Speaking Truth in Posts

[Josh]

If we are 'speaking truth in posts' as the title says, then could you please provide the statement by this someone proving the underlined. It could be my memory acting up as I only recall something along the lines that some Catholics have their practise of being 'plain'.

This has been litigated in multiple threads on MennoNet for the past 10+ years. If you really want me to provide examples, please PM and I will privately share them with you.

[Sudsy]

If we are 'speaking truth in posts' as the title says, then could you please provide the statement by this someone proving the underlined. It could be my memory acting up as I only recall something along the lines that some Catholics have their practise of being 'plain'.

This has been litigated in multiple threads on MennoNet for the past 10+ years. If you really want me to provide examples, please PM and I will privately share them with you.

The main statement I referred to is this - 'someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism'. Is there any one statement that says that all the practises of plain Anabaptists are followed by some Catholics or are there statements that speak of certain areas that they believe they share similar beliefs to plain Anabaptists ? You may disagree that they do not share exactly the same practises but I would guess it is also true that Plain Anabaptists do not all agree in their plainness also.

It seems to me that this could be an area of 'turning the other cheek' rather than defending how anyone not a Plain Anabaptist can get away with suggesting they also have identical Plain Anabaptist practises when they are not exactly as a Plain Anabaptist. It seems to me this is taken more as a blow that must be defended rather than taking a route of non-resistance, simply saying one disagrees and move on.

There was a video, can't remember what thread, but it was about some very zealous evangelists going into a Mennonite vacation spot and yelling at people to change their ways. One elderly fellow that was interviewed especially impressed me in how he really displayed an attitude of non-resistance to what these 'evangelists' were doing and just shrugged it off and continued to make the best of what could possibly be a better environment. This got me thinking more about where to pick my fights, if I need to fight at all.

Just saying that sometimes, although it may be a struggle with our flesh, the way to go is to 'turn the other cheek' rather than pursue winning a fight. There is something powerful in taking the root of non-resistance when we feel unjustly treated.

Yes/No ?

[Soloist]

I don’t think it’s possible to define all the practices of plain Anabaptists…

[Josh]

The main statement I referred to is this - 'someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism'. Is there any one statement that says that all the practises of plain Anabaptists are followed by some Catholics or are there statements that speak of certain areas that they believe they share similar beliefs to plain Anabaptists ? You may disagree that they do not share exactly the same practises but I would guess it is also true that Plain Anabaptists do not all agree in their plainness also.

I should have said "someone claiming that some Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism"; in particular, praising the Schleitheim and Dordrecht confessions as somehow being compatible with Catholicism (which they are not).

This is a matter of very simple objective facts. There is no "agree to disagree" here. Claiming that you can adhere to Catholicism and also adhere to either of those confessions is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

It seems to me that this could be an area of 'turning the other cheek' rather than defending how anyone not a Plain Anabaptist can get away with suggesting they also have identical Plain Anabaptist practises when they are not exactly as a Plain Anabaptist.

This has nothing to do with "turning the other cheek". This is simply a discussion on an Internet forum about well defined terms that have meanings, and someone making preposterous claims that have no support anywhere outside of that person's own posts or blog posts.

It seems to me this is taken more as a blow that must be defended rather than taking a route of non-resistance, simply saying one disagrees and move on.

Non-resistance does not mean that when someone makes nonsensical statements that those statements cannot be challenged. Likewise, non-resistance does not mean that someone can make false claims, and every nonresistant person is somehow duty bound to not say anything about it. Quite to the contrary, actually. I thinking speaking for and advocating for truth is a Christian virtue.

There was a video, can't remember what thread, but it was about some very zealous evangelists going into a Mennonite vacation spot and yelling at people to change their ways. One elderly fellow that was interviewed especially impressed me in how he really displayed an attitude of non-resistance to what these 'evangelists' were doing and just shrugged it off and continued to make the best of what could possibly be a better environment. This got me thinking more about where to pick my fights, if I need to fight at all.

Just saying that sometimes, although it may be a struggle with our flesh, the way to go is to 'turn the other cheek' rather than pursue winning a fight. There is something powerful in taking the root of non-resistance when we feel unjustly treated.

I usually do that exact thing. Sometimes, I decide that speaking truth is important, including speaking truth in the face of falsehoods and lies, though. And there is nothing wrong with that. Jesus often did the same.

Yes/No ?

Let me put it to you this way, Sudsy:

A forum post about "Speaking truth in posts" is good.

Someone who consistently does not speak the truth in posts should, perhaps, consider this is a thread that, if they participate in, they may be challenged for their past history of not speaking truth in posts.

[Sudsy]

The main statement I referred to is this - 'someone claiming Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism'. Is there any one statement that says that all the practises of plain Anabaptists are followed by some Catholics or are there statements that speak of certain areas that they believe they share similar beliefs to plain Anabaptists ? You may disagree that they do not share exactly the same practises but I would guess it is also true that Plain Anabaptists do not all agree in their plainness also.

I should have said "someone claiming that some Catholics actually practice plain Anabaptism"; in particular, praising the Schleitheim and Dordrecht confessions as somehow being compatible with Catholicism (which they are not).

This is a matter of very simple objective facts. There is no "agree to disagree" here. Claiming that you can adhere to Catholicism and also adhere to either of those confessions is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

It seems to me that this could be an area of 'turning the other cheek' rather than defending how anyone not a Plain Anabaptist can get away with suggesting they also have identical Plain Anabaptist practises when they are not exactly as a Plain Anabaptist.

This has nothing to do with "turning the other cheek". This is simply a discussion on an Internet forum about well defined terms that have meanings, and someone making preposterous claims that have no support anywhere outside of that person's own posts or blog posts.

It seems to me this is taken more as a blow that must be defended rather than taking a route of non-resistance, simply saying one disagrees and move on.

Non-resistance does not mean that when someone makes nonsensical statements that those statements cannot be challenged. Likewise, non-resistance does not mean that someone can make false claims, and every nonresistant person is somehow duty bound to not say anything about it. Quite to the contrary, actually. I thinking speaking for and advocating for truth is a Christian virtue.

There was a video, can't remember what thread, but it was about some very zealous evangelists going into a Mennonite vacation spot and yelling at people to change their ways. One elderly fellow that was interviewed especially impressed me in how he really displayed an attitude of non-resistance to what these 'evangelists' were doing and just shrugged it off and continued to make the best of what could possibly be a better environment. This got me thinking more about where to pick my fights, if I need to fight at all.

Just saying that sometimes, although it may be a struggle with our flesh, the way to go is to 'turn the other cheek' rather than pursue winning a fight. There is something powerful in taking the root of non-resistance when we feel unjustly treated.

I usually do that exact thing. Sometimes, I decide that speaking truth is important, including speaking truth in the face of falsehoods and lies, though. And there is nothing wrong with that. Jesus often did the same.

Yes/No ?

Let me put it to you this way, Sudsy:

A forum post about "Speaking truth in posts" is good.

Someone who consistently does not speak the truth in posts should, perhaps, consider this is a thread that, if they participate in, they may be challenged for their past history of not speaking truth in posts.

Some things we see the same, others we don't. One thing we are reminded of in Col 4:6 is how we speak to each other in all circumstances.

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

This says to me that truth should be spoken but there is a right and wrong way to do it. When I am not led by the Spirit and I respond in the flesh, the results will not be God honoring. In some situations this can be quite a challenge but if we desire a good result, we need His way of speaking truth to others. Someone may look at me and say you sure are an ugly old guy which is likely true. But that truth is not anything that is going to benefit me. However, if they say that we are not what we used to be, I will agree and not say something back to defend myself. Words matter and I don't use them wisely at times.

There are some here that I hope I can someday aspire to be like with how they post in a Col 4:6 manner. However, my days are running out.

[MaxPC]

There’s a context that for the last 10 years or so (or longer), there have been repeated claims by a certain person that “Plain Catholicism” exists, along with claims such as:

- Catholics don’t require infant baptism and are fine with adult believers’ baptism. (Not true)
- Catholics can affirm the Schleitheim / Dordrecht confessions. (not true)
- Catholics hold to nonresistance. (Generally speaking, not true.)
- Websites about “Plain Catholics” accurately describe their practice, when the pictures on them were of German Baptists, Amish, or other Anabaptists.

If we are 'speaking truth in posts' as the title says, then could you please provide the statement by this someone proving the underlined. It could be my memory acting up as I only recall something along the lines that some Catholics have their practise of being 'plain'. Actually all of the list of what has been claimed to be true I would need to see these claims as posted from the past to agree they were claimed. If they are what you have read into posts, then I will consider these as opinions from what has been said and should be stated as opinions, imo.

Whoops I used quote marks where I meant to use underlining. Corrected above.

Sudsy, you are correct. As for the other claims they are incorrect. Catholics do not affirm those confessions as a part of our Creed. I did inquire about those confessions as I saw some similarities between them and some Catholic writings.

Regarding Baptism, I shared that the parents decide on when and if a child is baptised. We do have adult baptisms but again, these are determined via the person's circumstances. Important note: while children's baptisms might be mentioned and the priest offers to conduct that baptism, they are not required by the RCC. That is a very big difference. The catechesis offers volumes on the if-thens and wherefores. Each case is considered individually.

Some Catholics practise non-resistance. Others do not. I myself do. This is a personal matter of discernment.

As for websites the only source for Plain Catholic information currently is the main blog. While there have been experimental efforts in the past by a very young Plain Catholic, as far as I am able to determine those no longer exist. One effort was quite aged, at least in internet terms. The young man is now in his late 30s.

At the end of the day, people will believe what they will. At 94 I am long past caring about others' opinions of me. I share your concern about truth and the use of charitable speech. I genuinely feel these are two of the hallmarks of Christian behaviors.

[ohio jones]

At the end of the day, people will believe what they will. At 94 I am long past caring about others' opinions of me. I share your concern about truth and the use of charitable speech. I genuinely feel these are two of the hallmarks of Christian behaviors.

Max, I do appreciate that you consistently use charitable speech. Thank you.

[Verity]

There was a man who lived in a dream world. He believed he was respected, admired and very wise. He wrote many papers and books, spoke with what he believed was convincing power and raised a very large family. It puzzled him somewhat that his offspring did not care to spend much time with him, but he busied himself with more writing and dreaming. It angered him when people pointed out his errors, but he wrote them off as jealous or ignorant.

In reality, he was either pitied or despised. There were a handful of people who did indeed appreciate his writing, yet none who knew him personally. Those close to him found him a challenge to relate to. Some continued to argue, pointing out his faulty reasoning and inconsistencies. Others smiled and moved on, letting his words fall to the dust where they did no harm. No one who knew him respected him.

He was his own worst enemy.

[MaxPC]

There was a man who lived in a dream world. He believed he was respected, admired and very wise. He wrote many papers and books, spoke with what he believed was convincing power and raised a very large family. It puzzled him somewhat that his offspring did not care to spend much time with him, but he busied himself with more writing and dreaming. It angered him when people pointed out his errors, but he wrote them off as jealous or ignorant.

In reality, he was either pitied or despised. There were a handful of people who did indeed appreciate his writing, yet none who knew him personally. Those close to him found him a challenge to relate to. Some continued to argue, pointing out his faulty reasoning and inconsistencies. Others smiled and moved on, letting his words fall to the dust where they did no harm. No one who knew him respected him.

He was his own worst enemy.

Outside of God’s Holy Will, everything becomes dust.

[steve-in-kville]

There was a man who lived in a dream world. He believed he was respected, admired and very wise. He wrote many papers and books, spoke with what he believed was convincing power and raised a very large family. It puzzled him somewhat that his offspring did not care to spend much time with him, but he busied himself with more writing and dreaming. It angered him when people pointed out his errors, but he wrote them off as jealous or ignorant.

In reality, he was either pitied or despised. There were a handful of people who did indeed appreciate his writing, yet none who knew him personally. Those close to him found him a challenge to relate to. Some continued to argue, pointing out his faulty reasoning and inconsistencies. Others smiled and moved on, letting his words fall to the dust where they did no harm. No one who knew him respected him.

He was his own worst enemy.

This sounds almost familiar to me