Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[MaxPC]

In all seriousness though, the early church killed each other by the sword over doctrinal disputes well before the East west split.

The human race has always been squirrely. It is the reason we are all in need of God’s graces and mercy from the beginning of time until its final adieu.

[Wade]

Some of my random thoughts inspired by the thoughtful discourse of this thread:

From the beginning, the Early Church tended to divide themselves into smaller groups, usually according to culture or even which disciple first brought the Good News to them. (1 Corinthians 3).

We see similar behaviors today, even within a denomination or fellowship. As humans our instincts tend toward smaller groups/clans/families.

God is quite tolerant of our eccentricities (unless they involve abominations, then He will exercise due consequences).

A church/denomination that becomes a political theocracy in order to control the earthly kingdoms will fall just as the secular governments fall.

We can only control our personal choices to follow Christ through obedience to the Bible and the teachings of our chosen fellowship.

We cannot and should not violate the Free Will of others whereby those who have not chosen our fellowship (non-members) are forced to obey our fellowship’s Confession and values. Neither should non-members seek to impose their value systems upon us in violation of our Free Will and consciences.

There are no perfect churches or fellowships. There are churches and fellowships who work to seek God and obey Him. No group does this perfectly because every membership has fallible humans. Romans 3:23

I’ll admit I can’t really find anything you’ve written here that I disagree with. What is strange to me is your emphasis on free will and personal choice is at the core not workable with the practice of infant baptism(it is against free will and personal choice). Reading your posts for years it seems to me you may just hold to a submission to your church while at the core not in full agreement with RCC. Well versed in it but also more versed in scripture than any catholic I have ever known.

I begs the question what even is baptism then?

Maybe Catholics and Eastern Orthodox just don’t even view baptism close to what the Anabaptist’s and early church viewed it as?

Was it not partly a public testimony of a clear conscience with God? Don’t we see this in Scripture? - That takes Free will and personal choice. So what does baptizing an infant mean?

[MaxPC]

I begs the question what even is baptism then?

Maybe Catholics and Eastern Orthodox just don’t even view baptism close to what the Anabaptist’s and early church viewed it as?

Was it not partly a public testimony of a clear conscience with God? Don’t we see this in Scripture? - That takes Free will and personal choice. So what does baptizing an infant mean?

I will endeavor to be succinct and mind that this will not be a detailed dissertation on Catholic Rites of Christian Initiation. That would take up too much space for this forum.

You are right when speaking of our definitions being different and I believe it has as much to do with history as it does doctrine and theology.

Anabaptist World
There is one Sacrament for Christian Initiation into the fellowship and the life of a disciple: Baptism. This can take place in the teens or adult ages.

Catholic World
The RCI (Rite of Christian Initiation) is tripartite: it is not complete until all 3 sacraments are administered sequentially. It is not Baptism only.

Those 3 sacraments proceed in the following order:
1. Baptism (any age)

2. 1st Holy Communion

3. Confirmation (the earliest age for Confirmation in most USA dioceses is in the teens after they have received instruction).

Catholic teaching on Free Will is very much highlighted for teens and adults: they have the Free Will to continue instruction and to receive Holy communion and Confirmation to complete their Christian Initiation.

In Catholic World when children are baptised, the sacrament’s prayers involve a commitment by the parents and godparents to raise the child in the Faith.

[temporal1]

i don’t want to interfere with Wade/Max, i have a quick question for Max.
your description of tripartate baptism is my understanding.

was this the Church’s approach before the Reformation? if not, what is the history?

I will endeavor to be succinct and mind that this will not be a detailed dissertation on Catholic Rites of Christian Initiation.
That would take up too much space for this forum.

link?

[Josh]

Nonetheless, Anabaptists got in trouble for baptising adults. “Rebaptism” was a crime in both Catholic and Protestant countries.

Likewise, not baptising babies into the Catholic or Protestant church was also a crime.

[MaxPC]

Nonetheless, Anabaptists got in trouble for baptising adults. “Rebaptism” was a crime in both Catholic and Protestant countries.

Likewise, not baptising babies into the Catholic or Protestant church was also a crime.

It is not a crime now. That was 500 plus/minus years ago.

The only present-day theocracies that define religious crimes of which I am aware are in those controlled by Islam and Communism.

[Josh]

Nonetheless, Anabaptists got in trouble for baptising adults. “Rebaptism” was a crime in both Catholic and Protestant countries.

Likewise, not baptising babies into the Catholic or Protestant church was also a crime.

It is not a crime now. That was 500 plus/minus years ago.

The only theocracies that define religious crimes of which I am aware are in those controlled by Islam and Communism.

For our Anabaptist ancestors it was very serious.

They got chased out of Flanders and Friesland first, then chased out of Poland-Lithuania-Prussia. Then they left Russia when they were required to serve in the military instead of be exempt doing forestry work in lieu of a draft.

[MaxPC]

Nonetheless, Anabaptists got in trouble for baptising adults. “Rebaptism” was a crime in both Catholic and Protestant countries.

Likewise, not baptising babies into the Catholic or Protestant church was also a crime.

It is not a crime now. That was 500 plus/minus years ago.

The only theocracies that define religious crimes of which I am aware are in those controlled by Islam and Communism.

For our Anabaptist ancestors it was very serious.

They got chased out of Flanders and Friesland first, then chased out of Poland-Lithuania-Prussia. Then they left Russia when they were required to serve in the military instead of be exempt doing forestry work in lieu of a draft.

I have no doubt about the level of trauma. I daresay we could spend all day comparing persecutions starting with the first apostles whom we call our first Bishops and Pope.

Yet I feel we are better served to be inspired by their examples of fidelity to Christ rather than blaming their persecutors whose malice stemmed from ignorance. I prefer to ask myself the questions:
Would I risk torture and death to serve Christ?
Would I have had the courage to help and hide non-Catholics during persecutions such as occurred during WWII?

[temporal1]

i asked Max:
your description of tripartate baptism is [also] my understanding.

was this the [Catholic] Church’s approach before the Reformation? if not, what is the history?

This is a question i’ve had for years, i’ve not come across an answer. (i’d appreciate a response from anyone.)

(i would guess) there was no tripartate baptism to begin, which fueled unwanted Anabaptist questions 500 years ago.
As well, IF the Catholic Church ADDED the tripartate to infant baptisms, i would understand this to be a concession to Anabaptist beliefs? ..

Which, i see as a major adjustment - after all, Menno S, Martin L, were devout Catholic monks who did not want to leave the Church, they wanted to correct where the Church had strayed. This was met with violence. If tripartate baptisms were in later response to Protestants/Anabaptists, then, it seems Luther, Menno, the printing press, had an impact where they intended.

How was it?

[MaxPC]

T1, you can read about much of it here. It is a good overview of that history.