Timeline of Roman Catholic Doctrines in Church History
The Roman Catholic faith has been an evolution over many centuries. Catholics teach their faith was handed down from the Apostles and they only formally established these doctrines as the need arose yet a careful study of the writings of the church show that most of these doctrines were not held by the early church and were later additions. Events in red boldface are those pertaining to doctrine. The rest are historical events not directly related to RC doctrine.
TIMELINE
| DATE | EVENT |
| 250 BC | OT canon is universally accepted |
| 33-100 AD | Apostolic age |
| 60 AD | Paul returns to Rome |
| ~68 AD | Paul dies; Peter dies around the same time |
| 95 AD | Clement of Rome mentions at least 8 NT books |
| 100-325 AD | Ante Nicene period (separation of Christianity from Judaism and growth) |
| 108 AD | Polycarp, acknowledged 15 books |
| 115 AD | Ignatius of Antioch acknowledges about seven NT books |
| 170 AD | Muratorian Canon[BV1] includes all of the NT books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John |
| 185 AD | Irenaeus mentions 21 books |
| 170-235 AD | Hippolytus recognizes 22 books |
| 200 AD | Under Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, a basic version of Catholic structure was installed with Roman direction |
| 300 AD | Prayers for the dead began |
| 313 AD | Emperor Constantine legalizes Christianity and moves the Roman capital to Constantinople |
| 325 AD | The First Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, attempted to structure church leadership around a model similar to that of the Roman system and formalized some key articles |
| 363 AD | Council of Laodicea states that only the OT books (along with one book of the Apocrypha[BV2] ) and 26 books of the NT (everything but Revelation) were canonical |
| 375 AD | Veneration of angels and dead saints, and the use of images |
| 393 AD | Council of Hippo affirmed 27 books |
| 394 AD | The Mass as a daily celebration |
| 397 AD | Council of Carthage affirmed 27 books[BV3] |
| 431 AD | Start of the veneration of Mary and first use of the term “Mother of God” at the Council of Ephesus |
| 500 AD | Priests began to dress differently than layman |
| 526 AD | Extreme Unction |
| 551 AD | Council of Chalcedon declares the church in Constantinople to be the head of the eastern branch of the church and equal in authority to the Pope |
| 590 AD | Pope Gregory I becomes Pope and the church enters into a period of enormous political and military power. Some call this the beginning of the Catholic Church as it is known today |
| 593 AD | The doctrine of Purgatory established by Gregory I |
| 600 AD | The Latin language imposed by Gregory I |
| 607 AD | Title of pope, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas |
| 632 AD | Islamic prophet Mohammad dies beginning a long conflict between Christianity and Islam |
| 709 AD | Kissing of the pope’s foot began with pope Constantine |
| 786 AD | Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized |
| 850 AD | Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest |
| 927 AD | College of Cardinals established |
| 995 AD | Canonization of dead saints, first by John XV |
| 998 AD | Attendance at Mass made obligatory |
| 1054 AD | The great East-West schism marks the formal separation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Catholic Church |
| 1079 AD | Celibacy of the priesthood decreed by pope Gregory VII |
| 1090 AD | The Rosary invented by Peter the Hermit |
| 1184 AD | The Inquisition instituted by the Council of Verona |
| 1190 AD | The sale of indulgences begun |
| 1215 AD | Fourth Council of the Lateran – ratified the teaching of transubstantiation. Also the confession of sins to a priest |
| 1439 AD | Purgatory proclaimed as dogma by the Council of Florence |
| 1517 AD | Luther publishes the 95 Theses |
| 1534 AD | King Henry VIII of England declares himself to be the supreme head of the Church of England, severing the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic Church |
| 1545-1563 AD | Catholic reformation begins |
| 1545 AD | Tradition declared of equal authority by the Council of Trent |
| 1546 AD | Council of Trent official accepts 11 of the Apocryphal books as canonical[BV4] |
| 1854 AD | Immaculate Conception of Mary proclaimed by pope Pius IX |
| 1870 AD | The First Vatican Council declares the policy of Papal infallibility |
| 1950 AD | Assumption of Mary (bodily ascension into heaven) proclaimed by pope Pius XII |
| 1960s AD | Second Vatican Council |
| 1965 AD | Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church by pope Paul VI |
[BV1]The Muratorian Canon was discovered by Italian historian Ludovico Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in northern Italy in 1749. The copy his discovered was written in Latin and dates to the 7th or 8th century. Internal evidence suggests an original version around AD 180.
[BV2]See What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books? | GotQuestions.org
[BV3]The Council of Carthage listed the 27 books of the NT as well as the 39 books of the OT but included a few Apocryphal books such as Maccabees and Esdras. Prior to and after this council, most Christian and Jewish scholars held the Apocrypha to be non-canonical. They are omitted from the works of Philo, Origen, Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Athanasius. They were also excluded at the Council of Laodicea held less than 40 years prior.
[BV4]Trent declared both Scripture and tradition as authoritative. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone was rejected in favor of sacramental grace and righteousness based on an admixture of grace and works. The council also confirmed belief in transubstantiation. The council must be understood in its historical context. It has been called the anti-reformation council. Much of what it affirmed was in response to challenges coming from early Protestantism. The Apocryphal books contained support for doctrines such as prayers for the dead (purgatory) and indulgences.
Our God is Too Big 
Is there a printable version of this information? I love church history.
March 28, 2024 at 12:03 pm
I don’t know if WordPress allows you to print but if not, I would be happy to email it to you.
March 28, 2024 at 8:43 pm
Thank you for your response. I discovered it was easy to copy and paste to a blank page and print it out for future reference.
March 28, 2024 at 9:38 pm
You are welcome!
March 28, 2024 at 9:42 pm
I
April 25, 2024 at 4:40 pm
I knew there were many errors in Roman Catholic teachings, these historical statements make me more determined to reach out to Catholics with the Biblical Gospel.
June 24, 2024 at 6:12 pm
They need to hear the Gospel. They don’t hear it in the Catholic Church. They are told the church saves you through it’s sacraments. It’s all about the church…
June 24, 2024 at 6:40 pm
As a protestant who converted to Catholicism, I can say with confidence that the gospel is proclaimed every single time I walk in the door. This is true across multiple parishes.
As a historical theologian, I can say with confidence that saying a thing begins in the year we first hear it mentioned is just lazy historiography. All that does is prove you have no idea how history works.
Lastly, the OT canon was not solidified prior to Christianity. Pharisees had one canon. Sadducees had another. Samaritans had another. Essenes had another. Hellenized Jews had yet another canon. Saying there was a closed canon during any date that ends in B.C. ignores basic information that we have known for centuries, much of which has backing in the contents of the new testament.
I don’t know you, so I don’t know whether you are intellectually dishonest or just poorly informed. I won’t pretend to know which one is true, either. What I will say is that Jesus Christ is alive and well within the Catholic Church. The help that Catholics need from Protestants is not to be given access to the gospel, but to work together to share it with a dying world. So please help that happen instead of attacking something you don’t have a ton of familiarity with.
January 20, 2025 at 11:12 pm
Actually, I was born and raised Catholic, so I know what I am talking about. It is common to date events to when they come to fruition. The problem with Protestants working with Catholics is that we believe a different gospel. The Catholic gospel is works salvation.
January 21, 2025 at 10:51 am
Being raised in a faith doesn’t mean being raised well. You can grow up in America and be wrong about pretty much anything in the constitution.
I’m not talking about an event coming to fruition. That kind of terminology isn’t even historically helpful. Our earliest writings of Jesus are after his death. Do we therefore suppose that the “myth that Jesus existed” came into being at the time of writing? Nonsense. You can’t date an idea based on the first time it was written down.
And I’m sorry, but I believe in salvation by grace through faith, according to scripture, and the catechism teaches this as well. No Catholic with any knowledge of their faith believes that doing works is the key to getting into heaven. All is by God’s grace, through faith, demonstrated by one’s works, as the scriptures attest. And as the Church attests.
So we go back to the root question. You’re either ignorant of what you claim to understand, or you’re intellectually dishonest. So which one is it?
January 21, 2025 at 11:21 am
“And if we are baptized after the age of reason, even the choice to receive baptism is a good work, again aided by God’s grace.” (https://www.catholic.com/qa/difference-between-catholic-and-protestant-views-on-justification-and-sanctification). Since the Catholic church believes baptism is necessary for salvation, by the above quote, choosing to receive baptism is a “good work.” Thus, a good work is required for that person to be saved. The “good work” may be “aided by God’s grace” but that it is still a work.
The Catholic church also believes in the necessity of doing penance (which is different that repentance). ““the Sacrament of Penance is the absolution imparted with certain words” while the acts of the penitent are required for the worthy reception of the sacrament.” (https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/penance). Without going into detail, the “acts of the penitent” are works. Usually in the form of prayers but required works.
We disagree which neither makes me ignorant or dishonest.
January 21, 2025 at 12:20 pm
Baptism is a good work in the sense that belief in God and pleading for his mercy is a good work. And that’s exactly what Peter says baptism is: “not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21).
Belief is a good work. The acceptance of things as true which you do not have to accept as true is fundamentally an action. But it is responding to what God has done and continues to do. If there is no good work of man which contributes to salvation, then the very act of accepting Christ’s love would be condemnation. Everyone chooses to believe a thing or to reject it. If that is not a work, then you’ll have trouble defining what a work even is.
If you’re saying that baptism being a work is a dealbreaker, then there’s a much deeper issue. If baptism is a work, and the Church says it’s necessary for salvation, and scripture also says it’s necessary for salvation, and you say no work is needed for salvation, and include baptism as a work in your definition, then yes, you and the Catholic Church profess two different gospels. But in that case, it isn’t the Catholic Church that needs to change. You need to realign yourself with the scriptures.
Which is why I feel the need to insist that you are either ignorant of your subject matter or are being intellectually dishonest.
January 21, 2025 at 1:49 pm
You are correct there are not contradictions in Scripture. Since Paul (and others) say that salvation is by faith alone, we must understand the references to baptism as not a requirement. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. You are baptized after you believe (I obviously don’t believe in infant baptism though some Protestants do). It is a public act of obedience to declare to the world that our old self has died and a new man has arisen in Jesus Christ. In the time of the Apostles, baptism was the mark of saving faith. It was inconceivable that someone would profess faith yet refuse to be baptized. In their minds, such a person must not have truly believed. In many ancient churches, those applying for baptism had to undergo 3 years of study before they could be baptized. That was because those churches did not want anyone walking around, claiming to be a Christian and professing to have been baptized, who was not truly saved and grounded in the faith. Three years was considered a probationary period to see if the new believer “walked the talk.” They took baptism seriously and did not want to baptize someone who hadn’t yet shown fruit. I am sure they made exceptions for someone close to dying. Why would they have waited if baptism was required for salvation? Why delay baptism? If the person died during those three years they would end up in hell. A common practice of the ancient church does not prove their beliefs were Scriptural, but it gives us insight into what many thought and practiced.
Accepting Christ’s love is not a work. A “work” is when you do something in service of God or others. It is feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, supporting orphans and widows, etc. Something you do in your mind is not a work. Faith is a mental acceptance of Christ’s finished work on the cross and his lordship. We don’t have to “do” anything with our bodies. If someone asked you what you did for work, and you answered saying “I sit all day and think,” they would ask what you thought about and how that earned you money. If you answered that you were thinking about quantum physics and worked for a university, then they would understand, but even that type of work would require you to write papers, lecture, and run experiments. We don’t consider pure thought “work.” We also don’t consider receiving a gift as work. Maybe if you have to drive a long distance, stay in a hotel, then receive it, we might say it involved some work on your part. To accept God’s love requires no work on our part. Work, in the Biblical sense, means doing something for God or others. When you pray and ask for salvation, you are not doing it for God, but yourself. You are accepting His invitation to salvation but God doesn’t “need” your salvation. He is perfect, complete, and lacks for nothing. Ultimately, we serve God by serving others. Our good works are for others. We don’t do “good works” for ourselves.
Your solution to this apparent contradiction is to make faith a “work.” In your mind, when Paul says salvation is by “faith alone,” he means the “work of faith.” While I would not agree with that interpretation, you have a big problem when Paul adds, “Not by works, lest no man boast.” If faith were a “work” then Paul would not have added that. If we could do anything (any work) to gain salvation, then it would not be by pure Grace. Salvation is given to us by God. We accept it by faith which is not a work. In fact, if God does not give us the faith, we would never believe on our own. If faith is a work, then we could boast that “I did my part!” No, God did it all.
May 16, 2025 at 7:49 pm
As you say, the “Catholic church…believes.” I am discussing what the Scriptures teach, not what the Catholic church believes. I don’t believe the Catholic church is infallible and right about everything. I don’t believe baptism is required for salvation. It is not a work we do to be saved. It is a work we do in obedience after we are saved.
I also reject the Catholic belief in penance. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture we are required to do penance in order to be forgiven. Nothing in the Bible talks about the “Sacrament of Penance.” The Scriptures say if we confess our sins, God forgives us. It never says we have to confess our sins to another person and then do acts of penance. I find the whole Catholic theology around Purgatory deeply troubling and inconsistent. If someone dies with unconfessed sins or never did penance, the Catholic church teaches that person must go spend time in Purgatory. The Catholic church offers prayers for the souls in Purgatory. In the Middle Ages, to raise money, the church sold indulgences that could affect the immediate release of a soul in Purgatory. All of this implies a soul could spend a significant amount of time in Purgatory. When I went to confession (the Sacrament of Penance) growing up, my usual penance was to say 5 Hail Mary’s and 5 Our Fathers. Maybe 10. That took all of two minutes. Why would one have to be in Purgatory for a long time when now it takes 2 minutes to do Penance? Why not have a chapel outside the entrance of heaven where such souls can stop by and say their penance and then enter the gates?
I don’t see penance in the Bible. I do see where if we have wronged someone we should ask their forgiveness and if we can do something for them, repay them, fix something we broke, etc, then we should but none of those things are required for God’s forgiveness. No good works involved.
May 16, 2025 at 8:02 pm
Yet you have been arguing that faith, baptism and penance are works necessary for salvation. How can you then say, “All if by God’s grace, through faith, demonstrated by one’s works?” That sounds perfectly Protestant to me. If those things are works, as you have argued, then you can’t say Catholics don’t believe that “doing works are the key to getting into heaven.” They absolutely are! If you believe baptism is a work, and you must be baptized to get into heaven, then you are most definitely saying works are the key to getting into heaven and then one must maintain that grace through the work of penance. That, my friend, contradicts Paul and we both agree Scripture contains no contradictions.
May 16, 2025 at 8:06 pm
We share a different Gospel with the dying world. Your Catholic “gospel” depends on works. That is not the Gospel of Scriptures.
May 16, 2025 at 8:10 pm
So, for whatever reason, it won’t let me reply to your actual comments. So we’re doing this the good old fashioned way.
My apologies. We are stuck with what Word Press provides.
You are insisting that scripture does not point to baptism as being a requirement for salvation based on it being a work. You will find multiple Bible verses that speak of baptism as necessary for salvation. You will even find Bible verses such as acts 2:38 where Peter is asked what must be done to be saved, and he could have said “believe in Jesus” and instead he responds that baptism is the way to be saved. There is no legitimate argument from scripture that can possibly say that baptism is only an exterior sign of an interior change. That’s complete hogwash. It’s a man made tradition.
We have to harmonize what Peter said with what Paul said. Paul said salvation requires no works. You have argued baptism is a work as has the Catholic church. So which is it? Is Paul right that salvation is by faith “alone” and “not by works,” or is Peter right that you have to have faith followed by baptism? They seem to be contradicting each other. Other than accepting there is a contradiction in Scripture, which we both agree is not possible, then you have two ways to harmonize these two writers. One way is to say baptism is not a work. If baptism is not a work, then no contradiction. The problem with that solution is that we both (and the Catholic church as I quoted in an early comment) believes baptism IS a work. If so, then that is not a solution. We still have a contradiction. The only other solution is to say that Peter’s response contained what was required to be saved (“believe in Jesus”) and added a non-requirement but very important act of obedience (be baptized). Those are your choices. I believe Peter added a non-requirement in answering. Furthermore, if you must believe, then how can an infant believe? Where does Scripture teach a parent can believe on behalf of the child until that child is of an age to confirm that belief?
I notice that in-between your childish rants about baptism, penance, purgatory, and several Catholic doctrines that you claim to understand, you say that you’re just here telling us what the Bible says. Well, which is it? It’s intellectually dishonest to say that you’re only here doing one thing when you actively need to do another thing that you’re denying doing. You don’t need to articulate what the Catholic Church teaches, you’re just here to say what is in the Bible? Ok. So why make this inaccurate chart in the first place? And why defend it so heavily even though it has absolutely no legitimacy from a scholarly, historical perspective? You are acting defensive and dishonest.
My arguments are from Scripture. It is the Catholic church that has added to Scripture. Where is penance in Scripture? Where is Purgatory in Scripture?
Finally, you said that we share a different gospel, and that the Catholic gospel is one that depends on works. You show a pretty obvious misunderstanding of what I originally said. I said that as a former protestant, I have heard the gospel proclaimed in multiple Catholic parishes. I mean that I don’t hear any differences between the evangelical tradition I was raised in and the Catholic articulation of the gospel. Jesus came to this earth, lived a perfect life, died for my sins, rose from the dead, and has offered to every human being the call to salvation, and I need only respond. So why in the world would I ever trust you when I’ve researched how different Christian traditions articulate the gospel, and see with my own eyes that the Catholic Church faithfully proclaims the God who I first met sitting next to my parents at a protestant church? Why would I trust you? Your words directly contradict every piece of information I’ve ever come across that wasn’t literally propaganda.
I don’t know what Protestant church you went to, but the Gospel I heard as a Protestant and what the Catholic church teaches are indeed different. The Gospel I heard (and find in the Bible), makes no mention of being a member of the Catholic church or under God’s grace due to their ignorance of the necessity of the Catholic church (see Is There Really “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?” | Catholic Answers Magazine). You say you need only respond but previously you have said you have to respond and be baptized. Which is it? Or by “respond” do you include baptism as a required part of that response? If so, that is not the Gospel I heard or believe. According to Catholic Answers (who I believe is faithfully teaching Catholic doctrine), I am not saved even though I believe that “Jesus came to this earth, lived a perfect life, died for my sins, rose from the dead, and has offered to every human being the call to salvation, and I need only respond.” Why am I not saved?
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (CCC here quotes The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 14, from the documents of Vatican II).”
I have refused to “remain in it.” Therefore, according to the Catholic church, I cannot be saved. Let us also recall that at the Council of Trent, anyone who believes that “salvation is by faith alone” is anathema. The Biblical Gospel (which I have heard in Protestant churches) does not exclude me from salvation because I have refused to enter or remain in the Catholic church. It does not exclude me because I believe salvation is by faith alone. You might have heard the same Gospel but the Catholic church has added requirements onto that Gospel. When one considers the entirety of the “Catholic gospel,” it is indeed different and would exclude from salvation someone like me.
May 17, 2025 at 2:39 pm