Prayers To Mary

I read it. And based on your statement we are at an impass because All of your sources right back to Carroll are stained with the poison of Baptist pen. They like to make ficticious history. The evidence is provided for you in 33 and it doesn't come from a baptist magazine but the actual works of the cardnal

 

Step 11 says that the donatists were the "anabaptists" referred to. Anabaptist just means "re-baptizer". If you read about the donatists, the only thing they have in common with Baptists is that they required converts from Catholicism to be baptized again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

So... does this sound like bible christians?

 

I'll give you a Catholic source. But remember the Catholics hate such groups as the Donatists and anabaptists and deliberately misalign them. They deliberately assign to them beliefs that they do not necessarily hold. The Donatists had much in common with the Baptists. Keep that in mind:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/656264/posts

 

Absolutely. They sound like they were people who rejected the authority of the pope, the Catholic Church, and their heretical teachings.

 

What in the world are you talking about? I'm not quoting from a magazine, I'm posting a scan of Catholic scholar Richard Shacklock's English translation of Hosius published in 1565.

From p. 45:



. . .there shall be no faythe more certayne and true, then is the Anabaptistes, seying there be none now, or haue been before time for the space of these thowsand and to hundred yeares, who haue bene more cruelly punyshed,. . .

 

So your evidence of baptist-style bible-believing christians existing in the early church is the donatists, who believed in a priesthood, the sacrament of confession, and believed that a person who sinned after baptism was lost for ever?

 

I believe if you read Baptist works on those people you would not find them that extreme. Remember their history has been colored by their enemies. Read the Baptist History forum and see what you can find.

 

Actually it is not a misrepresentation of what the RCC believes and teaches. It is a nutshell of teaching from my own RCC family members (some nuns and priests), discussing things with an old and dear friend who is a priest, and studying the issues from Scripture and the vaticans own materials.


Prayer itself is worship. Perhaps the reason so many peoples prayers lack teeth is because they fail to understand this truth.

 

They were a persecuted people. Much of their history is written in blood. Most of it is written by their enemies. Thus accurate historical accounts are hard to find.
Here is one source.

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Donatists.html

 

Richard did translate Hosius and the point is the exact quote in Carrolls pamphlet is not correct (irrelevant if he used the word knife) and is an amalgamation of two other quotes. Neither of which comes from the Apud Opera as that work does not exist. The fact is Hosius list all rebaptizers in the same catagory as Anabaptist but does not consider the Anabaptist to have existed prior to the reformation. He compares them with the same heresy as other re-baptizing groups starting with the Donatist. I spell it out for you in post 33. Donatist are nothing like modern baptist no matter how much DHK wishes they were. They had infant baptism, they were liturgical in practice, etc...

 

Are you suggesting the head of the Latin department at Oxford lied and made up the quotation she gives and falsely cited Hosius as its author??? Are you suggesting that she fabricated the "twelve hundred years" words or that Hosius did not associate the present Anabaptists with the Donatists by the same term "anabaptists" twelve hundred years ago?

There is as much confusion between those who were called "Anabaptists" then as there is among those who are called "Baptists" now in regard to unity of doctrine. The reason being is that Anabaptists/Baptists have always been indepedent congregations free to differ among themselves on issues. However, what they are united on is that Rome's sacraments are invalid and thus refuse to recognize them and so they baptize all who are converted out of Romanism and that is why Rome identiifes them as "Ana-baptists" or "Re-baptizers" but they themselves have always repudiated that name as a name of reproach just as other names given them have been names of reproach.

 

I suggest she only read one section of a longer letter and thus did not report on the context put a singular passage which is misleading. I thought I made it clear.

You need to read more about the reformation then because the Ana baptist were many and varied. Look at its ofspring today the Amish, Mennonite and the baptist. The Amish being more closely related to the orignial Anabaptist. There were a lot of re-baptizing sects at that time.

Even among mondern distinctives? I think not. How many baptist churches today support multiple spouces in one marriage?

Ah then you can put all protestants under the same catagory so even a lutherean is a baptist according to you. Thats the problem with generalizations. The modern baptist do not look like the Anabaptist of the reformation and certainly don't look like any sect prior to the reformation.

 

Then you admit that her rendition is faithful regardless of where it was found in the context?

I assure you that I have probably put a lot more study in it than you have or many on this forum. My professor in seminary did his doctorial on the various types of Anabaptists in the Reformation. I have spent literaly hundreds of hours researching both pro and con historians as well as reading the original translated materials. It is easy to see by your comments that you are totally biased by the con side of the issue and that no amount of discussion will change your view because you are sold out to your pro Catholic sources on this issue.

If you are suggesting that this is a characteristic of Anabaptists you are wrong! This is not a characteristic of Anabaptists at any time in their history. I hope you understand what I mean by "characteristic." Also, the charges made by Roman monkish inquisitors are anything but trustworthy as they manufactured outlandish charges that were repudiated by the very ones they were charging and many times repudiated by their own fellow inquistors.

The Anabaptists did not only characteristically reject the sacraments of Rome but rejected infant baptism. Stick that feather in your "lutherean" hat and wear it and see how far that sticks with "protestants" of the reformation era and before!

 

Oh. I don't know about that lets look at the groups of anabaptist - Zwiglian, Grebel, Manz, Huth, Hubmaier, Hutter... and those are just some of the leaders who all differed with each other about central issues.

You are being purposefully disceptive! Re-read what I said. It is clear I specirfically did not state that this was a characteristics of Anabaptist but of modern baptist who have little similarilty with the anabaptist of the reformation. and to prove that point I showed they did not hold to modern baptist distinctives which meant they were nothing like modern baptist except both hate the RCC. But you knew that you wanted to go down a red herring rabbit hole based on nothing I actually said.

See how you change subjects I said the characteristic of rejecting RCC sacraments go beyond just the anabaptist into all the protestant denominations save one the Anglicans. So this is a loose connection to something which baptist aren't really connected. Baptist are an amalgamation of anabaptist, presbyterian, puritan teachings that was assembled by Smith and others of similar slant. And even has changed since that time. Therefore there certainly is no connection with the donatist.

 

Huh? You specifically pointed to the use of the word "knife" in attempting to dismiss the Cardinal's admissions as "bogus".

Make up your mind.

 

Its a red herring chase. I may be mistaken about the use of the word knife. However, I haven't read the context of Richards statement and if it was taken out of context an placed in a quote not related to what was placed there. Until I read It for my self. I will assume that it was taken out of context just like carroll did with two non related quotes placing them together in his pamphlet and falsely referring to Apud Opera. What is important is the use of the Word Anabaptist as a general term including all rebaptizing sects. Though

 

Groups?????? Zwingli was no Anabaptist! If by "Zwinglian" you are talking about the Swiss Anabaptists that is one thing. However, you shouldn't list Zwinglian distinct from Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz because they met together in 1525 in Switzerland as one group. Grebel and Hubmaier both debated with Zwingli. If you want to talk about geographical "groups" as in the "Swiss" versus Bohemian versus German that is one thing. If you want to talk about "groups" as in Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, etc. that is another thing. If you want to talk about individual preachers as in Grebel versus Hubmaier, etc. that is another thing.

 

You'll see that the " Cardinal Hosius " scam is pretty much all they have - that's why they continually bring it up.

WM

 

As much as I enjoy our discussion, I have to go run errands and probably won't be back till tomorrow. So if I don't answer it is because I am not at my computer.:thumbs:

 

Are you suggesting these men got along? And yes there were regional anabaptist you forgot the Marovian, and English groups as well. But the point is they all disagreed with each other. And they weren't exactly like baptist today!
Therefore there really isn't a "spiritual heritage" going back to the donatist which is the point. there were no 1st century baptist. And the reason there is no record of them isn't because of the RCC but because they didn't exist. If your claim is true that the RCC got rid of all trace of them then how is it with a group we know the RCC wanted to get rid of such as the gnostics; that we still have their writings? Such should be true for the Baptist but there weren't any period.