Do Plain Catholics exist?

[Judas Maccabeus]

It would appear that in the Matthew 7:21-23 account that many had a high opinion of their religious ways but Jesus did not recognize them as one of His. He never knew them. They were never one of His sheep. Never OSAS . And those last two words is not an invite to discussing eternal security.

You think it is ok to develop a "nonexistent" group and present it as real? And you think it is wrong to label it as suspect?

I think you missed Sudsy's point. I wonder if you may be mistaking the missionary tactics of grooming that you were familiar with using and so ascribing that to Max. Except you at the time we're trying to reach the list. It doesn't seem Max believes Anabaptist people are lost. Not assuming all are saved but this pursuit seems futile and the way y'all are commenting in attitude seems what Sudsy is cautioning against. Some have given Max the right hand of fellowship instead of the foot.

I iwould as well, if he would abandon popery and embrace the truth.

[Sudsy]

Would it possibly affect our salvation?

It would appear that in the Matthew 7:21-23 account that many had a high opinion of their religious ways but Jesus did not recognize them as one of His. He never knew them. They were never one of His sheep. Never OSAS . And those last two words is not an invite to discussing eternal security.

You think it is ok to develop a "nonexistent" group and present it as real? And you think it is wrong to label it as suspect?

Judas, I believe, there are some here, myself included, that believe there is an existing group, even if it were only a few, who regard themselves as
'Plain Catholic'. And I also believe that they don't need to prove their existence using Internet references to anyone.

You are free to believe otherwise if you wish and you and others have questioned and made statements that they really don't exist. But, you seem to me, to not accept that others see things different than you do and you seem to be on a mission, along with some others, to point out what you believe are lies. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to correct me.

Imo, you have explained your reasons but you have not converted all of us to accept your conclusion that these people that call themselves 'Plain Catholic' do not exist. They can have that name and not be entirely identical to those who label themselves as 'Plain Anabaptist' but have certain characteristics of being 'plain'.

Gcdonner gives his affiliation as 'Anabaptiluthercostal'. I believe this is a name he has made up that indicates that in his beliefs there is some Anabaptist, Lutheran and Pentecostal beliefs. This does not mean that he embraces all of the beliefs of any of these three. Likewise if I called myself a 'Plain Catholic' that does not mean I have embraced all the beliefs and practises of 'Plain Anabaptists' regarding being 'plain'.

But when we start to mock others for the way they believe different from us, I think we are crossing a line where we shouldn't go. Been there, done that. We may think this is our right and/or duty as a Christian but are we qualified that we ourselves are sin free and as Jesus said, then if so, we can go ahead and cast the first stone.

So, the answer is easy to the thread title - of course they exist if any group, however small, calls themselves a 'Plain Catholic'. It is up to them what they define to be 'plain' and not other Christians defining what they must be. Thats how I seez it.

[Josh]

It’s not mocking to question someone who keeps making conflicting claims on a forum. The most obvious is MaxPC keeps claiming to be various ages that don’t line up with the calendar year. It goes to credibility; if he can’t keep that straight, should we take everything else he says at face value?

He claims Plain Catholics have continuously existed for 100 years and that they are scattered around the globe, yet offers zero evidence any of this is the case. He expects us to just take him at his word. The problem is, his word isn’t very reliable.

[ohio jones]

Gcdonner gives his affiliation as 'Anabaptiluthercostal'. I believe this is a name he has made up that indicates that in his beliefs there is some Anabaptist, Lutheran and Pentecostal beliefs. This does not mean that he embraces all of the beliefs of any of these three. Likewise if I called myself a 'Plain Catholic' that does not mean I have embraced all the beliefs and practises of 'Plain Anabaptists' regarding being 'plain'.

George doesn't claim that there are other Anabaptiluthercostals scattered around the globe; he's referring only to himself. If that's what Max would be doing, there'd be no controversy.

[Verity]

Long ago a woman met a man who was clearly a Jew... but his words and actions were unlike any Jew she had ever met before.

"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."
John 4:9,34

Some of us have experienced people identifying us by our appearance, only to tell us later "You are unlike any Mennonite/Amish/Brethren/---- I ever met before. Why do you care about me instead of writing me off as worldly?"

Reasons for identifying with a certain group or denomination are endless. What truly identifies us? "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45


Are we finishing His work?

[Josh]

Good post, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the question “Do Plain Catholics exist?”

[Ken]

The question I keep coming back to is what is the purpose of all of this.

Say, for example, that I am an LGBT advocate and that I decide to invent a branch of the Amish church that I'm going to call LGBT Amish. A group of Amish who are friendly towards LGBT rights, that accommodate gay marriage and gay/trans membership. Maybe I even put up a web site with photoshopped or staged photos of gay Amish men or women holding hands, kissing, etc. Or of Amish families with two dads or two mothers. Maybe a rainbow sticker on a buggy, and so forth. And maybe I borrow some LGBT-friendly theological language from some other liberal denomination that is actually LGBT-friendly and say "We are the LGBT Amish and these are the things that we believe...."

Now the Amish are a pretty big and growing group. So there are no doubt some Amish who are, indeed gay. And some who no doubt are friendly or accommodating to LGBT people in their personal beliefs. The Amish have diversity like any other group. But it is certainly not the case that there are actual LGBT Amish CONGREGATIONS out there. And if I claimed that there were, the first thing that most people would say is: That is nonsense. SHOW us this actual LGBT Amish congregation.

So what would be my motivation in working up this sort of false claim? I suppose if I am an LGBT advocate then my motivation might be to advance LGBT rights by claiming: "See, even conservative groups like the Amish are coming around to our way of thinking" So do LGBT Amish exist? Undoubtedly. But are there organized congregations of LGBT Amish? Absolutely not. And a fake web site isn't going to make it so.

Turning to the issue of plain Catholics. Just like there are undoubtedly a few gay Amish out there, with 1.4 Catholics on the planet there are no doubt some Catholics who look with approval at the plain lifestyle of Anabaptists and even perhaps model part of it. When you have a population of over 1 billion people there are no doubt going to be every conceivable type of person represented. But that is very different from claiming that there are actual CONGREGATIONS of plain Amish that adhere to some apostate plain version of Catholicism that diverges from the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. In fact, the structure of the Catholic church is actually organized to prevent that sort of thing in through the dioceses structure in which local communities do not choose their leadership like Protestants. They are assigned by the Bishop of the diocese. And often come from long distances or even overseas. For example, the local Catholic church near my house has a priest shipped in from India.

So what is the motivation behind claiming that there are congregations of "plain Catholics" out there? Is it to infiltrate Catholic teachings into Anabaptism? Is it to simply try to gain "cred" when participating in discussions about plain Anabaptism. I have no idea, but that is the correct question to ask.

[Soloist]

There is also another possibility that isn’t mentioned that kind of makes more sense with a refusal to admit to lying.

[Bootstrap]

There is also another possibility that isn’t mentioned that kind of makes more sense with a refusal to admit to lying.

There are probably several - what do you have in mind?

Here's a simple possibility that seems likely to me: people sometimes create fictional Internet personas because it makes them more interesting, it gets them attention and approval. And they can start to live into those fantasies. Anything that challenges that with truth can come across as threatening.

It’s all so familiar: the accusations of bullying whenever people start questioning things; the people that inexplicably defend him from the “bullying,” apparently unable to conceive that someone would just lie (that it’s inconceivable probably says good things about their character, I suppose); the ad hoc just-so stories to explain things away; even the ironic lecture on the importance of the truth.

I agree, that all means something.

We can make long lists of things that don't add up. What we can't do is have a conversation that focuses on these things, with straightforward answers to the questions we have about these discrepancies. That really hasn't ever happened.

At the same time, he asks us to believe all kinds of things based on his personal authority. If a picture turns out to be Anabaptists,, not Plain Catholics, as literally hundreds of pictures have over the years, well, we're wrong, and he can tell us stories about the people. Ditto for houses that are in open air museums or parks. If the history doesn't add up ... well, he's the authority, how dare we doubt him. If we find official statements of what Catholics teach in the Catechism or Canon Law or on the Vatican website, well, we obviously don't know what we're talking about ... he asserts his authority, without responding to the facts in front of our noses. If his age changes significantly between posts, well, he just isn't focused on numbers. If scientific statements don't seem to make sense, well, we should defer to his authority as a scientist (which he probably is not, based on the content of his posts).

I don't think any of us should assume we are the authority, not to be questioned. I think all of us should be willing to provide facts when asked. We should not be offended by the kinds of discussion that lead to truth.

[Bootstrap]

Judas, I believe, there are some here, myself included, that believe there is an existing group, even if it were only a few, who regard themselves as 'Plain Catholic'. And I also believe that they don't need to prove their existence using Internet references to anyone.

No, not if that's all they say.

If they start showing us pictures, telling us histories, making claims about Catholic theology that seem not to be true, claiming to be rather different ages depending on when they post, making claims about personal authority that should not be questioned ... then I think they should not be surprised if we ask them to prove their claims.