Red Herring. What was the teaching of the church as a whole?
These are the teachings of individual teachers. As you know, various teachers differed with one another greatly over sundry items (still do). What became official doctrine? Officially, it is the creeds.
The teaching of the church as a whole is evidenced by the creeds at that time. Up until 400 and a little later there is very little (if anything- though a couple of things might need clarification) a Conservative Baptist (who from here on out will just be called "Baptist")would disagree with in the Creeds of that time. For example, which line of the Apostles Creed would a Baptist find offensive. If the words are understood- none.
Apostles' Creed
1. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.
Also, individual beliefs often don't become official doctrine. For example, the belief in Limbo which many Catholics taught for centuries and which now may be categorically done away with. Some of the other practices such as latin Mass and certain penalties for various things have changed over the years. Doctrines have been added. Infant Baptism was not OFFICIAL until the 4th century. Prior to this, sprinkling was often a concession (if you couldn't immerse- you were allowed to sprinkle)
Even the formerly anathematized Protestants (see Council of Trent) are now considered "Separated Brethren" (Vatican II) or something to that affect whose baptism may be valid if done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Though apparently Catholics believe we will do a little more purgatory time.
Official Baptist doctrine comes from Scripture. Baptists being independent, there is some lee-way on non essentials so you may see some Arminian Baptists for example and some some Calvinsts, some pre Trib Rapture folks and some Amillenial. Scripture is where most of the doctrines of the early Creeds came from (yes, after some debate over what Scripture means).
Catholic doctrine comes from Scripture plus Catholic tradition. The latter moves about fairly frequently depending upon what pressures are being placed upon the church at the time (such as will we see a softening on the stance on contraception? which some would consider a mortal sin?) or who happens to be in the Papal/Cardinal seats at the time.
Red herring? I've presented actual evidence from the early Church and you want to dismiss it as a red herring. What I quoted was a very small sampling of the volumes of info on the early Church, but you're likely not interested since it doesn't fit your theory.
The teaching of the church as a whole is evidenced by the creeds at that time
But don't misunderstand, the creeds were not the whole teaching of the Church at that time. They are a summary of the very basics, not a catechism of the entire doctrine of the Church. If it was the whole teaching of the early Church then your premise in #140 that "The Catholic church of 300 AD was much closer to Baptists of today than the Catholic church of today" goes out the window. The Baptists of today don't subscribe to the Apostles Creed as their sole catechism as they have many more detailed doctrines not captured by it, just as the Ten Commandments you recite are a summary of convenience of the Decalogue in Exodus and Dueteronomy. The Catholic Church of today believes the very same Apostles Creed you noted. By what your claiming, that would mean the beliefs of present day Baptists and present day Catholics are exactly the same, which isn't true, since both have doctrines that conflict.
These don't demonstrate that Church doctrine of today contradicts Church doctrine held 50 years ago or 500 years ago, as you claimed in post #140.
Limbo has never been a Church doctrine. Latin used in the Mass is a rite, not a doctrine (note that there are 22 churches in the Catholic Church, and there are many different rites used within those Churches, all of which are acceptable and contradict no doctrines). When you say infant baptism became official, means that it was formalized in a Council and does not mean it wasn't a sanctioned practice earlier or that it contradited an earlier doctrine. All your examples are red herrings of doctrine being contradicted.
Vatican II did not change Church doctrine about rebaptism. Before Vatican II and after, the Church doctrine was St. Paul's doctrine "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism". The Church forbids the repetition of the sacrament, once validly administered, even for converts.
Official Baptist doctrine comes from Scripture. Baptists being independent, there is some lee-way on non essentials so you may see some Arminian Baptists for example and some some Calvinsts, some pre Trib Rapture folks and some Amillenial. Scripture is where most of the doctrines of the early Creeds came from (yes, after some debate over what Scripture means).
But you neglect to mention that some doctrines dealing with the essentials of salvation varies among Baptists. For example, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. By being independent, Baptists who read the same scripture arrive at opposing doctrines.
Catholic doctrine comes from Scripture plus Catholic tradition. The latter moves about fairly frequently depending upon what pressures are being placed upon the church at the time (such as will we see a softening on the stance on contraception? which some would consider a mortal sin?) or who happens to be in the Papal/Cardinal seats at the time.
Could you please provide some examples of Catholic doctrine that has changed because of pressures being placed upon the church or because of who happens to be in the "Papal/Cardinal" seats at the time. As far as softening on the stance on contraception, that is purely speculation on your part. And as far your comment that some consider contraception a mortal sin (or not) does not change Church doctrine or teaching.