My point is that your argument is now in backpedalling mode. Inexactness exposes the illegitimacy of the argument. I've done my homework and am very familiar with the sources behind the "thousands of denominations" argument. I can name those sources, I can quote the standards used to arrive at those numbers. What is the conclusion alleged from "proving" there are "thousands"?
If your intent is to claim that "there are certainly THOUSANDS even TENS OF THOUSANDS of ‘Christian’ churches you can choose if you do not want to follow the Catholic Church", then I can provide direct quotes, using the very same sources, that conclude that there CERTAINLY THOUSANDS even TENS OF THOUSANDS of 'Catholic' churches to choose from if you do.. Any time a Catholic apologist claims the one without acknowledging both is being lazy at best, and deliberately slanderous at worst.
Are you denying that all “Catholic” churches are under the leadership of the pope?
Or are you denying that there is any substantive difference between Prptestant denominations who all claim to just follow the Bible?
I have seen Calvinists and Arminians battle here. Are you saying they are all one?
I think your point is to be argumentative, unnecessarily so. As it is a fact that there are certainly thousands of churches that are NOT the Latin Rite Catholic Church or even aligned with Rome. So how many ‘Christian’ churches are there? Show us your exactitude. Do you include the Mormons and their dozens of schisms. The Mormons certainly call themselves Christian.
My only point is that if you do not want to follow or believe in what the Roman Catholic Church teaches chose another church. There are certainly many to chose from. The exact number is irrelevant.
There is absolutely no backpedalling. Regardless if there are thousands or tens of thousands. There are certainly plenty of churches that claim to be ‘Christian’ Hell, if you don’t find one you like, start your own church. Luther did, Henry VII did, Joe Smith did, L. Ron Hubbard did.