A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[Birdchest]

Isn’t it odd that the Douay-Rheims translates “presbuterion” as “priesthood”? 1 Tim 4:14 should look this way:
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

If I can pipe in here, with regard to the translation of 1 Tim 4:14, either translation is acceptable. The word “priest” in English is directly descended from the word “presbyter” in Greek. I believe Eastern Christians (Orthodox) still call their priests “presbyters”.

 

[Radical]

If I can pipe in here, with regard to the translation of 1 Tim 4:14, either translation is acceptable.

yes as long as one isn’t trying to hang anything on the involvement of a “priesthood” b/c a group of early church elders (the presbytery) would not have looked anything like the Catholic Priesthood of today.

 

[JustaServant]

Let’s hold Radical to the same standard. Radical **show us the forensic evidence **that anyone in the early church needed more “evidence” than the personal integrity of the men who gave them their oral tradition and Christian teachings. Let’s never forget that almost none could read and write in the day – including most of the apostles.

The bolded part of your paragraph is what the OP is all about. If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles? I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use. Radical didn’t like my example of WW2. Okay, fine. Lets us the American Civil War. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’. We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.

 

[JustaServant]

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology. Protestants act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry. As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.
I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians **
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark** written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - **Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians **
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - **Luke **written
c. 60-70 - ***The Didache *is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy **
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
95- The Epistle of Clement is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

So tell us Protestants, why is it within a 100 year period, does the Church look so Catholic?

Just so we do not lose track of the purpose of the OP:

 

[Radical]

I still believe Paul was teaching the Lord’s Supper in the correct form, by twice saying guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Of course Paul was teaching the Lord’s Supper in the correct form, but (IMHO) it didn’t look anything like the Catholic Eucharist…either in form or substance.

In John 6, Jesus let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more. He didn’t explain a misunderstanding because of a symbolism, He turned to the Apostles and asked if they would go away also.

nor did he explain a bloodless manner of eating transubstantiated bread…he let those who didn’t believe in him go away

Because some need justification of the split, they will say that 1500 years of people followed wrongly. They will take the Bible that the Catholic Church preserved for them and say that Catholics don’t know the Bible. They say that it took a new and more modern approach to find the truth of serving Him.

It has nothing to do with a new and more modern approach. It has everything to do with the elimination of man-made (as opposed to divinely inspired) teachings and that begins w/o making the assumption that the CC can not err

I don’t want to serve Him as it fits me, I want to serve Him as it serves His according to His will.

You should realize that devout Protestants also want to serve the Lord according to his will

I was a Protestant. I went through the ‘mall’. I prayed, researched and reflected. Without any evangelization, the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church. Of course I had to empty my cup of what I had filled it with and pray for Him to fill that cup with what He wanted it filled with.

You should realize that many devout Protestants will also claim that the Holy Spirit led them out of the CC…I don’t find your testimony somehow more reliable. A mere 500 years Christians started to stand up against the abuses of the CC. This forced the CC to reform itself and also led to new denominations. Now Protestants number about 800 million…and are still growing fast. Tis easy how some might see that as a powerful act of the Holy Spirit

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course Paul was teaching the Lord’s Supper in the correct form, but (IMHO) it didn’t look anything like the Catholic Eucharist…either in form or substance.

nor did he explain a bloodless manner of eating transubstantiated bread…he let those who didn’t believe in him go away

It has nothing to do with a new and more modern approach. It has everything to do with the elimination of man-made (as opposed to divinely inspired) teachings and that begins w/o making the assumption that the CC can not err

You should realize that devout Protestants also want to serve the Lord according to his will

You should realize that many devout Protestants will also claim that the Holy Spirit led them out of the CC…I don’t find your testimony somehow more reliable. A mere 500 years Christians started to stand up against the abuses of the CC. This forced the CC to reform itself and also led to new denominations. Now Protestants number about 800 million…and are still growing fast. Tis easy how some might see that as a powerful act of the Holy Spirit

It’s also easy to see an act of assuming authorities and deciding for themselves…now there’ a shopping mall of denominations, one can search through and find one they feel comfortable with, or one that fits their own lifestyle.

800 million? How many are of the same mind and judgement with each other? See that’s your problem. How many represent any one denomination?

 

[Radical]

The bolded part of your paragraph is what the OP is all about. If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles? I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material.

Well, since we (the Martians and us) don’t possess a machine by which we can capture and listen to oral testimony from 1900 years ago…I guess the source material that we can access is limited to the written record and some artwork.

The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.

This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.

We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use. Radical didn’t like my example of WW2. Okay, fine. Lets us the American Civil War. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’. We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.

How can the people from 100 AD tell us what happened? They are long dead. Their voices are long silenced and we are essentially left with a number of written works. As indicated by me, despite the claim of the OP, those works don’t look terribly Catholic b/c they only make passing mention of Mary. I might add that the concept of indulgences and other very Catholic doctrines are also missing. What I see the Catholics doing on this thread is basing everything on two (or more) assumptions. First, it is assumed that the CC can not err in doctrine. Second, it is assumed that the ECFs would never introduce a novelty and would only “develop” doctrines from seeds planted by Jesus and the apostles. With those two assumptions in place it follows that, for example, the Catholic doctrines of Mary must have been passed on as oral traditions from the very start and it is not possible that they didn’t exist in the first hundred years or so. Instead it must be that any written record of those doctrines from that era must have been lost somehow.

The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.

nothing else except for a couple of assumptions?..
The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

 

[Tomb54]

Well, since we (the Martians and us) don’t possess a machine by which we can capture and listen to oral testimony from 1900 years ago…I guess the source material that we can access is limited to the written record and some artwork.
This, of course, explains the Protestant mindset. We would like to look to the records produced by the people who lived at the time of the events and not at the records of people who lived 300 or even 100 years after the events.
How can the people from 100 AD tell us what happened? They are long dead. Their voices are long silenced and we are essentially left with a number of written works. As indicated by me, despite the claim of the OP, those works don’t look terribly Catholic b/c they only make passing mention of Mary. I might add that the concept of indulgences and other very Catholic doctrines are also missing. What I see the Catholics doing on this thread is basing everything on two (or more) assumptions. First, it is assumed that the CC can not err in doctrine. Second, it is assumed that the ECFs would never introduce a novelty and would only “develop” doctrines from seeds planted by Jesus and the apostles. With those two assumptions in place it follows that, for example, the Catholic doctrines of Mary must have been passed on as oral traditions from the very start and it is not possible that they didn’t exist in the first hundred years or so. Instead it must be that any written record of those doctrines from that era must have been lost somehow.
nothing else except for a couple of assumptions?..
The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

But we do have ECF only a few years removed from St. John’s death, who were taught by him, teaching doctrine that is Catholic all the way on the Eucharist, set up of the church leadership, and even includes all parts of the Mass. These teachings can bring into question many of the beliefs and interpretations many Protestant have on what the bible says that are counter to what ECF in this time (right after the Apostles) are already teaching.

 

[Tomb54]

Of course Paul was teaching the Lord’s Supper in the correct form, but (IMHO) it didn’t look anything like the Catholic Eucharist…either in form or substance.

nor did he explain a bloodless manner of eating transubstantiated bread…he let those who didn’t believe in him go away

It has nothing to do with a new and more modern approach. It has everything to do with the elimination of man-made (as opposed to divinely inspired) teachings and that begins w/o making the assumption that the CC can not err

You should realize that devout Protestants also want to serve the Lord according to his will

You should realize that many devout Protestants will also claim that the Holy Spirit led them out of the CC…I don’t find your testimony somehow more reliable. A mere 500 years Christians started to stand up against the abuses of the CC. This forced the CC to reform itself and also led to new denominations. Now Protestants number about 800 million…and are still growing fast. Tis easy how some might see that as a powerful act of the Holy Spirit

Many Protestants also choose to ignore the parts of the NT that says follow your bishop, learn what the bible says from your church leaders, and obey the leaders of the church as it was set up by the Apostles. The church did not go away after the Apostles died and neither did it go underground as the bible said this would not happen either.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How can the people from 100 AD tell us what happened? They are long dead. Their voices are long silenced and we are essentially left with a number of written works.

Should we discount the writings of 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelations?

As indicated by me, despite the claim of the OP, those works don’t look terribly Catholic b/c they only make passing mention of Mary. I might add that the concept of indulgences and other very Catholic doctrines are also missing. What I see the Catholics doing on this thread is basing everything on two (or more) assumptions. First, it is assumed that the CC can not err in doctrine. Second, it is assumed that the ECFs would never introduce a novelty and would only “develop” doctrines from seeds planted by Jesus and the apostles. With those two assumptions in place it follows that, for example, the Catholic doctrines of Mary must have been passed on as oral traditions from the very start and it is not possible that they didn’t exist in the first hundred years or so. Instead it must be that any written record of those doctrines from that era must have been lost somehow.
nothing else except for a couple of assumptions?..

A couple of assumptions is far more evidence than the Bible is the ONLY authority and everyone is to interpret the scriptures for themselves.

The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs could have introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

Allow that the Catholic Church erred and it was corrected by men centuries later, based on what they ‘felt’ was good according to their own private interpretation??? Are those the ‘reasonable grounds’ you’re referring too?

Just as you seem to demand an irrefutable proof, I’d like to see the irrefutable proof that Protestants have it right…

 

[JustaServant]

The proper approach would be to allow that the CC could have erred (note…not assuming that it must have erred) and allow that the ECFs **could have **introduced novelty (note…not assuming that they must have introduced novelty) and then proceed to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the ECFs did or did not introduce novelty.

That’s called ‘revisionist history’. If that is your arguement, the monkey is on your back to prove it.
Lets put the ECF’s on trial, (innocent until proven guilty). The first page of this thread contains simple, neutral facts. Prove to me and other Catholics on this board the ECFs introduced novelties using the 100 year timeline.

 

[Radical]

That’s called ‘revisionist history’. If that is your arguement, the monkey is on your back to prove it.

No monkies here. The assumption that the CC can not err and the assumption that the ECFs could not introduce novelty are not part a proper historical approach. They are assumptions of a faith. Whatever is produced by working from those two assumptions is not “history”, but would be better called propaganda (if someone tries to pass it off as history) or a statement of faith (if it is kept in its proper domain).

Lets put the ECF’s on trial, (innocent until proven guilty).

Sorry, a presumption (of innocence or whatever) is as misplaced as an assumption. Btw the standard of proof would not be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but would be “the balance of probabilities”.

The first page of this thread contains simple, neutral facts. Prove to me and other Catholics on this board the ECFs introduced novelties using the 100 year timeline.

Well, one of the facts I pointed out is that none of the works listed in the OP contain any word of the “Catholic Marian doctrines” that are around today. It seems that two possibilities exist: a) they are novelties that were introduced sometime between then and now or b) they were there from the start, but for some reason did not find their way into the earliest works. One is not going to prove that one of these two possibilities is definitely right and that the other is wrong…but one can argue why one is more likely than the other. I believe that I have been offered two theories by Catholics as to why option (b) is more likely. First, it has been suggested that doctrines were only recorded when they were challenged. The early silence, therefore, is a result of the Marian doctrines going unchallenged. That suggestion seems preposterous from this point of view. Second, w/o necessarily providing any explanation for the silence it is argued that they could not have been novelties b/c the introduction of any novelty would have been met with fierce opposition by the ECFs. This argument isn’t w/o reason, but it still needs to offer a proper explanation for the silence.

Should we discount the writings of 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelations?

Nothing that I wrote would remotely suggest this, so why would you ask? As an aside, I would place the authorship of these works earlier than did the OPster.

Allow that the Catholic Church erred and it was corrected by men centuries later, based on what they ‘felt’ was good according to their own private interpretation???

no, based on a proper historical approach… see response above to JustaServant

Just as you seem to demand an irrefutable proof, I’d like to see the irrefutable proof that Protestants have it right…

… see response above to JustaServant

Tomb54:

But we do have ECF only a few years removed from St. John’s death, who were taught by him, teaching doctrine that is Catholic all the way on the Eucharist,…

Not necessarily. First, I am not sure that the apostle John lived as late as later ECFs claimed…and it is not as if his late survival enjoys anything approaching a consensus in historical circles. Second, that Ignatius held to a RP is open to questioning and he is the only ECF that you could hope to be describing.

…set up of the church leadership,…

I have to think that the vast majority of scholars now believe that the monarchical bishop was a practical development rather than something instituted by the apostles.

…and even includes all parts of the Mass. These teachings can bring into question many of the beliefs and interpretations many Protestant have on what the bible says that are counter to what ECF in this time (right after the Apostles) are already teaching.

It seems that you might be trying to push your “clearly Catholic” beliefs a little too far back…what ECFs’ teachings from only a few years removed from John’s death did you have in mind?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nothing that I wrote would remotely suggest this, so why would you ask? As an aside, I would place the authorship of these works earlier than did the OPster.

Hmmm, every best estimate that I’ve ever seen of Revelations is between 100 and 107AD, but then I don’t look for the lone opinion that fits a view comfortable to me.

 

[ConfusedTim]

No monkies here. The assumption that the CC can not err and the assumption that the ECFs could not introduce novelty are not part a proper historical approach. They are assumptions of a faith. Whatever is produced by working from those two assumptions is not “history”, but would be better called propaganda (if someone tries to pass it off as history) or a statement of faith (if it is kept in its proper domain).

Sorry, a presumption (of innocence or whatever) is as misplaced as an assumption. Btw the standard of proof would not be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but would be “the balance of probabilities”.

Well, one of the facts I pointed out is that none of the works listed in the OP contain any word of the “Catholic Marian doctrines” that are around today. It seems that two possibilities exist: a) they are novelties that were introduced sometime between then and now or b) they were there from the start, but for some reason did not find their way into the earliest works. One is not going to prove that one of these two possibilities is definitely right and that the other is wrong…but one can argue why one is more likely than the other. I believe that I have been offered two theories by Catholics as to why option (b) is more likely. First, it has been suggested that doctrines were only recorded when they were challenged. The early silence, therefore, is a result of the Marian doctrines going unchallenged. That suggestion seems preposterous from this point of view. Second, w/o necessarily providing any explanation for the silence it is argued that they could not have been novelties b/c the introduction of any novelty would have been met with fierce opposition by the ECFs. This argument isn’t w/o reason, but it still needs to offer a proper explanation for the silence.
Nothing that I wrote would remotely suggest this, so why would you ask? As an aside, I would place the authorship of these works earlier than did the OPster.
no, based on a proper historical approach… see response above to JustaServant
… see response above to JustaServant

Not necessarily. First, I am not sure that the apostle John lived as late as later ECFs claimed…and it is not as if his late survival enjoys anything approaching a consensus in historical circles. Second, that Ignatius held to a RP is open to questioning and he is the only ECF that you could hope to be describing.
I have to think that the vast majority of scholars now believe that the monarchical bishop was a practical development rather than something instituted by the apostles.
It seems that you might be trying to push your “clearly Catholic” beliefs a little too far back…what ECFs’ teachings from only a few years removed from John’s death did you have in mind?

They dont mention the bible or the trinty eaither…

 

[paul_c]

Radical,
concerning the Marian dogmas, have you never read the Gospel of Luke:

The one where Mary is greated by Gabriel as “Mary, full of Grace”

and the one where Mary herself prophesies " All nations will call be blessed"

Do you still doubt that there were devotions to Mary in the first Century?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Radical,
concerning the Marian dogmas, have you never read the Gospel of Luke:

The one where Mary is greated by Gabriel as “Mary, full of Grace”

and the one where Mary herself prophesies " All nations will call be blessed"

Do you still doubt that there were devotions to Mary in the first Century?

She was “full of grace” in the sense that she was highly favored.
She was fully blessed because God chose her to have Jesus in her womb.

Protestants don’t reject that Mary was blessed or filled with God’s face.

That is hardly biblical justification for Marian dogma. It certainly does not suggest the Immaculate Conception. Certainly does not grant her the title of “Queen of Heaven” or “Queen of the Apostles.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

She was “full of grace” in the sense that she was highly favored.
She was fully blessed because God chose her to have Jesus in her womb.

Protestants don’t reject that Mary was blessed or filled with God’s face.

That is hardly biblical justification for Marian dogma. It certainly does not suggest the Immaculate Conception. Certainly does not grant her the title of “Queen of Heaven” or “Queen of the Apostles.”

Why did God require such an elaborate ark of the covenant for the old covenant and require less for His only begotten Son, of the new and everlasting covenant?

Who was Solomon’s queen, over the Davidic kingdom? His mother. Where does Christ rule His kingdom from right now? Heaven. His mother is our Queen. That does not make her a deity. I haven’t heard Queen of the Apostles, specifically, but if she’s Queen of Heaven, she’s their Queen too.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Why did God require such an elaborate ark of the covenant for the old covenant and require less for His only begotten Son, of the new and everlasting covenant?

Who was Solomon’s queen, over the Davidic kingdom? His mother. Where does Christ rule His kingdom from right now? Heaven. His mother is our Queen. That does not make her a deity. I haven’t heard Queen of the Apostles, specifically, but if she’s Queen of Heaven, she’s their Queen too.

Where is the indication that Mary had to have been Immaculately Conceived and be without sin all her life?

If Mary had to be Immaculately Conceived, then by default, shouldn’t her mother have as well, as well as all her female ancestors from the beginning?

If Mary is Immaculately Conceived, then she does not need a savior, does she? But Mary herself indicates that she needed one when she was brought the good news.

 

[Sabda]

Where is the indication that Mary had to have been Immaculately Conceived and be without sin all her life?

If Mary had to be Immaculately Conceived, then by default, shouldn’t her mother have as well, as well as all her female ancestors from the beginning?

If Mary is Immaculately Conceived, then she does not need a savior, does she? But Mary herself indicates that she needed one when she was brought the good news.

The bolded shows quite clearly that you do not understand Catholic teaching on this matter. Is God in time or outside of it? Did he create time? Where does it say that he could not have saved Mary before her conception?

Catholic teaching states Mary needed a savior just as much as the rest of us. The difference is God saved her before she was born. God can not dwell in sin, that’s why His mother needed to be clean.

As we all know Mary herself even declared she needed a Savior.

From the Catechism:

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

Emphasis mine.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The bolded shows quite clearly that you do not understand Catholic teaching on this matter. Is God in time or outside of it? Did he create time? Where does it say that he could not have saved Mary before her conception?

Catholic teaching states Mary needed a savior just as much as the rest of us. The difference is God saved her before she was born. God can not dwell in sin, that’s why His mother needed to be clean.

As we all know Mary herself even declared she needed a Savior.

From the Catechism:

Emphasis mine.

I’m well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church says.

But it still suggests that Mary is not saved by her Son.

The Immaculate Conception, though it was bestowed by God, still allows Mary to avoid the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ.

You still have not addressed the problem though, about Mary’s mother and other female ancestors. Did Mary’s mother need to also be conceived immaculately?