Here’s what I find written by his own hand.Well… I had never read anything about this guy so this is curious.
He and his fellow priests were minimally trained compared to post Council of Trent standards. This is one of the things that Trent went on to correct.OK…he has doubts about the Eucharistic Real Presence. Not all that uncommon, (think of
the miracle of Lanciano) but
The Eucharist IS ScripturalThese guys were also pretty slack, though I wonder just how much of this might be Simons exaggerating to make Catholic clergy look bad.

Well…we see some Lutheran influence already. He certainly can’t be much of a Bible reader if he can’t see the Eucharist in the New Testament. That explains his error there.How exactly does he miss the verses on it.
The Case For Infant BaptismNo such Catholic teaching…so I’m not surprised.

As shown in my article on infant Baptism…he’s dead wrong here as well.That’s too bad because the New Testament definitely makes a comparison of circumcision and baptism. If, as God Himself commanded, the family of the infant can make a profession of the Jewish faith on behalf of the child then why does not the same principle apply to Christian baptism?
Michael you have brought forth lots of new info I could not find,I like to think it adds some pieces to the puzzel.
I did some searching at the library whatever they had about the Amish and the Mennonites, but a lot of course is speculation.
Menno and his associates must have been very young maybe 18 and sounds from your info not read in the bible. But if he was a priest for 20 years I’m sure he learned. We have a historical landmark about hundred miles from us that was started by a man of 18 sent from Italy and started many churches. He was not ordained when he arrived in America and many told him it wasn’t necessaary but he made sure and traveled far and wide to be ordained and it took him awhile after that is all history started many churches and built a monastery etc schools etc.
But in Menno’s time prereformation must have been a turmoulous time. Hopefully he wa well grounded in the church and when the turmoil came about the anabaptist leaders were getting their heads chopped off. Since this did not happen to him I would like to think he took his congregation aside, and tried to rescue them as a leader, with the blessing of Rome

don’t know but in those days it must have been dangerous and difficult to get messages back and forth.
Form your info it doesn’t look like he was apposing the sacrament, just the timeing and more than likely bapism was not done as quickly as it is done today. I would like to think he followed his fathers advice and remained faithful.
So here is a priest that was not apposed to baptism, searching and reading all he could and trying to save his flock as well, from the impending reform that was coming and watching others getting their heads chopped off.
I want to speculate that the Church did not excommunicate him, if it did where are the papers, maybe more he exiled himself and yet kept communion and if partial anyways and created as best he could an established schism but not heretical.
He established bishops, deacons etc. and a new order that has continued and if we knew who his desecndants were we could learn more.
He was opposed staunchly by amman, but that is another story, yes it was his bishops that did the work, but look how faithful they were, in a sense Mennon eatablishe his set of apostles, against the Amish, read about this it is very interesting how far amman was willing to go.
The Amish were made to leave the country and the Mennonites were allowed to stay, but that is another study. Read more on it and it will bring more pieces of the puzzel together.This part of history is so amazing.
This is a sort of silly vision but which I pray that some day I can ask God about,

Mennon kneeling, at the cemetary, on top of Purgatory Hill, praying please may I come in and waiting for a soul to pray for intercession for him.
Dessert