LOL, I was the one who called them apostate! YOU were the one who called them a part of the beliefs of the clergy (after making them up in the first place)! But hey, they're just words, right? You can just combine them in any pattern you want. It's not like they actually mean anything, when your goal is just to kick over the table.
Oh yeah, you're kicking over the table all right. You say that a Catholic is not bound to obey the Pope or the clergy, and yet given that, somehow "What I have never done, not even once, is suggest that any Catholic should or could, in good conscience, reject any actual dogma or doctrine of the Church.
Really? Then if Catholics are not bound to obey the Pope or the Clergy, how, exactly, are they to determine WHAT the "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church" IS?
Because the Catholic Church, works THROUGH those Clergy and Popes you so disdain, remember? THEY are the ones who determine WHAT the "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church" IS.
Because if they DON'T, and if Catholics are NOT bound to the Clergy's and Pope's decisions about "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church," then the only persons that such "Catholics" can turn to to DETERMINE the "actual dogma or doctrine of the Church" is THEMSELVES.
Of course, people call themselves "Catholic" and do it anyway - like you, obviously. But most others who do it at least have the moral courage and personal honesty to call themselves PROTESTANTS. Because that's what they are.
You, on the other hand, seem to be an "American Catholic Liberal." You refuse obedience to the Clergy and the Pope, you claim the moral high ground while simultaneously firing out multiple layers of manipulative and blatantly contradictory fantasies that you then specifically refuse to own as your own words (which is doing something, since you're actually writing them down), and you still not only claim to be a Catholic - but one of "good conscience."
"Good conscience" - that sounds like a term a lawyer would use. Because how is it difference from "conscience"? Perhaps it has an alternate meaning? An "enhanced" meaning? Like being a descriptor of the "moral justification" of a non-Catholic who wants to still stay in Catholicism in order to try to change the Church from within, through political pressure and subterfuge? Such a person would be obsessed with their actual non-Catholic status, and, being liberal, would obsess about it by accusing others of being Catholics or not. Like you do, for example. And what a perfect little, tiny, childish cover - to obsess over who's "in" and who's "out" - while infiltrating the Church. How clever of you. No one will ever notice.
That's why you parse, and parse - and parse. I said something very, very simple: that the Church determines whether something is doctrine or not, and that the Clergy has that determining role in the Church. This is so obviously, flat-out true, the only people who could possibly object to it ARE American liberals "Catholics." No one else would notice or care.
But American Catholic liberals are OBSESSED with this issue, because they want to turn the Church into yet another socialist collectivist globalist control mechanism. And this is THE issue of POWER in the Church. But being liberals, they can't admit they're trying to steal power, so they lie - like liberals lie. Which is basically like teenagers lie. Like YOU lie, about your OWN WORDS.
Which is also why you've come up with wild, un-referenced apostasies you claim are held by the Clergy and Popes, bizarrely blame them on ME, and then declare an ability to determine dogma and doctrine of the Church YOURSELF while still staying Catholic - AND while dismissing any Clergy that disagrees with YOU, including, specifically, any Pope.
LOL, what a mess you are! Maybe that's why your nose is so high up - to keep it clear of the stink you're making with your brazen, repeated, doubled-down, interlaced, contemptuous lies.
No, you're no Catholic. Nor do you have the integity to declare yourself a Protestant. What you are is just another liberal political hack who thinks he's invisible, and is shocked that someone isn't baffled by his utterly juvenile bullsh!t.
You're also an utter waste of my time.
Which is also why you've come up with wild, un-referenced apostasies you claim are held by the Clergy and Popes, bizarrely blame them on ME, and then declare an ability to determine dogma and doctrine of the Church YOURSELF while still staying Catholic - AND while dismissing any Clergy that disagrees with YOU, including, specifically, any Pope.
Let us go point by point, and you may see just how far off you are.
POINT 1: wild, un-referenced apostasies you claim are held by the Clergy
Just what do you think the Church teaches about clergy? Do you really believe we think they are ALL infallible in ALL of their opinions? Is it really amazing to you that clergy could believe such things? I hate to burst your bubble, but go read a book. Almost every heresy to confront the Church throughout history has been started by a cleric. Arianism, the most pernicious and insidious of all heresies of the early Church was from Arius, a cleric. Nestorianism, another biggie, came to us from the patriarch of Constantinople himself. That would be the number two to the pope. And the Protestant Reformation, so-called, is largely due to the efforts of another priest, Martin Luther. Clerics are every bit as able to be wrong as are lay people. I really do not understand your unwillingness to believe this.
Just as a personal note I can mention, right off the top of my head, one priest who, to me directly, denied he could absolve sins in confession. (HINT: this OPINION is not Catholic teaching.) Another, in front of our entire church, refused to read the Gospels as they were "a bunch of legends and didn't happen" and then he denied that there were saints in heaven who could pray for us. (HINT: these OPINIONS are also not Catholic doctrine.) If I sat down and really thought about it I could probably come up with a few more of these, and that ignores the many heretical things I have read which were written by clerics of various types. No, sorry. Infallibility does not extend to all clerics, or personal opinions of any. You are just wrong about this.
POINT 2: bizarrely blame them on ME
No, never happened. You imagined it. I said that it was your argument, not mine, that clerical opinions are binding on the faithful. And that is true. I have never argued that individual clerical theological opinions are binding on the faithful. Have you really forgotten what it was you were disagreeing with?
POINT 3: and then declare an ability to determine dogma and doctrine of the Church YOURSELF while still staying Catholic
Determine? Sure, it is called reading the Catechism and the conciliar and papal documents which are authoritative teachings of the Church. Not really that hard to do. I cannot help it that you seem to think we Catholics are forbidden from learning something and must simply believe whatever the nearest guy with a white collar tells us. That is just a myth. You have a very flawed and skewed idea of what the Church teaches.
POINT 4: AND while dismissing any Clergy that disagrees with YOU, including, specifically, any Pope.
Dismissing any clergy? Hardly. I have never dismissed any clergy at all, especially any pope. I have simply said that theological opinions are not authoritative teachings. And, guess what, they aren't. They are personal opinions. You seem to have a very tough time differentiating opinions from teaching. When the Church teaches, it does so authoritatively. And the Church knows the difference. When John Paul II suggested some new mysteries may be good in the Rosary Catholics could either do it or not. Nothing binding about it. Why not? Because he said as much. But, when Pius IX promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception he did so definitively, and therefore it is required to be believed as a matter of faith. Not really a difficult thing to figure out you know.