Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

[KingdomBuilder]

I can find no apparently trustworthy results online for "Plain Catholics". So I'm not sure this question could ever be answered.

Of humor to me is that the one "plaincatholic" site has a big ole picture of the pope at the bottom his the page of him wearing his little papish head gear.
So much for a decent respect for the passage on covering...

[ohio jones]

When I mentioned the common theological ground I find in those two documents, I read those documents with an eye to the statements of faith rather than that one impassioned statement of the Schleitheim: the statements on Jesus is our Savior; the Trinity; Matrimony; the Coming of Christ; Resurrection and Last Judgment, and several others share common interpretations our own and make up much of our Deposit of Faith (Core Dogma). The Bible citations are interpreted in a similar manner as we interpret them. Even as I write this, the Vatican is re-examining the "just war" stance it has held previously with an eye to eliminating it. All in all, sharing similar positions on certain theology does not make Catholics, Anabaptists neither does it make Anabaptists, Catholics. It means we share common interpretations of the Book that binds us to the teachings of Christ. We may have different histories but at the end of the day we drink from the same Well of Hope. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

Perhaps the underlined part is relevant in regard to Dordrecht. But Schleitheim doesn't even mention the issues in blue (with the exception of Jesus being our Savior, and that takes the form of an assumed belief rather than a propositional statement). So we are left wondering just what it is in Schleitheim that you or PCs in general find common ground with.

[Bootstrap]

tell me which posts you want moved, and i'll do it.

Can Wayne say which posts he wants to stay in this thread?

For the posts moved out, I see two distinct themes:

1. Questions about who Plain Catholics are, their history, and evidence that they exist.
2. Eastern Orthodox views on the topics where Anabaptists and Eastern Orthodox differ.

Perhaps a separate thread for each?

[Bootstrap]

When I mentioned the common theological ground I find in those two documents, I read those documents with an eye to the statements of faith rather than that one impassioned statement of the Schleitheim: the statements on Jesus is our Savior; the Trinity; Matrimony; the Coming of Christ; Resurrection and Last Judgment, and several others share common interpretations our own and make up much of our Deposit of Faith (Core Dogma). The Bible citations are interpreted in a similar manner as we interpret them. Even as I write this, the Vatican is re-examining the "just war" stance it has held previously with an eye to eliminating it. All in all, sharing similar positions on certain theology does not make Catholics, Anabaptists neither does it make Anabaptists, Catholics. It means we share common interpretations of the Book that binds us to the teachings of Christ. We may have different histories but at the end of the day we drink from the same Well of Hope. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

Perhaps the underlined part is relevant in regard to Dordrecht. But Schleitheim doesn't even mention the issues in blue (with the exception of Jesus being our Savior, and that takes the form of an assumed belief rather than a propositional statement). So we are left wondering just what it is in Schleitheim that you or PCs in general find common ground with.

And even for Dordrecht, are Catholics any closer to Anabaptists than most other Christian denominations? If so, in what way?

Does the doctrine of Plain Catholics differ in any way from that of other Catholics, making them more like Anabaptists? If so, in what way?

[Bootstrap]

Re Baptism Mike, Plain Catholics follow the Catechism. We leave it up to the individual family to participate when they are ready.

But the Catechism says it is not up to the individual family to participate when they are ready. It says this:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.

the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

This is even more explicit in Canon Law, which says infant baptism is obligatory:

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

The Catechism also tells us that baptism cannot be repeated, ruling out adult believer baptism for those baptized as infants:

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

This is equally clear in Canon Law:

Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.

I think that's fundamentally different from the teaching of Schleitheim on Baptism:

I. Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the Pope. In this you have the foundation and testimony of the apostles. Matt. 28, Mark 16, Acts 2, 8, 16, 19. This we wish to hold simply, yet firmly and with assurance.

Max, would you agree that Catholics do not agree with Schleitheim about infant baptism or baptism of adults who were given infant baptism? I think this particular teaching is the reason for the name Anabaptist.

Anabaptist (n.)
class of Christians who regard infant baptism as invalid, 1530s, literally "one who baptizes over again," from Modern Latin anabaptista, from Late Latin anabaptismus "second baptism" (used in literal sense from 4c.), from Ecclesiastical Greek anabaptismos, from ana "again, anew" (see ana-) + baptismos "baptism" (see baptism).

Max, would you agree that Catholics, including Plain Catholics, regard infant baptism as not only valid, but obligatory under Canon Law? Would it be possible to be faithful to the Magisterium and disagree with the Catechism and Canon Law?

[Sudsy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dordrecht ... n_of_Faith
gameo.org/index.php?title=Dordrecht_Confession_of_Faith_(Mennonite,_1632)
home.mennonitechurch.ca/1632-Dordrecht
baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/.../the-schleitheim-confession-2.pd...
thecommonlife.com.au/rainham/wp-content/uploads/.../1-Schleitheim-Confession.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleitheim_Confession
Is this what you were looking for?

Sorry, I missed this post. Yes, thanks for the links.

[mike]

Regarding baptism, that is quite interesting, and something I've never heard before from a Catholic. So which is the custom of Plain Catholics - infant or adult baptism?

Regarding the Sword, I'm not referring the the just war theory, but to the use of the sword generally. Are you saying that the Vatican is re-examining the use of the sword in general, or simply re-examining the just war theory? Because, as I am sure you know, Anabaptists are not in opposition to merely a particular theory of war, but to war generally.

This may be clear as mud or it may be confusing; hopefully neither.

Re Baptism Mike, Plain Catholics follow the Catechism. We leave it up to the individual family to participate when they are ready. Our tri-partite Rite of Initiation to the Faith consists of 3 Sacraments: Baptism, First Communion and Confirmation. It occurs over a wide range of ages. Whereas the Anabaptist rite of initiation to the fellowship involves Baptism only (if I remember correctly). We have so many different ethnic cultures in our Church that our initiation rites will vary in age ranges from one region or country to the next. In the Plain Catholic charism we have families from different ethnicities because of that diversity. The Catechism is universal to our faith. Charisms are expressions of that faith. Baptism is one part of the overall great teaching of Christ in Catholic World.

Re the sword: I cannot predict where the Vatican discussion will lead. These things take prayer, discernment and many discussions. Military service is not mandated in our Church. It's not a part of our Deposit of Faith. There are Catholics who do serve in the military and there are those who do not. Again much of that stems from the cultural diversity in the larger fold.

The PC practice of leaving it up to the individual family to decide when to baptize (meaning you allow for the baptism of infants) is hardly harmonious with Anabaptism, because Schleitheim says:

Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope.

If Plain Catholics allow for something that an Anabaptist confession excludes and labels "the highest and chiefest abomination of the pope," it can hardly be said that baptism is a theological point of common ground.

Similarly, if Plain Catholics allow for any military service at all, this is not common ground with Anabaptism either, which excludes it altogether.

I do appreciate the answers you have been willing to give, which if not satisfactory have been enlightening.

Valerie's posts in this thread which are neither from a Plain Catholic nor an Anabaptist perspective have been very unhelpful for this discussion.

[mike]

It seems to me that other than a kind of similarity in some basic Christian doctrines, the only common ground between Plain Catholics and some Anabaptists would be the plain dress. They seem to differ with Anabaptists in all the ways that mainstream Catholics would, except for that.

[silentreader]

justme,

[Hats Off]

Plain Catholic clothing is just dresses and work clothes without all the accessories. Since they’re on a mission to Anabaptists their clothing makes sense where your clothing would not.

I found this somewhere when I was looking for information on Plain Anabaptists but now I can't remember where so I can't give the source of the quote. However, when you go looking for Plain Catholics, you seem to keep going in circles. I would guess these people are not Anabaptist.