Is the new testament catholic?

[infinitelord1]

we all know that peter was considered to be the first pope of the catholic church. In peter's time......did his followers call themselves catholic. I guess im looking for a bit of a history lesson. Also, when peter organized his followers and those who would proceed him........did they follow strict guidelines as to what peter told them to do (as far as what is right and wrong and what would be put in the new testament of the bible)? Are the All the chapters of the new testament in accordance with what peter said was right or wrong Does the Vatican still follow peters guidelines to this day?Have they strayed away from any particular ones? if someone could answer this it would help me a lot.

Also, when i made the title to this thread i was thinking of protestants and how they take the new testament and interpret it in their own way.
Im wondering if they are taking something catholic and turning it into something else.

[Brother Adam]

Sounds like a history lesson IS in order. However, what I really think you should do is check a few books out of the library (okay mayby not ALL of them):

One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic by Kenneth Whitehead
Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett
Jesus Peter and the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess
The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John Willis S.J.
The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church by Hans Von Balthasar
Upon This Rock by Steven Ray
History of the Church by Lortz-Kaiser
Theology of the Church by Cardinal Journet

[LittleLes]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jun 25 2005, 04:38 AM']we all know that peter was considered to be the first pope of the catholic church. In peter's time......did his followers call themselves catholic. I guess im looking for a bit of a history lesson. Also, when peter organized his followers and those who would proceed him........did they follow strict  guidelines as to what peter told them to do (as far as what is right and wrong and what would be put in the new testament of the bible)? Are the All the chapters of the new testament in accordance with what peter said was right or wrong Does the Vatican still follow peters guidelines to this day?Have they strayed away from any particular ones? if someone could answer this it would help me a lot.

Also, when i made the title to this thread i was thinking of protestants and how they take the new testament and interpret it in their own way.
Im wondering if they are taking something catholic and turning it into something else.
[right][snapback]622743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The original followers of Jesus called themselves members of "the Way." This term is found in the Acts of the Apostles as is the term "Nazarenes" which was also applied to them.

I believe it was at Corinth that the term "Catholic" was first used, but I'd have to check a reference to be sure.

And the leader of sect called "the Way," which was centered first in Jerusalem, was James, the Brother of Jesus, not Peter. James is also mentioned in Acts. I believe that he was killed in 62 A.D. to be succeeded by Simon, either another brother of Jesus, or, if Jerome is to be believed, Jesus' cousin.

[Donna]

James was an apostle/bishop of the Catholic Church, not a sect .

Edited June 25, 2005 by Donna

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

"Catholic" was first used by the Bishop of Antioch in the first century, St. Ignatius.
[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 08:34 AM']And the leader of  sect called "the Way," which was centered first in Jerusalem, was James, the Brother of Jesus, not Peter. James is also mentioned in Acts. I believe that he was killed in 62 A.D. to be succeeded by Simon, either another brother of Jesus, or, if Jerome is to be  believed, Jesus' cousin.
[right][snapback]622771[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is not true.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jun 25 2005, 05:38 AM']we all know that peter was considered to be the first pope of the catholic church. In peter's time......did his followers call themselves catholic. I guess im looking for a bit of a history lesson. Also, when peter organized his followers and those who would proceed him........did they follow strict  guidelines as to what peter told them to do (as far as what is right and wrong and what would be put in the new testament of the bible)? Are the All the chapters of the new testament in accordance with what peter said was right or wrong Does the Vatican still follow peters guidelines to this day?Have they strayed away from any particular ones? if someone could answer this it would help me a lot.

Also, when i made the title to this thread i was thinking of protestants and how they take the new testament and interpret it in their own way.
Im wondering if they are taking something catholic and turning it into something else.
[right][snapback]622743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The word "Catholic" (Greek)means "universal" and "concerning the whole".
Peters first act as Pope was in choosing someone to replace Judas. His decision made, the others agreed.
Peter did not determine what went into the Bible. Please understand, the canon of the Bible was not established until around 300 years after Peter was martyred.
The books in the New Testament are actually letters, written by the Apostles, to the infant Church.
The Catholic Church gathered all the writings together (keeping in mind that there was also alot of stuff floating around out there that was not inspired, not divine and was meant to lead folks astray),and being guided by the Holy Spirit and using Oral Tradition, and divine revelation was able to know what ..and what was not inspired. What was left was then gathered into what is now the Catholic Holy Bible.
There were many after Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, and it became necessary for the Church to protect those whose spiritual lives depended on Her.
Most Protestant Bibles do not contain the deutorocanonical books, 7 in all, therefore, are not the complete inspired Word of God.

Nothing that the Church does today is in contradiction to the first Christians or the Early Fathers.
It is amazing that many today want the Church to 'change', to fit todays lifestyle, whether its allowing priests to marry or having women priests etc. The Church is not decided by majority vote. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all Truth.
And since Truth cannot contradict Truth, some folks just cant get that.

In short, The Holy Bible belongs to the Church.


Pax

Edited June 25, 2005 by Quietfire

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Donna' date='Jun 25 2005, 07:55 AM']James was an apostle/bishop of the Catholic Church, not a sect .
[right][snapback]622776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
RESPONSE:

Hi Donna and Dude,

I'm afraid you are both in error. Lets look at the revelant passages of Scripture including Mark and Acts, and also the writing of Eusebius, his Ecclestical History:

(1) There were a number of James. James the Greater and James the Less were Apostles. But James, the Brother of Jesus, also called James the Just was not.

(2) Mark 6:3 "Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

(3) Acts 1: 13-14 "When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. "

Note: Mary and Jesus' brothers are mentioned separately from the Apostles.

(4) Church History (Book II) BY EUSEBIUS, chapter 23:
(a) "But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Caesar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem bad been entrusted by the apostles."

Note" The Apostles entrusted the Jerusalem episcopal seat. James was not one of them.

(b) "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James."

Note: "...in conjunction with the apostles." James, the Brother of Jesus or the Just, was not himself an apostle.

(5) Acts 24: 5,14
(a) "We found this man to be a pest; he creates dissension among Jews all over the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans."
(b) Paul speaking. "But this I do admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and written in the prophets."

(6) The first followers of Jesus remained a sect within orthodox Judaism.
Acts 2:46 "Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart,"

In sum, James, the Brother of Jesus, also known as James the Just ,was not an apostle but was appointed by them as leader of the first Christian community called the Way. This sect remained within mainstream Judaism. Note that Peter was not made the leader.

[LittleLes]

And following the death of James, the Brother of Jesus, Eusebius in his History of the Church, 3: 11 tells us:

"Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. "

There is dispute, of course, on that cousin business started by Jerome. Some are of the opinion that this was Jesus' brother Simon, who in turn was succeeded by Jesus' other brother Judas.

Whatever the case, Peter was not the leader of the first "Christian" community.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I never disputed that Christianity was called "the way."

Of course James could have been (and was) the Bishop of Jerusalem. The Apostles were busy making "disciples of all nations" and gave him the episcopate. Peter, the guy orddered by Christ to "strengthen his brethren", was headed to Rome to set up his Chair.

Edited June 25, 2005 by thedude

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 02:07 PM']There is dispute, of course, on that cousin business started by Jerome. Some are of the opinion that this was Jesus' brother Simon, who in turn was succeeded by Jesus' other brother Judas.
[right][snapback]623087[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't believe that Jerome was the first one who thought this way...

[Semperviva]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jun 25 2005, 04:38 AM']we all know that peter was considered to be the first pope of the catholic church. In peter's time......did his followers call themselves catholic. I guess im looking for a bit of a history lesson. Also, when peter organized his followers and those who would proceed him........did they follow strict  guidelines as to what peter told them to do (as far as what is right and wrong and what would be put in the new testament of the bible)? Are the All the chapters of the new testament in accordance with what peter said was right or wrong Does the Vatican still follow peters guidelines to this day?Have they strayed away from any particular ones? if someone could answer this it would help me a lot.

Also, when i made the title to this thread i was thinking of protestants and how they take the new testament and interpret it in their own way.
Im wondering if they are taking something catholic and turning it into something else.
[right][snapback]622743[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


St. Ignatius of Antioch was the first one to call himself CAtholic" I believe. And then Augustine does, etc etc. Ignatius wrote many letters so I guess the term spread that way.

I think its scary/amazing how many Protestants don't realize how "Catholic" they are. Any Protestant who seriuosly pursues his relationship with God and the scripture will have a Catholic mentality. I even heard some Prot. radio program on marraige in which they basically went through why marraige is sacramental and how and even did some genesis references and cool Catholic stuff, without using any Catholic terms...it was fascinating! Its like they are "discovering" these things and thinking they are setting down the definition for the first time, kinda funny and sad, but also very intriguing. Anyone on earth who truly seeks God will end up being "Catholic," even if its not official, if its just in their way of living/thinking/praying/speaking/breathing.[b] JP2 said that each and every person is united to Jesus Christ even if that person is unaware of it[/b], which I think is awesome, but because of this truth, they can hear him within the core of their being [b]if [/b]they will listen. I have heard Moslems, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, spew their own ideas of God which were almost re-phrasing of Catholic teaching. I just have the opinion that GOd will reveal "revealed" truth [i]alot of it, not all[/i], to any one and every one who wants to hear it, and hopefully they will get enough grace to convert...anyways...

[Semperviva]

This is specifically on the Eucharist but I think its pretty solid evidence for the continuation, succesion from apostles and that the early church was catholic all the way, baby! lol Who doesn't love Ignatius of antioch tell me that, haha! Btw, he was supposedly the little child that Jesus brought into their midst and said "unless one becomes likened unto one of these" and pointed to Ignatius?? Anyways cool!


From catholicanswer.org:

"Even more evidence from the very earliest Church comes from Ignatius of Antioch. I had to go back to my Greek version of him—somewhat more tattered than it was in 1953 when I first got it. Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, ten years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about "certain people" who were beginning to hold to "heterodox opinions" that he deemed "contrary to the mind of God"—strong language for the personal disciple of the last apostle. As nearly as I can come to it, Ignatius says: [b]"These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" [/b](Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).

Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine antithetical to what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple."

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 25 2005, 06:38 PM']I never disputed that Christianity was called "the way."

Of course James could have been (and was) the Bishop of Jerusalem.  The Apostles were busy making "disciples of all nations" and gave him the episcopate.  Peter, the guy orddered by Christ to "strengthen his brethren", was headed to Rome to set up his Chair.
[right][snapback]623466[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Are you aware of any hard evidence that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome? Or was this a belief created later on to justify the seat of the Roman government also being the seat of the Church?

The Acts of the Apostles traces the history of the early Church up until about the time of Paul's death in 64 A.D. There is no mention of Peter being in Rome.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jun 25 2005, 06:44 PM']I don't believe that Jerome was the first one who thought this way...
[right][snapback]623472[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Who was the fist then? And please cite your evidence.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 25 2005, 08:50 PM']RESPONSE:

Are you aware of any hard evidence that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome? Or was this a belief created later on to justify the seat of the Roman government also being the seat of the Church?

The Acts of the Apostles traces the history of the early Church up until about the time of Paul's death in 64 A.D. There is no mention of Peter being in Rome.
[right][snapback]623705[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is plenty of evidence, as this this article attests.

for the full aricle: go [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/was_peter_in_rome.asp"]here.[/url]


What the Bible Says


Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.


Early Christian Testimony


William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.


A Very Early Reference


Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.


What Archaeology Proved


There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).

Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.

After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.