Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

[Bootstrap]

I do know that Kevin Ford tried to start an intentional Catholic community based on old attitudes and a Latin liturgy that is no longer used. His community never happened.

Here is a list of 17 New Catholic Land Movement farms from Kevin Ford's site, including his own:

http://newcatholiclandmovement.org/nclm-farms/

Where can I find a similar list of Plain Catholic communities?

You say that this movement has existed for over 100 years, tracing it back to the Back to the Land movement in England. I have read in several places that this movement died out, and that there were no successors. Where can I read about this movement during the last 100 years? Who were the major leaders? Did they write anything? Did anyone write about them?

[Valerie]

And of course, the "sin" of the Anabaptists was baptizing someone as an adult who had already been baptized as an infant:

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

According to an explanation I heard by Orthodox, it really broadened my understanding why it was seen so serious, to basically denounce your first baptism- I had no idea how serious they took that and why and what it meant to rebaptize- basically from what I recall it was as if calling God a liar, because upon baptism, you're in the church and can partake of the sacraments- it would imply you were living a lie all your life- something to that affect. That the Chrismation (anointing of oil for the Holy Spirit at your baptism) would be seen insignificant, etc- i can understand the big deal about that but not the way they were treated upon doing this. For the Church, that should have been between the rebaptizers and God- anyway this came up when an Orthodox who had been 'poured' on for his Orthodox Baptism, was fearful of not be immerged, and so he asked if he should be rebaptized- he was met with a serious NO and told why- they will not rebaptize anyone, unless they didn't receive their baptism in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit-

I had always wondered why it was such a huge deal to rebaptize and reading the explanation I think I understand why even so many that eventually became Anabaptist, were struggling with it in the early days-

[Bootstrap]

According to an explanation I heard by Orthodox, it really broadened my understanding why it was seen so serious, to basically denounce your first baptism- I had no idea how serious they took that and why and what it meant to rebaptize- basically from what I recall it was as if calling God a liar, because upon baptism, you're in the church and can partake of the sacraments- it would imply you were living a lie all your life- something to that affect.

In fact, I think the Swiss Brethren really were rejecting infant baptism because baptism is a sign of repentance, and infants cannot repent.

They did not believe that God was the liar, they believed that the State church was the liar, administering salvation via sacraments rather than repentance and discipleship.

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.

To this day, if someone was baptized as an infant, Mennonites will baptize them as an adult before admitting them to membership in the church. We do not recognize infant baptism as valid.

And yes, this is a very serious difference in belief. It's a disagreement about what baptism is and what it means.

[Bootstrap]

Well, it had been the norm to baptize infants and children of believing parents for 1500 years by then- it goes with the broadest understanding of Baptism- but that's not what this thread is about-

Right, this thread is not about who is right. But it's very hard for me to imagine how a Catholic or Orthodox Christian could accept the Anabaptist theology of baptism and still remain a member of their own church.

For instance, when someone repents and becomes a Christian, should they be baptized? We would say yes, they would say no (assuming that the person had been baptized as an infant). We would each feel very strongly about it.

Our theology and practice of baptism is still heretical in the eyes of both churches.

[Bootstrap]

Our theology and practice of baptism is still heretical in the eyes of both churches.

Max should answer this on behalf of Catholics

We have been quoting some of the canons of Canon Law and the Catechism, which constitute the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

There's an interesting document written by Catholics and Mennonites together, under the guidance of the Vatican, seeking as much common ground as possible:

Called Together to be Peacemakers

I like this summary:

209. Among the important aspects of the Christian life that Catholics and Mennonites hold in common, are faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (fully divine and fully human), the Trinitarian faith as expressed in the Apostles Creed, and numerous perspectives on the church. There is also much that we can agree on concerning baptism and the Lord’s Supper as fundamental grace-filled celebrations of God’s saving acts in Christ. We share a great deal in regard to the role of the church on matters of mission and evangelism, peace and justice, and life of discipleship. Moreover, Mennonites and Catholics both face the challenge of how to communicate the faith in an increasingly secular world, and both struggle with the complexities of the relationship between church and society.

210. While recognizing that we hold basic convictions of faith in common, we have also identified significant differences that continue to divide us and thus require further dialogue. Nonetheless, and although we are not in full unity with one another, the substantial amount of the Apostolic faith which we realize today that we share, allows us as members of the Catholic and Mennonite delegations to see one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. We hope that others may have similar experiences, and that these may contribute to a healing of memories.

I agree with this. If you read the document, some of the differences in our understanding of baptism are the kind of things the second paragraph is talking about.

[ohio jones]

Where can I find a similar list of Plain Catholic communities?

That's obviously an unreasonable request. If some of them are located up to 13 years away from a priest, it would take at least that long to compile a list, and by then it would be out of date.

In reality, many parents in several cultures delay water baptism for a variety of reasons and can do so without penalty or penance. Some have delayed it until the teens. The reasons are too many to list but suffice to say, the Church prefers to err on the side of compassion in these cases. Plain Catholics are sometimes located so far from a priest and parish, they have to delay until one can be reached.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

Oh come now. Enough of this. The church of Rome (Which may still consider me a member) is not, has never been Anabaptist.

1. They have exchanged the true Christian baptism for the "Roman Bath," which does no more than baptizing my dog, seeing as it is given without faith.

2. They have exchanged the Lord's table, for one proclaiming a phoney miracle (Transubstantiation) and claim to repeat the once for all sacrifice of Calvary.

3. They have made a mockery of the permanence of marriage, selling "Annulments" that make it like a marriage never happened. I know they may dispute the word "selling" but it is just as bad if they give them away. This is false, and defies both the Scriptures and logic.

4. They follow the leadership of one they call the "Holy Father" a blasphemous title if there ever was one. He can by the word of his mouth make something sinful acceptable. (Look up indult)

5. They call the mother of Jesus the "Queen of Heaven" "Queen Assumed Into Heaven" and even "Co-Redemptrix"

6. They willingly co-operate with the military machine, to the point of having priests serve as chaplains. If this is not an endorsement, I really don't know what is.

If this is anabaptist, I am Balthasar Hubmaier's donkey.

J.M.

[Wayne in Maine]

The OP has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy or Oneness Pentecostalism, it has to do with Plain Catholics and their common theology with early Anabaptism.

[MaxPC]

The OP has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy or Oneness Pentecostalism, it has to do with Plain Catholics and their common theology with early Anabaptism.

Wayne, it looks as though the cherry picking and debating has overtaken your thread which is why I prefer off list conversations to address your questions. I'll repost my answer to your original query. If you have further questions I'll respond off list so the forum can return to all things Anabaptist.

... In a recent discussion you said:

Both the Schleitheim and Dordrecht confessions share common theological ground with our theology. Both are excellent.

Our family has acquaintances who are very, very conservative, homeschooling/homesteading, Latin Mass attending Roman Catholics. Let's say they are the closest to "plain" among Catholics I know. We don't talk religion - they have an old Catholic view of Anabaptists as fanatical schematics - early in our acquaintance they mentioned the Muenster uprising as the origin of the Amish, Mennonites and Hutterites. They certainly would have no affinity for Schleitheim and Dortrecht.

My question is not about kaps and cape dresses and shoo-fly pies. It is about your statement that plain Catholics or perhaps Catholics in genneral (You weren't clear on whose theology you were referring to in your statement) share common ground with Dortrecht and Schleitheim. I simply want to discuss this with someone familiar with your movement. I would be fascinated to know what parts of these fundamental confessions of faith of the Anabaptists your movement/church is grounded in.

I think I see your perspective now that you describe your acquaintances. Your statement "they have an old Catholic view of Anabaptists as fanatical schematics" clarifies things quite a bit. That view is not held by the RCC in this day and age. Indeed, 3 Popes (John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis) have made public confessions and apologies for atrocities committed during the Reformation. Your acquaintances may be out of touch with the current Church teaching and atttitudes if they sequester themselves in the manner you describe. Plain Catholics are in communion with the RCC. While some may attend a Latin Mass (in the Novus Ordo format), we do not hold to ancient attitudes towards other denominations and congregations from other historical eras, e.g. 500 years ago, knowing that the emotions of those eras did not always allow for the light of Christ to shine.
Re the Schleitheim: That's the only harsh language I could find in the Schleitheim, none in the Dordrecht.The editorial note below from the Schleitheim Confession page at Bible Views brings some light to the harsher language in that document:

* This severe judgment on the state churches must be understood in the light of sixteenth century conditions. The state clergymen were in many cases careless and carnal men. All citizens in a given province were considered members of the state church because they had been made Christians ("chrisened") by infant baptism. Also, in 1527 Zurich had begun to use capital punishment on the Swiss Brethren, with the full approval of the state church leaders. Sattler himself was burned at the stake less than three months after the Schleitheim conference.[url]http://www.bibleviews.com/Schleitheim.html#four[/url

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.

[Wayne in Maine]

The OP has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy or Oneness Pentecostalism, it has to do with Plain Catholics and their common theology with early Anabaptism.

Wayne, it looks as though the cherry picking and debating has overtaken your thread which is why I prefer off list conversations to address your questions. I'll repost my answer to your original query. If you have further questions I'll respond off list so the forum can return to all things Anabaptist.

Your response did not answer my question or my follow up question. I could ask the moderator to delete some of the irrelevant responses. I will not discuss this in private, I would like you to answer the OP in detail: What common theological ground specifically does your church/sect have with the Dortrecht and Schleitheim confessions? What in particular do you ()and any other plain or no-plain Roman Catholics on this board) find excellent about them?