“Good data points come from those doctrines that we actually find implied or discussed from the Apostolic Age on (papacy, Eucharist). And that is where your argument falls apart. Because there is no change.”
No Apostle discussed the Papacy.
No Apostle discussed the Roman understanding of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.
Nothing before 100 ad that is an unbroken chain for half or more of what Rome teaches.
If you won’t listen to your own beloved pope, your issue isn’t evidence. It is pre-belief apart from evidence.
Good luck with that Claud.
Besides the NT, there are precisely two works of Christian literature from the first century. The Didache and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. I already cited the latter as evidence of papal authority, which you conveniently ignored. I can cite the Didache for evidence of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist....but you will ignore that too.
And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:
Where are your doctrines in the Church Fathers? Where is Sola Scriptura? Where is once-saved, always saved?
You like to sit here and snipe about every tiny little doctrine we hold, from the Assumption on, but you won't even flipping admit what denomination or even ideological stream you inhabit so we can pick apart all the distinctively doofus ideas that you hold, and that some of which even your fellow Protestants will find ridiculous.
You relentlessly pick apart our theory of Apostolic Succession but conveniently shield your own ecclesiastical origins from view so no one can know that in 1835 Obadiah Satterthwaite broke away from Cornelius Sludgewick and the Eighth Independent Apostolic Church of Lower Pinkleton. Now you've carved yourselves into so many contradictory denominations you've even rejected the denomination idea entirely. Instead you claim this high and mighty NT Restorationism (We're pure Christianity!) as if you somehow managed to float outside time and history and theological legacy, all while refusing to confirm historically whether your ideas even line up with what we positively know about the early Church.
Whether you admit it or not, your theological ideas can be traced to this guy, who broke away from that guy, who disagreed with that other guy, who split a church led by another guy, and on and on for 500 years. You utterly fail to realize that practically every denomination from Luther on claimed to restore primitive worship, and the fact that they came up with a hundred different supposed "restorations" ought to be a clue that the whole thing was based on nothing more than conjectural fantasy from the start.