A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

[djeter]

ROBERT LOUIS WILKEN is William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia. Wilken is interested in the history of Christianity and Christian thought, particularly the use of the Bible, how it was read, and how it shaped culture.

I enjoyed one of his books, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, immensely. In the introduction Willken writes: “The intellectual tradition that began in the early Church was enriched by the philosophical breadth and exactitude of medieval thought. Each period in Christian history makes its own unique contribution to Christian life. The Church Fathers, however, set in place a foundation that has proven to be irreplaceable. Their writings are more than a stage in the development of Christian thought or an interesting chapter in the history of the interpretation of the Bible. Like an inexhaustible spring, faithful and true, they irrigate the Christian imagination with life-giving water flowing from the biblical and spiritual sources of the faith. They are still our teachers today.”

Review and reading selections here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/19/the-spirit-of-early-christian-thought/

Hope you enjoy,

dj

 

[JustaServant]

Very few Protestants are Fundamentalists. As for Evangelicals - again,only some Evangelicals are Fundamentalists. Unless, of course, one equates Protestants with Protestantism in the USA. If people want to convince most Protestants, & not just Fundamentalists, more convincing arguments will be necessary than a list of early Christian practices. Equally interesting would be a list of early things in which Catholics differ from the first few generations. ​

BTW - what happened to faith ? Or is that not needed these days, because everything can be proved ?

Protestantism world-wide has been flatlining for a long time. What is flourishing world-wide is atheism, a direct result of Protestantism.
The only country in which Protestantism is flourshing is the in the US. But mainline Protestant churches in the US are dying, the younger generation are going to evangelical churches. Evangelical churches in the US are booming currently.
“Only some Evangelicals are Fundamentalists”? Evangelicals ARE the direct descendants of fundamentalism. Historic fundamentalism is indeed dying. It re-invented itself as the ‘evangelical movement’.
Evangelicals are hardly a ‘small group’ within Protestantism. They are currently the driving force and are growing rapidly.

 

[tammyjean34]

As a lifelong catholic, I am questioning the decisions made by many of the catholic leaders of the long past. There is a difference between the catholicism of the past and today. The Catholic church was originally comprised of many different types of beliefs and interpretations of the different books which later became the bible. The bible was put together during the 3rd or 4th century when the Nicene Convention was held, bringing together the different Christian churches, this is where we get the Nicene Creed and the decision on which books would become the New testament of the bible. I suppose it was at that time that all the books were to be translated in Latin. During the middle ages, many poor did not know Latin and many lived very far from church making it almost impossible to attend. When they did they did not understand what was going on, so the Germans began to have the Bible translated in German so that they could practice the faith in their own homes. What they found was an angry Pope who began a seek and destroy mission of the bibles and those harboring them. It was then that Martin Luther began to feel that many things that were being taught by the Catholic Leaders was not in the Bible. It was there that Protestanism began. Jesus did not speak Latin, The Books of the bible were not in Latin so what was wrong with having the bible translated into all the languages of the world to spread Jesus’ message? Of course the bible is now written in more languages than anyone person could name. The only difference between the two bibles is a book of the old testament in missing in one of them. Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[sambos671]

I haven’t really seen any protestant fundalmentalist post here. I wonder why? However I must agree with the OP. History stands on the Catholic side. However a protestant of the Trail of Blood veriety will go about it this way.

1. the NT church was well established by the apostles as independent individual churches. There are no popes in the NT. Note message to Peter was about what he said in faith not about Peter himself. the first “council” it was James who made the final decision not Peter so no Pope.
2. we can see in pauls letters that Satan was immediately attacking the churches with false doctrine such as the Judaizers and others. They are the beginings of the Catholic Church.
   3)These Catholics through out history attack the true independent Christian Churches. until Constantine who give organization to this Catholic Church and Roman Authority. Constantine has the Donatist from 317-321 slaughtered (who may have been real christians). the Catholic Church supported these killings
   4)Constantine considered himself like a Pope that even Catholic writers agree with

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols

He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter “A Concise History of the Catholic Church” page 38)

1. and we see constant persecution of Christ’s true churches from then on.

That’s basically their argument. But since no one has put it down I thought I would.

 

[deanarrca]

Wow Sambosa

That makes my head hurt --There are so many problems with that, I just don’t know where to begin- How in the World do they back that up with any historical evidence what so ever.

The Church that spread Christianity throughout the world is not some unidentifiable mystery church with no evidence of it’s existence.

As far as Constantine- I have always considered the Christianization of Pagan Rome one of the greatest miracles of all time. Just imagine every early Christian must have been praying for that. To me that is one of the biggest testimonies that the Christian Faith is true -

Forgive me (new Catholic here so I’m not sure) Is Constantine considered a Catholic Saint or is it just the Orthodox that consider him a Saint.

 

[sambos671]

Wow Sambosa

That makes my head hurt --There are so many problems with that, I just don’t know where to begin- How in the World do they back that up with any historical evidence what so ever.

The Church that spread Christianity throughout the world is not some unidentifiable mystery church with no evidence of it’s existence.

As far as Constantine- I have always considered the Christianization of Pagan Rome one of the greatest miracles of all time. Just imagine every early Christian must have been praying for that. To me that is one of the biggest testimonies that the Christian Faith is true -

Forgive me (new Catholic here so I’m not sure) Is Constantine considered a Catholic Saint or is it just the Orthodox that consider him a Saint.

Just the Orthodox though there may be a Catholic eastern rite that holds it. Remember Constantine had a follower of Arius baptise him on his death bed.

Well, a protestant holding this view would say the victors (ie Satan’s Catholic Church) won the Roman authority thus they destroyed evidence of “independent Christian churches” and their writings and re-wrote history to favor this evil organization. (which ruled for the next 1100 years while fledgling Christians waited for the reformation). All you have to do is read junk like the trail of blood, Jack Chick, the two babylons, etc and you’ll get the idea. However, I must admit I like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (He’s Anglican).

 

[JustaServant]

Just the Orthodox though there may be a Catholic eastern rite that holds it. Remember Constantine had a follower of Arius baptise him on his death bed.

Well, a protestant holding this view would say the victors (ie Satan’s Catholic Church) won the Roman authority thus they destroyed evidence of “independent Christian churches” and their writings and re-wrote history to favor this evil organization. (which ruled for the next 1100 years while fledgling Christians waited for the reformation). All you have to do is read junk like the trail of blood, Jack Chick, the two babylons, etc and you’ll get the idea. However, I must admit I like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (He’s Anglican).

Not all evangelicals would agree with ‘trail of blood’ history, but they have (must have actually) their own variations of it. John Foxe (who fabricated much of his ‘history’ ) claims the CC went south in the middle ages. Many Reformed denominations believe this to be true. But they all have one thing in common: they believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church were not formulated until a later date. When it clearly shows what the first generation of christians believed was truly Catholic.

 

[deanarrca]

Well, a protestant holding this view would say the victors (ie Satan’s Catholic Church) won the Roman authority thus they destroyed evidence of “independent Christian churches” and their writings and re-wrote history to favor this evil organization. (which ruled for the next 1100 years while fledgling Christians waited for the reformation). All you have to do is read junk like the trail of blood, Jack Chick, the two babylons, etc and you’ll get the idea. However, I must admit I like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (He’s Anglican).

Ok that flies in the face of Matthew 16:18

Imagine that Christ was unable to protect his Church beyond a couple of centuries- Let Satan prevail and let his Church fall into darkness for a 1000 + years or so until the Protestant reformation. So sorry for the poor people, especially those who were martyred for what they mistakenly thought was the Christian Faith, from 300 ad till the 1500’s. But then where is the true remnant today. Isn’t the Trail of Blood stuff (I am not up on it. I think I read bits and pieces of it years ago and considered it a bunch of uneducated unsupported bunk) just Baptist- Only the Ana-Baptists got it right. They would be against any other Protestant denomination for instance that believed in Conditional Security, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or infant Baptism in addition to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[JustaServant]

They would be against any other Protestant denomination for instance that believed in Conditional Security, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or infant Baptism in addition to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Well…yeah. They believe their little group is the true church. In fact every Protestant sect goes out of its way to prove they are the true church. They must do it to justfy thier existence. In fact, they are betting eternity on it.

Reminds me of that All in the Family episode where Archie is locked in his basement and is so drunk, he thinks that God has come to get him. “God” turns out to be a black repair man.
Archie kneels before him and says: “Forgive me, Lord! The Jeffersons was right!”

 

[sambos671]

Not all evangelicals would agree with ‘trail of blood’ history, but they have (must have actually) their own variations of it. John Foxe (who fabricated much of his ‘history’ ) claims the CC went south in the middle ages. Many Reformed denominations believe this to be true. But they all have one thing in common: they believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church were not formulated until a later date. When it clearly shows what the first generation of christians believed was truly Catholic.

I never said all would. I was mentioning specifically those that hold to Carrol’s “Trail of Blood” (primarily Baptist). I like John Foxe’s but I know he fudge it a bit. Doesn’t mean I don’t like a good read. Its funny he starts with the same Catholic premise and then jumps ship through the middle ages. I’m just sharing what this type of person would say.

 

[sambos671]

Ok that flies in the face of Matthew 16:18

Imagine that Christ was unable to protect his Church beyond a couple of centuries- Let Satan prevail and let his Church fall into darkness for a 1000 + years or so until the Protestant reformation. So sorry for the poor people, especially those who were martyred for what they mistakenly thought was the Christian Faith, from 300 ad till the 1500’s. But then where is the true remnant today. Isn’t the Trail of Blood stuff (I am not up on it. I think I read bits and pieces of it years ago and considered it a bunch of uneducated unsupported bunk) just Baptist- Only the Ana-Baptists got it right. They would be against any other Protestant denomination for instance that believed in Conditional Security, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or infant Baptism in addition to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

No. They would say God preserved them as a minority until the RCC gave way at the Reformation. Note they believe a divergence. Ie they are the true NT Church. RCC was antithesis to it but parallel with it. And finally, Yep they have a hard road to travel to prove their hypothesis.

 

[deanarrca]

tammyjean34 I missed your post earlier, But yes there were many abuses in the Catholic Church and probably still are- There were bad Popes and bad Bishops and Bad Priests too- The amazing things is that the Core Doctrines of the Faith have been preserved intact and unchanged. Peripherals have changed and little “t” traditions have and can be changed down through the years.

Scott Hahn in one of his books (and I can’t remember which one at the moment and don’t have it handy) gave examples of bad Popes but even though they were bad, God worked through them and also protected the Deposit of Faith. The Bad Popes were kept By the holy Spirit from changing or hurting the Deposit of Faith. I wish I had his examples handy to show you what I mean.

Yes the wheat and the chaff grow together.

The problem is -If you leave the Church- where would you go? Which Church do you believe is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, Rightly Divining the Word of God --That has been preserved by the Holy Spirit from the time of Christ and the Apostles?

If you want to go the route that all Christian churches today are fallible, so one is just as good as another, then to me that is in direct conflict of what God promised to do. (Not that there aren’t true Christians that love the Lord Jesus in those churches but they are separated from the true church and the fullness of the faith)

There is One Lord One Baptism and One Faith and it is Founded on Peter the Rock and God promised to protect it.

For me personally after much Prayer (Seek and ye shall Find), after examining the Scriptures for over 30 years and the historical evidence, I have very confidently decided that the Church Christ founded can only be the Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

tammyjean34 I missed your post earlier, But yes there were many abuses in the Catholic Church and probably still are- There were bad Popes and bad Bishops and Bad Priests too- The amazing things is that the Core Doctrines of the Faith have been preserved intact and unchanged. Peripherals have changed and little “t” traditions have and can be changed down through the years.

Scott Hahn in one of his books (and I can’t remember which one at the moment and don’t have it handy) gave examples of bad Popes but even though they were bad, God worked through them and also protected the Deposit of Faith. The Bad Popes were kept By the holy Spirit from changing or hurting the Deposit of Faith. I wish I had his examples handy to show you what I mean.

Yes the wheat and the chaff grow together.

The problem is -If you leave the Church- where would you go? Which Church do you believe is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, Rightly Divining the Word of God --That has been preserved by the Holy Spirit from the time of Christ and the Apostles?

If you want to go the route that all Christian churches today are fallible, so one is just as good as another, then to me that is in direct conflict of what God promised to do. (Not that there aren’t true Christians that love the Lord Jesus in those churches but they are separated from the true church and the fullness of the faith)

There is One Lord One Baptism and One Faith and it is Founded on Peter the Rock and God promised to protect it.

For me personally after much Prayer (Seek and ye shall Find), after examining the Scriptures for over 30 years and the historical evidence, I have very confidently decided that the Church Christ founded can only be the Catholic Church.

I see what you are saying here, but the problem you are talking about, abuses and people leaving or not leaving because of them, is not a small one. \

I can’t see many serious Catholics leaving today over systematic abuses in the Church because actually they are pretty above board, but I occasionally find myself reminding Catholics who are very down on the Protestant Reformers - if the Catholic Church decided to start doing all the things the Reformers were so upset about, and actually did it, many good Catholics would leave. I am sure they would be torn, especially about what it would mean for the idea of the True Church, and obedience, etc. But the kinds of late medieval and Renaissance abused among the clergy, and systematic abuses of the hierarchy would be to much for them to associate themselves with if it was actually happening.

Of course, this is a bit of an anachronism, it isn’t really a good historical way of thinking. But I think it can be helpful for Catholics who are having trouble understanding the Rformers position to think about, as a kind of mind exercise.

 

[deanarrca]

if the Catholic Church decided to start doing all the things the Reformers were so upset about, and actually did it, many good Catholics would leave. I am sure they would be torn, especially about what it would mean for the idea of the True Church, and obedience, etc.

I am not an expert on the reformation- Yes there was abuse in the Catholic Church, but that was not all the reformation was about- It was politics. Principalities encouraged the reformation, and for the Churches in their countries to break ties with Rome, because it was to their political advantage to have people more loyal to them than an outside religious power. I believe that it was felt that Rome had too much influence and power over the minds of the people and that in turn threatened the loyalty of the people to their individual countries, kingdoms, and governments. It wasn’t all about theological differences and abuses.

Luther I believe in the beginning had no intention of splitting but wanted reform within the church. He was encouraged to make a full break by the influence of the German Princes. It was to their advantage.

I was raised Anglican/Episcopalian (before I became a fundamentalist-First Half of My Christian Faith Journey and Christian Testimony ). I learned to love Jesus in the Episcopal church. However, It is intellectually dishonest to say the Anglican church split over theological differences rather than politics. It wasn’t all about King Henry wanting a divorce. He wanted absolute power and loyalty and did not want to share any of that with a foreign Pope. He used the theological ideas of the reformers as a propaganda campaign to encourage a break with Rome to forward his political agenda.

Because of it’s split from the Authority of the Catholic Church --The Episcopal Church in America has gone down a different path. Many Orthodox Episcopalians are coming home to the Catholic church. I don’t know how the Anglican Church is in other countries.

 

[GenuineCatholic]

Wow, your theological argument based on word roots is really convincing, and to the point. Almost as profound as your example of Christian love.

And yours just now is nothing less than… oh nothing. I have Christian love, but when i must deal defending my Faith in my own home, school, and about everywhere else i go, than yeah, i am going to be more of a fighter than a “lets agree to disagree” kind of person. I was blinded by protestantism for years and was never truly happy. I have witnessed God and His Love ONLY in the Catholic Church. The True Church. Its like i said, you’ll run into the wall eventually.
There are individuals i love dearly who are unfortunatly protestant. But just because i love them does not take away from their error.
And for your information, i am organizations on many sites where many protestants come to talk to me. I accept them wholeheartedly because they are open and willing to learn and see who God REALLY Is. I am “hatefull” toward God’s enemies. Therefore yes i am relentless against “loyal” protestants. Hate speech is useless, i am not spueing hate speech, i utter truth. People like Protestants can’t accept a prophet when they kick em in the rear. I am not saying i am a prophet, i am saying it as a fact in general.
When i am ordained, i will make sure there is de-protestantization though being that i will be in a Priestly community, i will not be alone in that. Yet i will appeal to those Protestants whom actually have their spiritual eyes open to the Truth. Its only you Protestants who are content with lies and falsehood who will be turned away. THats how it already has been. So any “theological” or “reasonable” arguements you may have are completely… invalid.

 

[deanarrca]

I am “hatefull” toward God’s enemies.

Wow-- Hmm that is the same logic the Westboro Baptist Church uses to justify their hate speech and actions against homosexuals. That is the same logic anti-Catholics on blogs I have been on use.

You need to be Jesus ( The Body of Christ) as a witness to other people. They will know we are Christians by our love. It is not your job to convince or convert Protestants (I remind myself of that every day) Defend the Faith yes but, It is and always has been the Holy Spirit’s job to convict.

 

[JustaServant]

And yours just now is nothing less than… oh nothing. I have Christian love, but when i must deal defending my Faith in my own home, school, and about everywhere else i go, than yeah, i am going to be more of a fighter than a “lets agree to disagree” kind of person. I was blinded by protestantism for years and was never truly happy. I have witnessed God and His Love ONLY in the Catholic Church. The True Church. Its like i said, you’ll run into the wall eventually.
There are individuals i love dearly who are unfortunatly protestant. But just because i love them does not take away from their error.
And for your information, i am organizations on many sites where many protestants come to talk to me. I accept them wholeheartedly because they are open and willing to learn and see who God REALLY Is. I am “hatefull” toward God’s enemies. Therefore yes i am relentless against “loyal” protestants. Hate speech is useless, i am not spueing hate speech, i utter truth. People like Protestants can’t accept a prophet when they kick em in the rear. I am not saying i am a prophet, i am saying it as a fact in general.
When i am ordained, i will make sure there is de-protestantization though being that i will be in a Priestly community, i will not be alone in that. Yet i will appeal to those Protestants whom actually have their spiritual eyes open to the Truth. Its only you Protestants who are content with lies and falsehood who will be turned away. THats how it already has been. So any “theological” or “reasonable” arguements you may have are completely… invalid.

Please go away.

 

[drtimstephens]

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.

I’m failing to see how this timeline proves the Roman Catholic Church of today faithfully represents the church setup by Christ and his apostles.

I won’t debate your timeline as it is as you say ‘not exact but close’; but looking at the writings all the way up to the Didache are canonical texts. They have been well preserved through the ages.

Now if you take the Didache, some scholars do date it as early as you have it listed, but the manuscript evidence is weak. What we know as the Didache today is based on a greek manuscript written around 1000 AD. There may be a few other fragments, but nothing like the thousands of manuscripts for the inspired, canonical writings.

Elements of the Didache probably did date pre-100AD but what was changed or altered in almost 1000 years?

The Bible is the most reliable historic document we have from that time period. Not to mention it’s written by inspired people… I’ll take it over what someone else says.

Moving on…
How does Clement’s writings prove Roman Catholicism? Here is a quote where he speaks of faith without works is what justifies us. This is clearly contrary to modern day Catholic teaching.

“So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement’s First Letter, 32.3-4)”

Moving on to my last point…
Now the Roman Catholic church is full of history. It is full of history from pagan religions mixed in with Christianity. I’m sure this will upset you as you read this, but please just look at some of the artwork and statues in and around Rome.

The obelisk in St.Peter’s square - from Egypt, designed for sun worship.
Triton Fountain - monument for the pagan god of the sea.
The Popes ‘accessories’ all have origins in pagan idolatry.

The history and tradition you are holding too has it’s roots in pagan idolatry mixed with the inspired writings of the apostles. Are you claiming that Christ and the apostles sanctioned all the paganism found in the roman religion you hold so dear?

 

[GenuineCatholic]

Justaservant, no i will not go away.

And to you, de, how dare you compare me to Baptists and the like. I do not hate speech individuals such homosexuals or anything like that. First of all i am one but i am celibate.
And yes, the Holy Spirit does do that, but He also uses people to do so. It does not matter what you or anyone else says, the people who insult the Catholic Faith not only insult me, but they insult the Lord and i will NOT stand for that, so tell me to leave if you must, but i will not. Tell me i am a hyppocrite, but i am not. I love the Lord, and THAT is how people will see Him, is because someone actually has the guts to stand up for Him. Not that He The Almightly needs standing up for, but i am sure He Is Pleased at seeing some people who are loyal enough to fight back insults made against him.
Judge me how you will, it only makes you the hyppocryte (or however you spell that). It is only my life’s experience and it is what i know.
How do you expect me to love those who curse and insult and mock the One Who has saved me from myself as well as my enemies. Your an idiot if you expect that.

 

[GenuineCatholic]

I’m failing to see how this timeline proves the Roman Catholic Church of today faithfully represents the church setup by Christ and his apostles.

I won’t debate your timeline as it is as you say ‘not exact but close’; but looking at the writings all the way up to the Didache are canonical texts. They have been well preserved through the ages.

Now if you take the Didache, some scholars do date it as early as you have it listed, but the manuscript evidence is weak. What we know as the Didache today is based on a greek manuscript written around 1000 AD. There may be a few other fragments, but nothing like the thousands of manuscripts for the inspired, canonical writings.

Elements of the Didache probably did date pre-100AD but what was changed or altered in almost 1000 years?

The Bible is the most reliable historic document we have from that time period. Not to mention it’s written by inspired people… I’ll take it over what someone else says.

Moving on…
How does Clement’s writings prove Roman Catholicism? Here is a quote where he speaks of faith without works is what justifies us. This is clearly contrary to modern day Catholic teaching.

“So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement’s First Letter, 32.3-4)”

Moving on to my last point…
Now the Roman Catholic church is full of history. It is full of history from pagan religions mixed in with Christianity. I’m sure this will upset you as you read this, but please just look at some of the artwork and statues in and around Rome.

The obelisk in St.Peter’s square - from Egypt, designed for sun worship.
Triton Fountain - monument for the pagan god of the sea.
The Popes ‘accessories’ all have origins in pagan idolatry.

The history and tradition you are holding too has it’s roots in pagan idolatry mixed with the inspired writings of the apostles. Are you claiming that Christ and the apostles sanctioned all the paganism found in the roman religion you hold so dear?

As for you, you are obviously as ignorant as the rest.
All these “paganistic” ideals you are mentioning have been taken by the Church and PURIFIED, just as God’s people would capture Pagan temples and turn them to Houses of God.