 'baptize' ( that is, not translated) to 'prove' their INTERPRETATION and in turn their TRANSLATION of the Greek. I was merely illustrating the same difficulty when the question is asked if "Plain Catholics" are Anabaptists, and also the difficulty presented by the English practice of distinguishing or determining the meaning of some words based on capitalization. (And I see people here extending that to the word 'Plain' vs 'plain'. But in that case, only an insider would catch that. I do not tend to follow this English use of capitalization. I often hear sermons that are based on the presence or absence of a capital letter, which is an interpretation, and this is often in dispute exegetically. A direct case should be made from the context, or for example, simply say that "The Scripture translators interpreted this occurrence of the word 'Spirit' as referring to the Holy Spirit, because they capitalized it. Other translations do not capitalize the word 'spirit' revealing a different interpretation.")

Since the topic title is the question, another difficulty is introduced: The distinction of capitalized vs lower case is not communicated in a phrase written as a title, because another established English practice is to capitalize each word in a title, excepting words like 'to', 'the', etc.

That is, as a non-title, the question could have been written as any of the following: "Are plain catholics anabaptists?; Are plain catholics Anabaptists?; Are Plain catholics anabaptists"; Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?; or etc. And the meaning of the question would be different in each case. The word 'catholic' also originates from a Greek transliteration, and 'anabaptist' from the transliterated Latin 'ana' plus the transliterated Greek word baptidzo (or however it is normally transcribed using the non-Greek alphabet). (As a Bible translator, I avoided transliteration of all but proper names, because the resulting word carries ZERO meaning. And I didn't really like transliterating proper names, either.)

It is true that terms must be defined, but using the dictionary meaning of a word that is actually a proper name, and assuming that all individuals described by that dictionary definition are therefore a part of the group carrying that name will get you inaccurate results. Where it is apparent from context and textual history that a specific capitalization carries meaning, one would be remiss to ignore the capitalization.

In the context of this forum and the discussions that have been had, as well as the OP of this thread, it's abundantly clear that "Plain Catholics" is being used as a proper name of a claimed movement within the Roman Catholic Church, and that "Anabaptists" is being used as a proper name to refer to those holding (in general) to the Dortrecht and Schleitheim confessions.

Yeah, sorry. I was in a somewhat contrary mood, because of some thing completely unrelated to any thing on this board.

[barnhart]

If MaxPC confirms he has been re-baptized on confession of his own faith, I can see he would an anabaptist Catholic but not a catholic Anabaptist.

[GoodGirl]

Having only read the title, if they’re anabaptist, why would they call themselves Catholics?

[Pelerin]

If MaxPC confirms he has been re-baptized on confession of his own faith, I can see he would an anabaptist Catholic but not a catholic Anabaptist.

Hmm, but in that case he wouldn’t be accepting the authority of the Pope who says his infant baptism was valid and so would not be Catholic. The authority of the pope is what makes or breaks Catholicism. Anglicans are 100% Catholic except for that one minor quibble over (a certain) divorce and remarriage in which they rejected the Pope’s authority…and so they’re Protestant.

But in any case I don’t think Max ever claimed to be Anabaptist; he claimed to be Plain Catholic which, according to the Plain Catholic website cited above, look remarkably similar to German Baptists.

So the question isn’t whether Max can be Anabaptist not is it whether Catholics can dress like German Baptists—as far as I know the Pope has never ruled otherwise. The question is whether there is a group called Plain Catholics who do dress like German Baptists—and if so, where are they and where can we visit them?

[Neto]

....
Utilizing the traditional in-group definition of the word 'anabaptist', and then asking if the Amish are 'anabaptists', one must concede that some are, and some aren't. (Some are not because they hold to a position on baptism that only requires a "right confession", one that recognizes Jesus the Christ as the One through whom salvation may be received, where as the traditional stance of "the anabaptists" is that baptism should be undertaken upon the basis of a PERSONAL confession of faith in Jesus as the Savior.)

.... The answer [of salvation status]... lies on a different foundation - not on what kind baptism was accepted [CLARIFICATION: I was referring to different modes of baptism here], or even if it was only a theological confession or a personal confession, but upon a living faith, which in essence is obedience, obedience to the command to "Believe on the NAME of Jesus, the Christ, the only Way of salvation.

I did get "carried away" in the above post, and then more so in my response to Josh - due, as I later said, to being agitated about something not pertaining to this discussion board. But I stand by the above part of that first post.

As another participant suggested, I do not recall that Max ever claimed to be 'Anabaptist" (using the English meaning attached to capitalization). I see no reason for the constant interrogations, demanding to know where this group called "Plain Catholics" are located. (I take the 'P' to be used as a title, not as a designation in the same sense as some here use it to distinguish between 'plain' & 'Plain'. Further, I do not regard 'Anabaptist' to be a designation of a group, but rather as a simple adjective. (This is why I seldom capitalize it.) Perhaps at one time it had that meaning, but it originated as a derogatory term, one rejected by at least the Dutch Mennonites, but it has become such a broad category that it difficult to know how any one person is using it anymore. That is why I feel it is essential to define the terms we use. I have told this before, about a conversation I had with a Brazilian Catholic Federal agent, a conversation which was just two Christians sharing fellowship, until I used the term "Crente" (literally 'believer'), which, unbeknownst to me at that time, is a term used by certain Protestants and perhaps more so Pentecostals, to imply that no Catholic is a true believer.

In case it is not clear, I should also emphasize that I believe that baptism should be accepted on the declaration of a personal, living, and obedient faith, not on just a theologically correct statement of doctrine.

[ken_sylvania]

....
Utilizing the traditional in-group definition of the word 'anabaptist', and then asking if the Amish are 'anabaptists', one must concede that some are, and some aren't. (Some are not because they hold to a position on baptism that only requires a "right confession", one that recognizes Jesus the Christ as the One through whom salvation may be received, where as the traditional stance of "the anabaptists" is that baptism should be undertaken upon the basis of a PERSONAL confession of faith in Jesus as the Savior.)

.... The answer [of salvation status]... lies on a different foundation - not on what kind baptism was accepted [CLARIFICATION: I was referring to different modes of baptism here], or even if it was only a theological confession or a personal confession, but upon a living faith, which in essence is obedience, obedience to the command to "Believe on the NAME of Jesus, the Christ, the only Way of salvation.

I did get "carried away" in the above post, and then more so in my response to Josh - due, as I later said, to being agitated about something not pertaining to this discussion board. But I stand by the above part of that first post.

As another participant suggested, I do not recall that Max ever claimed to be 'Anabaptist" (using the English meaning attached to capitalization). I see no reason for the constant interrogations, demanding to know where this group called "Plain Catholics" are located. (I take the 'P' to be used as a title, not as a designation in the same sense as some here use it to distinguish between 'plain' & 'Plain'. Further, I do not regard 'Anabaptist' to be a designation of a group, but rather as a simple adjective. (This is why I seldom capitalize it.) Perhaps at one time it had that meaning, but it originated as a derogatory term, one rejected by at least the Dutch Mennonites, but it has become such a broad category that it difficult to know how any one person is using it anymore. That is why I feel it is essential to define the terms we use. I have told this before, about a conversation I had with a Brazilian Catholic Federal agent, a conversation which was just two Christians sharing fellowship, until I used the term "Crente" (literally 'believer'), which, unbeknownst to me at that time, is a term used by certain Protestants and perhaps more so Pentecostals, to imply that no Catholic is a true believer.

In case it is not clear, I should also emphasize that I believe that baptism should be accepted on the declaration of a personal, living, and obedient faith, not on just a theologically correct statement of doctrine.

I agree that, as far as I know Max has never laid claim to the title of Anabaptist.

The thread, as clarified by the OP, was in response to Max's claim of theological kinship with and appreciation for the Dortrecht and Schleitheim confessions. I think Wayne was asking the question based on the assumption, which I would generally agree with, that most who embrace the Dortrecht and Schleitheim confessions would fall within the bounds of the "Anabaptist" label.

[temporal1]

2017: Wayne asked

Thread: Plain Catholics on Catholic Community Forum.

That comment was posted by a person who apparently had no understanding of who and what we are and certainly that person misunderstood anything Joyce Laird may have said. Joyce Laird did not start the Plain Catholics and has never proposed we join in Plain Catholic community. Plain Catholics have been in existence 100+ years. Such is the nature of forums when people don't read carefully or persist in their own ideas in spite of any response given. As you can see, people misunderstand us just as they misunderstand Anabaptists, Methodists, Baptists, etc.

Who, Max, is Joyce Laird? I saw her a lot on several Yahoo Forums, is she a "Plain Catholic" too?

2010 / Interesting page about Joyce Laird, Wayne might have appreciated seeing it:

Plain Catholics – living the simple life
January 29, 2010 by joyfulpapist
https://joyfulpapist.wordpress.com/2010 ... mple-life/

CynthiaGee WROTE:
.. Mrs. Laird was formerly a frequent poster on several Mennonite/Anabaptist Yahoo groups (though at the time she didn’t make it known that she was Catholic), which is where I first became aware of her. She invited me to join her Yahoogroup, and I was a member there for a number of years, and an active poster until fairly recently, when comments to the list became heavily censored.

This spring the list was purged of most of its less active posters, myself included; one of the last things I recall being discussed there was the planning of a trip to a Midwestern state where the members of the group would travel to meet with one another and discuss the feasibility of actually starting an Amish-Catholic community.

And, interest in this movement appears to be growing.

Here is a blog by a man in Texas, which takes the idea of Amish Catholicism and an Amish-Catholic monastery/commune one step further:
http://rosariansofthepoorchrist.blogspot.com/
(blog removed)