[rzman21]

That NT church had no mass, There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice. no “eucharist, no vestments , no confessions, no 7 sacraments, no priesthood, no pope, no immaculate conception , no assumption, no relics, no purgatory, no indulgences, no “holy water”, no such animal as “apostolic succession... nada... nothing .....
There was no Roman catholic church until the 300’s even then there was no “mass” no “sacrifice” , no purgatory , etc...

>>The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

>>What is your evidence that the Church of Rome wasn’t founded until the 300s?

Show me where Eusebius says the Church of Rome was founded in the 300s. I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I don’t live or die by Rome’s claims.

The only thing you stated that is true is there weren’t any indulgences, but I want you to prove to us exclusively using patristic texts.

You might start by reading Dom Gregory Dix’s book “Shape of the Liturgy”. I’ll add that he was an Anglican.
http://bit.ly/ry2ZLX

I know how ignorant I am, so prove it without making use of the Bible. That’s my challenge to you.

You are infallible too, so I want to bask in your intellect.

[metmom]

RnMom:That NT church had no mass, There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice. no “eucharist, no vestments , no confessions, no 7 sacraments, no priesthood, no pope, no immaculate conception , no assumption, no relics, no purgatory, no indulgences, no “holy water”, no such animal as “apostolic succession... nada... nothing ..... There was no Roman catholic church until the 300’s even then there was no “mass” no “sacrifice” , no purgatory , etc...

tc:>>The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

Read the Book of Acts. Show us where any of that was practiced in the early church.

Please also provide Scripture instructing believers to perform those specific duties, and show us the Scriptural evidence of the doctrines of the immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, holy water, the confessional, for example.

In addition, it's not possible to prove a negative. Prove that they did have it.

Nobody is obligated to believe any claim of something having happened without proof of it. Say so doesn't constitute proof.

The mentality of *It's true until you prove it isn't because we claim it* is the last resort of those who have NO argument or evidence to support their claims.

Epic fail.

[Iscool]

I know how ignorant I am, so prove it without making use of the Bible.

Why??? Because that's what your side does??? Justify you religion without the use of the Bible??? Now that's funny....I'll debate, BUT LET'S LEAVE GOD OUT OF IT...

[metmom]

I know how ignorant I am, so prove it without making use of the Bible. That’s my challenge to you.

If you used the Bible, you wouldn't be so ignorant.

Sheesh, anything but shining the light of God into a dark corner.