Can Anabaptism be Catholic and vice versa?

[Sudsy]

Soloist, you may wonder why I am not responding to your posts for awhile, I am putting you on my 'foes list'. I think this feature has it's benefits when it causes one to not be 'non-resistant' on some topics until one can do it with the right attitude. I admit that your approach to pursuing truth is not one that I share and one I currently am not handling well. But my PM is still open if you care to carry on there.

[Josh]

We isolate from bars and parties that network with booze as a lubricant.

Statements like these are particularly intriguing; I enjoy socialising with Catholics including ones who prefer the traditional Latin mass. But, at the last social gathering I had with them, beverages were indeed consumed which is a bit different than how I live my life or what I prefer to have my family around.

So if I could find and network with these "Plain Catholics" who avoid bars and parties that network with booze as a lubricant - I'd be very interested.

Plain Catholics isolate from professional sports; carnivals, amusement parks, social media (such as FB, X, etc)

I do likewise and would also be interested in making more Catholic friend who do the same; no criticism of Catholics friends who don't, but obviously I can't go spend time with them going to an Indians* game, or connect via Facebook or Twitter.

*Or whatever they're called now.

[Soloist]

Soloist, you may wonder why I am not responding to your posts for awhile, I am putting you on my 'foes list'. I think this feature has it's benefits when it causes one to not be 'non-resistant' on some topics until one can do it with the right attitude. I admit that your approach to pursuing truth is not one that I share and one I currently am not handling well. But my PM is still open if you care to carry on there.

I don’t use the foe system although I can understand why you would since I have openly stated you are in a sinful relationship.
I doubt I will message you about my view on your choices but I will continue to respond to your posts if I feel they are wrong and you will get notified if I quote you.

[Neto]

According to the things I've seen (written, on the internet, not in person), these "plain Catholics" do not claim to 'live in communities'. To my understanding, they are individual families who may only very seldom gather as a group, but attend services with "regular Catholics" in the closest diocese. Has there been a claim to huge numbers involved in this 'movement'? I do not know, because I haven't read most of these discussions about this dispute. I will just make it plain here, that I am not tempted in the least to join any Catholic movement. I feel very strongly about this central 'doctrine' or belief of the Dutch 'baptism-minded' - that we seek a pure church, not one with a full range of belief, where some dabble in immorality w/o any conviction. We do not believe in "the True Church within the full 'church'," as do 'State churches'.

I think the issue is that Max and these websites express how one lives as a plain Catholic rather then simply say they live plainly. Consider his common use of “we” in regard to plain Catholics.

As Plain Catholics, we avoid cinema so have declined.

Likewise, Plain Catholics have similar perspectives as you have regarding mass media and the internet. We do not allow our children access to the internet until they are 17 or 18 and even then, we monitor their usage. If they have to have a mobile, a simple flip phone suffices. Broadcast telly is not connected to Plain Catholic households.

Plain Catholics isolate from professional sports; carnivals, amusement parks, social media (such as FB, X, etc). We isolate from bars and parties that network with booze as a lubricant. We isolate from political rallies and those who only live to acquire another status symbol.

OK. As I said, I haven't followed these discussions closely. Also, this last part, about "isolating from those who only live to acquire another status symbol" would, to me, preclude involvement in the average Catholic diocese. BUT, I do not really know - this is just an impression I got from the few high-society Catholics we got to know in Brazil. (We attended one event while in language school, with a Catholic couple we met on the flight down to Brazil - a Sao Joao party, where there was loud music, drinking, and dancing. On the way home, he purposely stopped the car where there was a beggar beside the road, a gave him some cash. I was impressed by that, because the Protestant missionaries who were running the school we were attending avoided beggars as much as possible.) My sister-in-law's mother was a VERY devout (Polish) Catholic. But her dad & brothers were anything but.

After I put up my previous comments (my wife called me for lunch right then), I was thinking more about the relative importance of a Pure Church" in comparison to the importance of "believer's baptism". I see the latter as a sub-item of the first. That is, with this central statement (of at least the Dutch Mennonites) - "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and practice" as a sort of definition of what it means to be "a pure church", the washing of baptism is just one thing within that realm of doctrine. I know that it seems to be impossible to attain to that goal, but that doesn't mean that it should not be our goal, the thing for which we strive together, encouraging one another on toward holiness before God.

[Josh]

After I put up my previous comments (my wife called me for lunch right then), I was thinking more about the relative importance of a Pure Church" in comparison to the importance of "believer's baptism". I see the latter as a sub-item of the first. That is, with this central statement (of at least the Dutch Mennonites) - "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and practice" as a sort of definition of what it means to be "a pure church", the washing of baptism is just one thing within that realm of doctrine. I know that it seems to be impossible to attain to that goal, but that doesn't mean that it should not be our goal, the thing for which we strive together, encouraging one another on toward holiness before God.

I'm having an ongoing ecumenical dialogue with a Catholic person, and I think the "pure church" mindset is another stark difference between Catholics and Anabaptists. In his point of view, we should be willing to go to communion alongside people who aren't following the teachings of the Catholic Church at all (such as, for example, a politician promoting abortion, or a military leader conducting a war), for the sake of unity.

The Anabaptist perspective is different. They think it is better to "come out from among them, and be ye separate."

[ken_sylvania]

Soloist, you may wonder why I am not responding to your posts for awhile, I am putting you on my 'foes list'. I think this feature has it's benefits when it causes one to not be 'non-resistant' on some topics until one can do it with the right attitude. I admit that your approach to pursuing truth is not one that I share and one I currently am not handling well. But my PM is still open if you care to carry on there.

I guess it takes one to know one.

As far as I am concerned, the only reason for an announcement like this is to make a public spectacle of your disagreement with Soloist. For you to try to phrase it as if you're just trying to be considerate in letting him know why you won't be responding to him seems - I don't know how to describe it - kind of slimy somehow?

Somehow Sudsy it seems to me that you're as aggressive towards Soloist as you claim he is toward MaxPC.

[Sudsy]

Soloist, you may wonder why I am not responding to your posts for awhile, I am putting you on my 'foes list'. I think this feature has it's benefits when it causes one to not be 'non-resistant' on some topics until one can do it with the right attitude. I admit that your approach to pursuing truth is not one that I share and one I currently am not handling well. But my PM is still open if you care to carry on there.

I guess it takes one to know one.

As far as I am concerned, the only reason for an announcement like this is to make a public spectacle of your disagreement with Soloist. For you to try to phrase it as if you're just trying to be considerate in letting him know why you won't be responding to him seems - I don't know how to describe it - kind of slimy somehow?

Somehow Sudsy it seems to me that you're as aggressive towards Soloist as you claim he is toward MaxPC.

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.

[Soloist]

Given Mennonet… you might end up with nothing to read.

[ken_sylvania]

Soloist, you may wonder why I am not responding to your posts for awhile, I am putting you on my 'foes list'. I think this feature has it's benefits when it causes one to not be 'non-resistant' on some topics until one can do it with the right attitude. I admit that your approach to pursuing truth is not one that I share and one I currently am not handling well. But my PM is still open if you care to carry on there.

I guess it takes one to know one.

As far as I am concerned, the only reason for an announcement like this is to make a public spectacle of your disagreement with Soloist. For you to try to phrase it as if you're just trying to be considerate in letting him know why you won't be responding to him seems - I don't know how to describe it - kind of slimy somehow?

Somehow Sudsy it seems to me that you're as aggressive towards Soloist as you claim he is toward MaxPC.

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?

[Sudsy]

I guess it takes one to know one.

As far as I am concerned, the only reason for an announcement like this is to make a public spectacle of your disagreement with Soloist. For you to try to phrase it as if you're just trying to be considerate in letting him know why you won't be responding to him seems - I don't know how to describe it - kind of slimy somehow?

Somehow Sudsy it seems to me that you're as aggressive towards Soloist as you claim he is toward MaxPC.

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.