Here:
Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox
I outlined what happened in the 1300's-early 1400's.
I want to go back and show that indeed, the Donatists, in possession of scriptures themselves, were persecuted in the same fashion.
"Oxford theologian Henry Chadwick focuses on the persecution that occurred under Emperor Diocletian between 303 and 305, beginning with his purging the army of Christians in 302, later equating loyalty to Christ with high treason, and finally lapsing into “the irrational ferocity [of] liquidating anyone who failed to conform.” The violence during the Diocletian persecution can not be understated, and by many accounts his attempt was a total extermination of Christianity.
The North African church was a recipient of the Diocletian persecution, and it lost many believers. Martyrdom was commonplace, and some scholars believe that some “deliberately courted martyrdom, consciously provoking arrest and execution.”
The church was horrified by stories of their fellow believers being handed over, along with many of their holiest scriptures, to be destroyed, often not by their enemies, but by traitorous Christian leaders within their own church. The church in North Africa was then faced with the decision “between the Church of traditores (traitors) and persecutors, or the unsullied Church of the martyrs.” A vast majority of North African Christians began seeing themselves as “a church of martyrs.”
Source
I also submit:
"In the last decade of the 3rd century CE, Emperor Diocletian ordered persecutions of various groups he blamed for a wave of plagues and pestilences which had swept the western Empire and resulted in economic and social instability. The chief target-groups ended up being (initially) Manicheans, and then Christians.
Diocletian’s persecutions were not carried out evenly through the Empire. In some provinces, Roman rulers and forces didn’t have the power or resources to carry them out. In others, particularly the large eastern cities, there were so many Christians that the authorities could not carry them out, aside perhaps from a few “examples.”
Northern Africa, however, was home to the confluence of three factors: first, a strong Roman administrative and governing presence capable of carrying out Diocletian’s orders; second, a significant number of Manichaeans who were initially persecuted; and third, a significant nummber of Christians who became later targets. Such a combination of factors did not exist anywhere else in the Empire; hence, the controversy to come was unique to northern Africa.
During the persecutions, any Christian who renounced Christianity, made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had, were spared. Those who refused — especially those caught with Christian texts that they refused to hand over or destroy — were usually killed. That texts were often used to determine who was Christian and who wasn’t, meant that the clergy — those Christians most likely to have such things — were particularly vulnerable to the persecution.
While some Christian clergy resisted and were martyred, many did not. They renounced Christianity, allowed their books to be burned, and were spared. This was, of course, also true of many lay Christians, although a smaller percentage of them were affected because most had no sacred texts to give them away."
Source
It's funny, John Wycliffe who wanted to put into the hands of the people the scriptures, was presecuted for it. Dying a natural death was enough, no! It was also ordered that he be dug up, burned, and his ashes scattered.
1000 years earlier, anybody who had their possession scriptures, were put to death if they did not surrender them.
But, we must continue.
What was the Donatist controversy really all about?
"The church was horrified by stories of their fellow believers being handed over, along with many of their holiest scriptures, to be destroyed, often not by their enemies, but
by traitorous Christian leaders within their own church."
Ibid
They became known as "
traditores, those who had actively betrayed it."
After the Diocletian persecution ended, many who betrayed the church and the people, were admitted back into the priesthood.
"After Diocletian, the persecutions died down, and Christianity began to poke its head above ground once again (to use a cliché). In the first decade of the 4th century, churches were restored, clergy performed services again, and so on. Christians were, however, still cautious, afraid of invoking another persecution. Clergy were particularly cautious, due to their own vulnerability. When Diocletian’s successor Constantine declared tolerance for Christianity in 313, all fear went away.
In the interim, between the end of Diocletian’s persecution, and the Edict of Milan which made it safe to be openly Christian, the Church in northern Africa had to settle for whichever clergy were willing to “return to the fold.” Some had never been caught by the Roman authorities, but
others had renounced Christianity in order to stay alive. At first no one had much choice in the matter; too few clergy were willing to make themselves known again. But as it became ever safer to be Christian, the problem came to a head. Adding to it was the problem of Christians, particularly clergy, who wished to mollify the Imperial regime and thus try to accomodate it. Many who remembered the martyrs found it upsetting that fellow Christians would try to “make nice” with the enemy.
Many of these same north African Christians did not want to allow lapsed clergy (i.e. those who’d renounced their faith) to return. They considered it offensive to the memories of those who’d had the courage to become martyrs by not doing so. They might return to the Church as laymen — after an appropriate penance — but not as clergy ever again. Even prior to the Edict of Milan, this sentiment had been building; the open acceptance by Rome of Christianity merely caused the dam to break.
A cleric named Caecilian was elected Bishop of Carthage in 312, who was of the “pro-Roman” camp. This incensed many, and they refused to accept his appointment, on the legalistic grounds that he hadn’t been properly ordained in the first place, some years prior. These “purists” elected, instead, their own bishop, Majorinus, one who denounced the “Roman collaborators” and refused to restore lapsed clergy. When he died in 315, the purists elected Donatus, also called Donatus Magnus. Due to his long tenure as the purist Bishop of Carthage (from 315 to 355 despite an exile in 347), Donatus ended up being the primary spokesman for the movement, and it bears his name.
Donatus and his faction declared the lapsed clergy ineligible to perform the sacraments, and that any which they may have performed, were invalid. The opposing party declared, again, that lapsed clergy could be restored to full authority — including the perfomance of sacraments — after having performed appropriate penance. They based this idea on the concept of forgiveness for all.
Source
This is the reason why Donatists were also known now as the fore-runners to the Anabaptists. Anybody who had been baptized by the clergy who during the persecutions and had "made offerings to the Roman state gods and/or the Imperial divine cult, and who burned any sacred Christian texts they may have had" were thus deemed
traditores. And anybody who was baptized by these "
traditores" the Donatists wanted to "re-baptize" them.
Which is why the Donatists are also known for one of their beliefs:
"The sacraments. Maintaining the purity and thus the authenticity of the sacraments was of fundamental importance within Donatism. The true church was the church whose sacraments were pure and untainted. Unlike the Catholics,
who taught that sacraments remained valid and effective despite unworthiness on the part of the officiating church leader,
Donatists regarded the worthiness of the church leader as critical. Thus, any who had been baptised by those who belonged to churches tainted by fellowship with traditors, had to be re-baptised when they joined the Donatist churches. Similarly, consecrations in such circumstances were null and void.
They rejected the Catholic argument that the sacraments were gifts of Christ and were valid despite shortcomings in ministers."
Source
One writer is absolutely correct:
"The Donatist controversy was never actually resolved. It remained a divisive point right up until the Muslim conquest of northern Africa in the 7th century, when Christianity in the region was wiped out."
Ibid
I'm not saying what the Donatists did was right, I'm not saying what the Catholic church did was wrong. I'm not saying the Donatists were wrong and the Catholic church was right.
What I am saying is there is a "link" between Donatists and Anabaptists. Although the Anabaptists came along some 7-800 years later, the link is seen in "re-baptizing". Although the reasons are different, the fact remains that both, the Donatists to a lesser degree, the Anabaptists to a larger degree, both practiced "re-baptism".
Dismiss it if you like, say it isn't there if you like. Deny it if want.
But there it is n black and white.
God Bless
Till all are one.
