Catholics love to claim their Church must be the one true Church because, according to their narrative, they can trace their origins all the way back to the first century. There are a number of problems with this argument, starting with the fact it simply isn't true. The Catholic Church did not exist in the first and second centuries. This can be seen from the New Testament alone, which is one of the most anti-Catholic books I've ever read.
The second problem with it is it doesn't account for offshoots of Catholicism. Whenever there is a split in a church, such as the Great Schism (1054 A.D.), the question becomes which side (if either) gets to make the claim of historicity? Of course, Catholics would say they do. But wouldn't the Orthodox Church make the same claim? They certainly do when they try to argue with me.
Indeed, ironically, even the Reformation started within the Catholic Church. Martin Luther began as a Catholic, and even the 95 Theses are a very Catholic work. The majority of Luther's grievances were the abuses of Catholic power for sake of gaining wealth, which he judged the Pope to be completely innocent of, believing "...if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep."
Of course, it turned out the Pope did know, he was quite happy to continue the abuse, and the Catholic Church persecuted Luther for daring to try to reform the Church. But here's the point: Luther began in the Catholic Church, and split off from it. Thus, like a family tree, his denomination can as easily argue their Church goes back to the same roots as Catholicism.
So where can Catholics go from here? What gives their claim to historicity more bite than the Orthodox, or even Lutheran Churches? They would have to argue continuity. It's not enough to say "we come from the same place". You have to argue "we teach the same doctrines".
Impossible.
See, the Catholic Church cannot even prove its claim to have been established in the first century, much less that it has taught the same things since then. In fact, it is rather easy to show the opposite to be the case. First, it is entirely possible to show exactly when a particular Catholic doctrine became official dogma. The Real Presence, for example, was heavily debated prior to 1059 A.D., when 9th century monk, Ratramnus, was post-humously declared a heretic. In 1215, Fourth Lateran Council finally "settled" the disputes. We see, similarly, the Council of Trent was called specifically to settle disputes raised by the Reformation, such as the canonicity of the Deuterocanon. Prior to this, even Popes such as Gregory the Great took the position that they were non-canonical. So, we can show that even the modern Catholic Bible looks different than the pre-Reformation Catholic Bible.
But setting aside demonstrable historical disputes, the aforementioned Bible proves, beyond all dispute, that the Catholic Church has no legitimate claim to be a continuity of the historical Church. Although the Catholic Church asserts its sole authority to interpret the scriptures, any semi-literate individual has the ability to do so. Yet, when we read the scriptures, we see a very different picture than the Catholic Church paints.
In fact, one thing we see of particular note is that even actual Apostolic churches were capable of dividing and apostatising while the Apostles were still breathing. A good portion of the New Testament was written to correct errors within these Apostolic Churches, including, for the Galatians, a false gospel.
So, by what reasoning do modern Catholics argue their historical pedigree? They can't prove their legitimacy over their offshoots (or that they're not the offshoots), they can't prove their origins go back to the first century, they can't prove they're teaching the same things they taught centuries ago (and this can be easily disproven), how can Catholics lay any claim to historicity? It would be a moot point even if it could be legitimately claimed that the modern Catholic Church is directly descended from the first century Church, it cannot be legitimately claimed that the modern Catholic Church teaches the same thing as the first century Church. Therefore, the Catholic argument from history fails on every level. It fails historically, because Catholicism did not exist in the beginning. It fails logically, because other Churches can claim similar origins. It fails theologically, because even if the former two statements were false, the Bible isn't, yet it contradicts Catholicism constantly. The Catholic argument from history is a failure.