MennoNet.com

This post by Wayne has me wondering where the BRF affiliations are located and how they're doing in their reform away from the more liberal Brethren churches? Here's their website. http://www.brfwitness.org/

As far as I know, the BRF's strategy is to reform from within rather than by breaking away. I think this strategy hardly ever works. Usually, the best it can do is to keep alive a witness about how things were done at an earlier time.

Bill Rushby wrote:As far as I know, the BRF's strategy is to reform from within rather than by breaking away. I think this strategy hardly ever works. Usually, the best it can do is to keep alive a witness about how things were done at an earlier time.

If this strategy worked, we'd all still be Catholic.

Bill Rushby wrote:As far as I know, the BRF's strategy is to reform from within rather than by breaking away. I think this strategy hardly ever works. Usually, the best it can do is to keep alive a witness about how things were done at an earlier time.

From my own observations: those groups who have been most successful were those who first tried to reform their denomination from within. Then later when the original large group would not reform after a sincere effort on the part of the revivalists, the revivalists separated and formed a new group. It will be interesting to see where BRF goes with their efforts. I suspect we are still seeing the middle of their story, not the ending.

Their Brethren Bible Institute starts Monday.

MaxPC wrote:From my own observations: those groups who have been most successful were those who first tried to reform their denomination from within. Then later when the original large group would not reform after a sincere effort on the part of the revivalists, the revivalists separated and formed a new group. It will be interesting to see where BRF goes with their efforts. I suspect we are still seeing the middle of their story, not the ending.

Max, could you share a few specific groups that would be such as you referenced (see bolded part of quote)? And do you mean successful as in numerically, continuity of denominational existence, etc?

Heirbyadoption wrote:

MaxPC wrote:From my own observations: those groups who have been most successful were those who first tried to reform their denomination from within. Then later when the original large group would not reform after a sincere effort on the part of the revivalists, the revivalists separated and formed a new group. It will be interesting to see where BRF goes with their efforts. I suspect we are still seeing the middle of their story, not the ending.

Max, could you share a few specific groups that would be such as you referenced (see bolded part of quote)? And do you mean successful as in numerically, continuity of denominational existence, etc?

I'll be glad to, Heir. When I wrote that I was primarily thinking about religious orders: for example revivals/reforms of Carmelites, of Benedictines and of Franciscans down through the centuries. The groups who sought revival/reform of those religious orders eventually broke away and created new groups who follow a more focused life of the founders' Rules as an expression of Biblical discipleship. Those revivalist/reformist groups still exist today - successful by their continuity.

The more focused discipleship life of the revivalists/reformers has meant fewer numbers than the original group; but they see that as an example of "the narrow path" spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 7:14.

One of many specific examples is the Benedictine order. After almost 500 years of their history, they had grown lax in observance and zeal in discipleship. A movement within the Benedictines tried to encourage and implement reform but it was to no avail.

Subsequently in 1098 AD a Benedictine abbot and several others left their Benedictine monasteries & founded the Cistercians: same Rule but new zeal and devotion to discipleship.

Hoping this explanation is clearer than mud

Ah, I was under the impression you meant groups that actually broke from their churches/denominations of origin and formed truly separate. Are not these groups you mentioned still part of the HRCC, even if granted much independance within it?

By the way, I have been working my way through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism. Would you recommend this as an accurate portrayal of HRCC doctrine?

Heirbyadoption wrote:Ah, I was under the impression you meant groups that actually broke from their churches/denominations of origin and formed truly separate. Are not these groups you mentioned still part of the HRCC, even if granted much independance within it?

There have been groups who tried to do a variation on the RCC, keeping Catholic elements but leaving the RCC; many have already returned to communion. The description of the Brethren Revival Fellowship's mission more closely resembles the history of religious orders and their reforms IMO: remaining with the Brethren identity while reviving the original tenets from within. I'm guessing the BRF will remain Brethren while separating from those fellowships who less and less emphasize the Brethren Card and their Brethren identity (I believe that's what they call their belief tenets... I could be wrong). It would still be Brethren but will be a return to the original vision and zeal.

Heirbyadoption wrote:By the way, I have been working my way through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism. Would you recommend this as an accurate portrayal of HRCC doctrine?

Yes: the CCC is our official teaching document of our doctrinal belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc etc. A word to the wise: it's highly complex as it sums up nearly two thousand years of discernment and scholarship. Like the Bible, it needs to be understood as a whole entity rather than just pulling out bits and pieces... the entire context is critical to understanding any one part.

God bless you for undertaking that effort, the CCC is not an easy read. Except for Plain Catholics and certain religious orders, not many Catholics attempt to do what you're doing. They should but you know the old saying

Yes: the CCC is our official teaching document of our doctrinal belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc etc. A word to the wise: it's highly complex as it sums up nearly two thousand years of discernment and scholarship. Like the Bible, it needs to be understood as a whole entity rather than just pulling out bits and pieces... the entire context is critical to understanding any one part.

Max~ it doesn't strike me as being that complex, just bulky in spite of being a summary. I have had a few questions going as I read. Would you mind if I started a fresh post to ask them? It might be beneficial for others who have had similar questions to hear your answer.

Heirbyadoption wrote:

Yes: the CCC is our official teaching document of our doctrinal belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, etc etc. A word to the wise: it's highly complex as it sums up nearly two thousand years of discernment and scholarship. Like the Bible, it needs to be understood as a whole entity rather than just pulling out bits and pieces... the entire context is critical to understanding any one part.

Max~ it doesn't strike me as being that complex, just bulky in spite of being a summary. I have had a few questions going as I read. Would you mind if I started a fresh post to ask them? It might be beneficial for others who have had similar questions to hear your answer.

Heir, I'll be happy to help you via PM. That way I won't feel like I'm taking over a Mennonite/Anabaptist forum with a Catholic thread. I'll PM you so can get your questions answered. There is a bit of a trick to reading the CCC. The different sections build upon each other: first the doctrine then the sections on applying that teaching to daily life.

Anyone else reading the CCC let me know via PM and we can converse all together.