If the Catholic Church & the Pope existed from the time of Christ, then why aren't they mentioned?

Question

Where are they?
I have been reading many ancient texts, and the Popes and Catholic Church as presented by modern Catholic proponents simply ....DO NOT EXIST in the ancient texts.

Most of you say I am wrong. But let me guess, have you ever read Eusebius' histories for yourselves?

Obviously you have not, or you would see why my question is more than valid.

Kait, in all the public announcements recorded by Eusebius the Emperor never mentions deferring to a Pope or other religious leader of any kind. He just says, "I command".

This is the smoking gun that there was no Pope of any kind.

Yes there are quotes about Peter and some very suspicious references to Peter at Rome in some texts whose authenticity is highly questioned.

But all the talk of Peter & Popehood are not even an issue for nearly 300 years. The Pope is never referred to directly. No "Papal Bulls" were issued, or recorded for us.

No writers defer to them. The idea of the Chair of Peter is not even presented until 250 A.D. while the Lapsii churches are in the middle of a crisis. They were losing church members and influence fast. So they are grasping at straws here trying to fabricate some kind of extra-biblical heirarchy.

But the unanswered quesiton is, Where is the Pope in the first 300 years of Church History. If he truly existed, why does not Paul one time defer to him? Where are the counsels? Where are the Papal Bulls? Where is the history of his work?

Answer 1

Ahhh...your catching on to why they don't like you to read the Bible for yourself.

Answer 2

Pastor Billy says: there isn't much reason to answer your question as it is a circle argument of which you've decided the answer and the only answer that qualifies for you is the best anti-Catholic one.

Only reason I'm here is to draw light to you comment: "Yes there are quotes about Peter and some very suspicious references to Peter at Rome in some texts whose authenticity is highly questioned."

Seems to me you are picking what you what from history and leaving what you don't like and this comment pretty much proves it. I'm sure you can't stomach the thought of Peter in Rome "quo vadis"

I suggest you not limit your research to what matches your hypothesis.

Answer 3

Sure sure, but look for the words Pray, Jesus, mediator, church, saints, etc in the original bible as well.

The word Catholic comes from the Katholicos.... for universal. In ancient greek and aramaic, however, it's not the same word. Therefore, any time you see how Jesus came to establish ONE church, he is refering to the Catholic (universal) chuch.

The first council of bishops is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and was convened to determine if gentiles needed to become jews before becoming christians. If you haven't read enough of your bible to know that then that's not the fault of the catholics out there.

Finally, if you haven't noticed, the pope is not above rebuke. Only in dogmatic instruction is his office protected. Therefore paul's criticism of peter's personal behavior is perfectly acceptable.

Answer 4

What do you mean, Ignatius of Antioch calls the Church, the Catholic Church in the beggining of the 2nd century. The Catholic Church is the (Universal)Church, it's the Church plain and simple no need to mention it, but that's what ignatius called it. The Pope is the bishop of rome, and your seriously misguided if you haven't seen any text, about the bisop of Rome. Try reading the letters of Cyprian of Cathrage (2nd century), and his dispute with Pope Steven about rebaptizing people. I don't think you've been looking to hard...


My sources are way before Eusebius, check them out, you could read them at any church father website.

Answer 5

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

Answer 6

This is correct. The church has existed since just after the ascension of Christ into heaven. The church first developed in the homes of believers, where they gathered to hear and talk about Jesus, the Word of God. By the 3rd century, the Church had changed....and the rest is history. However, I will admit that I'm not a "church history buff". The Bible was written by many writers all pointing to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Catholic church is not mentioned because the seperate books of the bible were written long before the "church" came to being. The definition of THE CHURCH is THE BELIEVERS OF JESUS CHRIST.

Answer 7

I surely don't be conscious of. Jesus did no longer come to write down the Bible; we wrote the Bible after the Roman persecution. The persecution needless to say ended with the conversion of the emperor constintine. We catholics might desire to then emerge from underground and the lions flow hungery. St, John fortold this in ficurative language in the e book of revelations, which became to furnish the underground church desire that Jesus meant what he mentioned. ultimately the CAtholic churhc defeated teh Roman empire by utilising way of the Holy Spirt who converted that is emperor. The Lord Be With you. to respond to your question quickly they declare those issues as an attack on us and Jesus; it relatively is a lie and the paintings of the father of lies whom those human beings finally follow. It sounds harsh and many do good works, yet whilst their middle have confidence is in line with a lie, and particualry in the event that they stay in the U. S. and function the liberty to inspect the certainty and the repsonsibility ot invesitgate the certainty ala Scott Hahn; then there isn't any excuse different than that they perfer darkness to mild -- it relatively is way less annoying. As all of us be conscious of it relatively is tough to be catholic to stay with Jesus to do issues that He mentioned to do even in spite of the undeniable fact that we don't completely understand them. many human beings parituclarly in th eUS churhc many times warfare with following the bishops and the Pope. it relatively is tough yet obediennce is an esiiential of our faith. once I struglle I foten comaper somebody like St. Francis in comparison with Luther. They lived with regards to a similar time yet St. Francis stood quickly and obidinetly obyed the Pope jointly as protecting to the certainty. there's a remarkable action picture pronounced as "Brother son sister moon" which illustrates this besides simply by fact the holiness of the Pope who very just about wishe dhe might desire to shed his leadeship place and connect francis is his simplicity to service. The Pope in this audinece kissed St. Francis's ft to coach the affection of Holy mom church and of Jesus. Why somone might follow Luther's occasion particularly than St. Francis's is previous me -- different than that it relatively is way less annoying.

Answer 8

Heard of Peter?

Answer 9

Quite right. In the Protesteant Bible there is no evidence that Peter was the rock upon which Christ built his church - in fact the opposiite [1 Corinthians 10:4; '... and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ...]. There is no evidence that he had primacy among the apostles (1 Cor.1:12; they called him cephas - a stone]; that he was celibate - he was married [Matthew 8:14] and no evidence he was ever in Rome as Paul was..

Answer 10

They teach us that Peter was the first pope because he was the one to carry on the church for Jesus..."Do this in remembrance of me." And they can name all the popes and years they reigned since.

Answer 11

Not until the 300's AD were there any Popes. They greatly twist the words of Jesus to Peter. When Jesus said "on this Rock I will build my Church" He was speaking of himself (Jesus) as the Rock, not Peter.

Anyways that whole Pope, Vicar of Christ comes from latin and you will find no such words with any such meanings in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic of the Bible.