Sure I can because I don't buy the notion that the RCC emerged in the 300s. In my research I found numerous historical witnesses showing the continuity of the Catholic Church before and after the 300s. You are as free to reject those sources as I am to accept them.
Peace be with you.
Well, I don't say that the Roman church emerged in the 300s; I acknowledge it existed before then...
But as the excerpt below points out...there was essentially one church til the time of Augustine...yet many strains...Eastern orthodox...the Roman church...the coptic church in Egypt & thereabouts...the Nestorian church...on the fringes...
A sort of diversity within semi-unity...
But if you're going to call it the ROMAN church...then that means you're talking about the church as centered in ROME...and the quote below shows you that other segments of the church simply didn't acknowledge Rome's authority til later...if even then!
The Roman Catholic church of today is not the church of Jesus, neither is it "catholic." The word "catholic" means universal and it is far from being universal. In the early church, until the time of Augustine, there was basically one church, which was universal, which was not centered in Rome. When the Roman bishops began to claim supremacy about the middle of the first millenium, the rest of the church did not agree. The church in Egypt, the Coptic Church, is more ancient than the Roman church and it has never been part of the Roman church. The Nestorian Church (the Eastern Church now found primarily in Syria and Jordan) has a history that is much older than the Roman church. The Orthodox Church also has origins that predate the Roman Church. There are many Christian groups that existed before the Roman church and continue to this day. The Roman church, with a strong bishop who claimed supremacy, was a late edition to Christianity, in the time-table of the church. Most of the Christian world rejected the Roman bishop's claim.
Source: A Short Summary of the History of Christianity