Ad hominem is not discussion. Pointing it out is not ad hominem.
Now if you wished for discussion, there was some included both in my initial comment to you, and the at the link under Eu tu Brute if you had bothered to follow that link, then went to the trouble to understand both sides of the conversation there, though I'll confess that in most any of my own reply/comments, it could be difficult to respond to the several items of discussion there raised all at once.
For starters, as to the initial reply addressed top you here -- one could have gone to the catechism at about the number I cited, then skip back 50 or so numbered statements to see how those may compare to 2010, then see how there was after 2010 that a "saint" cited in refusing to accept for themselves "merited grace".
The function of the complaint (that many have long had) there being, that if it is merited, than it can no longer be grace;
> And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
You may skip over any comment I make if you wish, but as to those of mine here to you, cannot tell me there was not any "discussion" available, or that it was some form of rhetorical (ad hominem) attack on your person directly. Regardless if the words personally offend you, or not.
Taking offense, or not, when it's not aimed at your own person, but instead is aimed at words used, sentences spoken, concepts expressed, etc., is all up to the individual, though yet not necessarily ad hominem.
I pointed out the conditions under which your statement would need some adjustment towards, in order to have the statement which I highlighted, be "true".
If that sort of discussion is too much -- then do as you will, but don't except me to sit idly by when I see distortion and "some pretty sweeping generalizations" which I dare reach out towards, to adjust.
Like even-- your seeming characterization of what I said here as being ad hominem. Or, if I'm missing something, perhaps you could point out where I was criticizing yourself, rather than what you said, while I also offered at the same time some propositions towards "fixing" it -- which is itself some of that discussion which you have indicated you have interest towards...
The hyper-Marianism of some portions of the RCC wasn't handed down from Christ and the Apostles, either. Was it ad hominem for me to make mention of that?
If so, explain why. Simply declaring or arguing by assertion may buffalo or bluff a few, but not that much with me. I can stand my ground, and rationally make my case (usually).
As you said to daniel1212, I will say to yourself also;