Can Anabaptism be Catholic and vice versa?

[ken_sylvania]

You are entitled to your opinion Ken and considering some of your responses to me in the past, this is nothing new. Is this a carnal response of mine ? Yes, perhaps I should also put you on my 'foe' list.

Well, at least I'm consistent then, right?
Is it OK to be responding in a carnal way?

As you can see Ken I didn't put you on my 'foe' list and 'no' I should not give way to my flesh (carnal). Some days are better than others and I'm so glad God forgives us of our trespasses.

I only recall Josh and now Soloist being put on my 'foes list' and Josh is now off. Soloist has, more than once, brought up what he calls my marriage as a sinful relationship as he did again when it appears he wants this to be known by everyone when he is challenged. I may have put others on this list, I just don't recall. I was originally against such a thing as a 'foes list' but have used it until I felt I could deal with what is said in a better way.

By putting it in a post publicly, it allows everyone to know why I'm not replying to him at the moment.

OK

[ohio jones]

I was originally against such a thing as a 'foes list' but have used it until I felt I could deal with what is said in a better way.

If that is what the Holy Spirit is leading you to do, be blessed in doing it.

[Ernie]

C.S. Lewis laid out what he considers to be "Mere Christianity". G.K. Chesterton wrote about "Orthodoxy".
According to their definition, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Anabaptists are all orthodox.

When it comes to Christian apologetics as compared with other worldviews, I think there are basic tenets of the Christian faith that we share in common. There are many things I can learn from apologists who are not Anabaptist.

But if I was to define "mere Christianity" or "orthodoxy" as an Anabaptist, I would include tenets not accepted by the three main branches of Christianity.

[Sudsy]

I was originally against such a thing as a 'foes list' but have used it until I felt I could deal with what is said in a better way.

If that is what the Holy Spirit is leading you to do, be blessed in doing it.

I do not believe every decision I make will be Holy Spirit lead but I believe I need to be open to His guidance. Isaiah 30:21 speaks of a voice behind us guiding us in the way that we should go. The picture I see is the Good Shepherd walking behind His sheep and when one gets too far astray He calls them back so they don't go too far to the right or to the left.

Holy Spirit guidance might be a good topic sometime to hear how others experience and have experienced His guidance.

[Josh]

C.S. Lewis laid out what he considers to be "Mere Christianity". G.K. Chesterton wrote about "Orthodoxy".
According to their definition, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Anabaptists are all orthodox.

When it comes to Christian apologetics as compared with other worldviews, I think there are basic tenets of the Christian faith that we share in common. There are many things I can learn from apologists who are not Anabaptist.

But if I was to define "mere Christianity" or "orthodoxy" as an Anabaptist, I would include tenets not accepted by the three main branches of Christianity.

This usually ends up distilled down to beliefs about the trinity and christology. I find it an odd distinction - they end up deciding Anglicans are “orthodox” (despite some having gay weddings, gay clergy, and very questionable practices), yet would say Apostolic Pentecostals aren’t “orthodox” because they hold to Sebellianism for their christology. I have a hard time seeing how they are farther from the truth than the present day Church of England.

[JayP]

This is an absurd question. As someone who has been both a Catholic and an Anabaptist at different points in my life, and yes literally an Anabaptist, what is the point?

Regardless of the discussions about “plain”, this literal question is so obviously NO I find it painful.

Catholicism believes in baptism of infants as valid and is a sacrament of their church.
Anabaptists (by meaning of the word) do not. They WERE anabaptists literally by being baptized again as adults. (As was I).

This question is as silly as is a dog a cat.

It does not matter what they have in common, which is a lot. It does not matter that many, myself included, believe converts from RCC makes the best Anabaptists. Jeez Louise, this question is a new low point in the sometimes dopey-ness of this board.

[Grace]

This is an absurd question. As someone who has been both a Catholic and an Anabaptist at different points in my life, and yes literally an Anabaptist, what is the point?

Regardless of the discussions about “plain”, this literal question is so obviously NO I find it painful.

Catholicism believes in baptism of infants as valid and is a sacrament of their church.
Anabaptists (by meaning of the word) do not. They WERE anabaptists literally by being baptized again as adults. (As was I).

This question is as silly as is a dog a cat.

It does not matter what they have in common, which is a lot. It does not matter that many, myself included, believe converts from RCC makes the best Anabaptists. Jeez Louise, this question is a new low point in the sometimes dopey-ness of this board.

There some euphemisms that are a different version of taking the Lord's name in vain. At least that is what I was always taught.

[Josh]

This is an absurd question. As someone who has been both a Catholic and an Anabaptist at different points in my life, and yes literally an Anabaptist, what is the point?

Regardless of the discussions about “plain”, this literal question is so obviously NO I find it painful.

Catholicism believes in baptism of infants as valid and is a sacrament of their church.
Anabaptists (by meaning of the word) do not. They WERE anabaptists literally by being baptized again as adults. (As was I).

This question is as silly as is a dog a cat.

It does not matter what they have in common, which is a lot. It does not matter that many, myself included, believe converts from RCC makes the best Anabaptists. Jeez Louise, this question is a new low point in the sometimes dopey-ness of this board.

I agree it’s an absurd question - but it is one that certain people keep proposing on this forum, trying to claim that Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy can be “compatible” with Anabaptism, and sometimes even claiming that they have the same doctrines.

[JayP]

You coincidentally demonstrated this point with the references to Orthodox and Catholic.
If I today stopped by the Mennonite church where I was once a member, I would be greeted nicely.
But no one would consider me a Mennonite, allow me to partake in communion or any other significant church member ritual.
When I was a Mennonite, if I stopped by my then former Catholic Church no one who knew I was now a Mn on-site would suggest I take communion (although I am sure they would suggest confession!).

They are not compatible.

By contrast, I am part of a family that has Roman and Orthodox members.
While an Orthodox priest would PREFER I not take communion I can
And if while visiting had a heart attack an Orthodox priest would offer me last rites, as would a Roman priest for a visiting Orthodox person who is dying.

Neither will do that for a dying Mennonite.

Why is there some desire to say otherwise? It does not mean Mennonites should go beat up Catholics or vice versa

(And why do spell checkers try to fix Latin phrases….shouldn’t they be in the dictionary?

[Josh]

Why is there some desire to say otherwise? It does not mean Mennonites should go beat up Catholics or vice versa

There has been ongoing discussion for almost a decade here on MN/MD with certain people holding a position that Catholics can be in harmony with Anabaptists, that Catholics are fine with believer’s baptism, etc.

Whilst I have no desire for sectarianism or disunity, and everyone’s heart longs for unification and restoration, I also feel we need to be realistic about how things stand today.