Catholic Charismatic Renewal

OzSpen said:

Also, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Book of Acts as the authors didn't tell us.

Click to expand...

If we don't know then how did those books get their authors? Their authorship has been undisputed since the 2nd century.

Enoch111 said:

If we don't know then how did those books get their authors? Their authorship has been undisputed since the 2nd century.

Click to expand...

Hi Enoch,
Good to know you accept tradition as well as scripture as authoritative.

Are you going to reply to post 36 or just ignore it?

Josho said:

@Cristo Rei

Do you know him?

Click to expand...

Na, to be honest i don't even know what Catholic Charismatic Renewal is

Cristo Rei said:

Na, to be honest i don't even know what Catholic Charismatic Renewal is

Click to expand...

The Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR) is a movement of the Spirit within the Catholic Church. Unlike other movements it has no human founder and no formal organisation or membership. There are National Service Committees of leaders in the renewal movement but they are there to serve the renewal and have no authority over anyone in the Renewal. Until recently there was also an International body called the International Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services (ICCRS) which had been granted recognition and statutes by the Pontifical Council for The Laity and an office on Vatican premises. That has now been absorbed by a larger body (can't remember which)

Here are the aims of the CCR which were in the ICCRS statutes.

1. To foster mature and continuous personal conversion to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.
2. To foster a decisive personal receptivity to the person, presence and the power of the Holy Spirit.
3 . To foster the reception and use of the spiritual gifts (charismata) not only in the CCR but also in the broader Church.
4. To foster the work of evangelization in the power of the Holy Spirit, including the evangelization of the unchurched, the re-evangelization of nominal Christians, the evangelization of culture and social structures.
5. To foster the ongoing growth in holiness through the proper integration of these charismatic emphases with the full life of the Church.

Now you know.

Enoch111 said:

If we don't know then how did those books get their authors? Their authorship has been undisputed since the 2nd century.

Click to expand...

It's very disputed Enoch.
We know who wrote Luke and John.
We do not know who wrote Matthew and Mark.
Hebrews is a mystery.

One can accept this or not.
It's not something I care to debate....
but it is true nonetheless.

Matthew was probably written by a student of his.
I have no idea about Mark.

Anyway, it makes no difference.
Everything written is true.

GodsGrace said:

It's very disputed Enoch. Hebrews is a mystery.

Click to expand...

The writer of Hebrews is not at all a mystery. One would have to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the early church, if they didn't even know the canonicity of their own Scriptures.

For sure, some lame-brained "scholars" have attacked the well-known authorship of Hebrews, in their demonic attempts to discredit Scripture. But the writer of the Hebrews was well-known in the early church. The canon of the NT had been repeated so often from the very beginning, that Athanasius was wondering if it would be tedious to repeat them yet again.

Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria AD 328 Easter/Festal Epistles Letter xxxix

"5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

Works for me!

Stan B said:

The writer of Hebrews is not at all a mystery. One would have to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the early church, if they didn't even know the canonicity of their own Scriptures.

For sure, some lame-brained "scholars" have attacked the well-known authorship of Hebrews, in their demonic attempts to discredit Scripture. But the writer of the Hebrews was well-known in the early church. The canon of the NT had been repeated so often from the very beginning, that Athanasius was wondering if it would be tedious to repeat them yet again.

Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria AD 328 Easter/Festal Epistles Letter xxxix

"5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

Works for me!

Click to expand...

We know a lot more about the bible than we ever did.
So many manuscripts have been found that were hidden before and not available.
I agree with all of the above except I'm not sure about Hebrews,,,no one seems to be which is why I said it's a mystery. It's pretty certain (is anything 100 certain?) that Luke and John wrote their letters/gospel -- I mean Acts, of course.

As I said...it doesn't all matter.
What matters is that Jesus lived, died and rose again.
This is confirmed.

GodsGrace said:

I agree with all of the above except I'm not sure about Hebrews,,,no one seems to be which is why I said it's a mystery.
As I said...it doesn't all matter.

Click to expand...

It is extremely important to me, as I see God's unveiling plan for the church.

As we see in the chronology of Archbishop Athanasius, Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, was his last epistle to any church, the Hebrew church at Jerusalem, as he was facing imminent death. It is the most important book in the New Testament, explaining the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

After that, Paul's remaining letters were all final goodbye letters to his friends before he was executed.

IMO, Athanasius was perhaps the wisest and most learned of the church fathers.

Stan B said:

It is extremely important to me, as I see God's unveiling plan for the church.

As we see in the chronology of Archbishop Athanasius, Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, was his last epistle to any church, the Hebrew church at Jerusalem, as he was facing imminent death. It is the most important book in the New Testament, explaining the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

After that, Paul's remaining letters were all final goodbye letters to his friends before he was executed.

IMO, Athanasius was perhaps the wisest and most learned of the church fathers.

Click to expand...

I'm not very familiar with Athanasius.
I think Aquinas would give him some competition!

However, I respect your opinion and don't think this is anything to debate.
The bible is the Word of God no matter who wrote it. What is in there was meant
to be in there.

GodsGrace said:

I'm not very familiar with Athanasius.
I think Aquinas would give him some competition!

Click to expand...

I am sure that Aquinas would give any Christian a competition. A dedicated servant of Satan who declared that anyone who would not bow to Rome, should be separated from this life by beheading!! As I recall, he said that in his Summa Theologica, but it is not worth my time to search through the garbage for such trash. He was a true father of the demonic Inquisition that sought to irradicate Christians from this world!

Josho said:

Time to bring up a positive happy thread. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Here is a brief video on the history about it, and the powerful movement fueled by the Holy Spirit is still going strong today.

Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken that looks like Ralph Martin. Here's his website Renewal Ministries: Renewal and Evangelizaton in the Catholic Church. Here is another resource SCRC Charismatic Renewal I get a printed newsletter from them about the CCR

GodsGrace said:

It's very disputed Enoch. We know who wrote Luke and John. We do not know who wrote Matthew and Mark.

Click to expand...

The Syriac Peshitta is the oldest translation of the Bible. The New Testament is from the 2nd century and Mattai (Matthew) is the first book in that NT. So Matthew's Gospel was in circulation from the time he (also called Levi) wrote it, and it was clearly identified along with Mark. So there is absolutely no dispute.

"Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there. Some research, however, goes to show that Edessa, the literary capital, could have been the place.

If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius[4] that Hegesippus "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel," we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer."
Peshitta - Textus Receptus

GodsGrace said:

The bible is the Word of God no matter who wrote it. What is in there was meant
to be in there.

Click to expand...

"For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven." (Psalm 119.89)

Enoch111 said:

The Syriac Peshitta is the oldest translation of the Bible. The New Testament is from the 2nd century and Mattai (Matthew) is the first book in that NT. So Matthew's Gospel was in circulation from the time he (also called Levi) wrote it, and it was clearly identified along with Mark. So there is absolutely no dispute.

"Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there. Some research, however, goes to show that Edessa, the literary capital, could have been the place.

If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius[4] that Hegesippus "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel," we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer."
Peshitta - Textus Receptus

Click to expand...

As I said Enoch...
This is not something I care to debate.
You may end up being right!

Josho said:

Hey hey, @Truther, here is another Charismatic Catholic.

Click to expand...

She is a scriptural whack job.

Truther said:

She is a scriptural whack job.

Click to expand...

In what way!!?? I listened to her and found no reason to disagree with her. As a non-charismatic, I thought she was rather inspiring.